Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T14:00:01.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Hierarchies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: “Category-specific” neuropsychological deficits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2001

Glyn W. Humphreys
Affiliation:
Behavioural Brain Sciences Centre, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdomg.w.humphreys@bham.ac.uk
Emer M. E. Forde
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology, Aston University, The Triangle, Birmingham, B4 7ET, United Kingdome.m.e.forde@aston.ac.uk

Abstract

Category-specific impairments of object recognition and naming are among the most intriguing disorders in neuropsychology, affecting the retrieval of knowledge about either living or nonliving things. They can give us insight into the nature of our representations of objects: Have we evolved different neural systems for recognizing different categories of object? What kinds of knowledge are important for recognizing particular objects? How does visual similarity within a category influence object recognition and representation? What is the nature of our semantic knowledge about different objects? We review the evidence on category-specific impairments, arguing that deficits even for one class of object (e.g., living things) cannot be accounted for in terms of a single information processing disorder across all patients; problems arise at contrasting loci in different patients. The same apparent pattern of impairment can be produced by damage to different loci. According to a new processing framework for object recognition and naming, the hierarchical interactive theory (HIT), we have a hierarchy of highly interactive stored representations. HIT explains the variety of patients in terms of (1) lesions at different levels of processing and (2) different forms of stored knowledge used both for particular tasks and for particular categories of object.

Type
Research Article
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.)