Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-10T08:53:13.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Concepts and categories: What is the evidence for neural specialisation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2001

Lorraine K. Tyler  and
Helen E. Moss
Lorraine K. Tyler
Affiliation:
Centre for Speech and Language, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EB, United Kingdomlktyler@csl.psychol.cam.ac.ukhem10@cam.ac.uk
Helen E. Moss
Affiliation:
Centre for Speech and Language, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EB, United Kingdomlktyler@csl.psychol.cam.ac.ukhem10@cam.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Humphreys and Forde argue that semantic memory is divided into separate substores for different kinds of information. However, the neuro-imaging results cited in support of this view are inconsistent and often methodologically and statistically unreliable. Our own data indicate no regional specialisation as a function of semantic category or domain and support instead a distributed unitary account.

Type
Brief Report
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , June 2001 , pp. 495 - 496
Copyright
© 2001 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)