News & Comment
The limits of a localized account of conceptual knowledge: Reply to Kiefer and Spitzer

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01799-XGet rights and content

Section snippets

Empirical data

Kiefer and Spitzer argue that our claims for a unified distributed conceptual system are based on a null result and therefore cannot be interpreted as evidence supporting our theoretical account of conceptual knowledge. We do not agree with this view. First, the neuroimaging data that we cite in support of our claims are not simply null results. In a series of five studies we have demonstrated robust, significant areas of activation for conceptual representation and processing throughout the

Theoretical issues

As Kiefer and Spitzer conclude, there is much overlap between their theoretical account and ours. They talk of multiple semantic maps, with degrees of activation varying across maps rather than being all or none. The difference between our account and theirs is that they claim that these semantic maps are localizable to specific regions of the brain. By contrast, within our unified distributed system, we suggest that semantic space might be ‘lumpy’, such that certain parts of the network emerge

References (8)

  • A. Martin et al.

    Semantic memory and the brain: structure and processes

    Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.

    (2001)
  • M. Kiefer et al.

    The limits of a distributed account of conceptual knowledge

    Trends Cognit. Sci.

    (2001)
  • L.K. Tyler et al.

    Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge

    Trends Cognit. Sci.

    (2001)
  • Devlin, J.T. et al. Is there an anatomical basis for category-specificity? Semantic memory studies in PET and fMRI....
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

View full text