Trends in Cognitive Sciences
News & CommentThe limits of a localized account of conceptual knowledge: Reply to Kiefer and Spitzer
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)
- et al.
Semantic memory and the brain: structure and processes
Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.
(2001) - et al.
The limits of a distributed account of conceptual knowledge
Trends Cognit. Sci.
(2001) - 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....