Omar ME

Language: Spanish
References: 33
Page: S30-S37
PDF size: 911.26 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate in aphasic patients, the capacity to extract semantic information of visual images, before neurolinguistics assessment.
Development: The development and construction of the items and procedures for assessment the execution of patients in the test, was taking the organized unitary content hypothesis as theorical referent. This hypothesis is considerate the best explanation about the semantic dissociation observed in patients with brain injury. The organized unitary content hypothesis approach, that knowledge is organized in the semantic system, by means of the biological or not biological nature of elements in the reality; and the correlation of properties of biological and not biological elements are strongest: the members of superior categories shared much attributes with members of subordinate categories. The task of the test implies to decide if the concepts of two images that are presented together, belong or not, to the same semantic category. In his structure, the task is formed by 42 elements: 2 as examples and 40 as items. In 20 items, both images belong to the same semantic category. In the others 20 items, the images belong to different semantics categories. The analysis of patient´s test execution needs the consideration of two topics. First, all supposes of the organized unitary content hypothesis that are taken as referent for the test development and construction (knowledge is organized in the semantic system by means of the biological or not biological nature of elements in the reality). Second, this analysis is purely qualitative. The punctuation of the patient’s execution is for facilitate the assessment. The analysis requires to considerate only the semantic categories of the images. Is not necessary a global percentile in the test.

REFERENCES

1. Benedet MJ. Fundamento teórico y metodológico de la neuropsicología cognitiva. Madrid: IMSERSO; 2002.

2. Benedet MJ. Neurolingüística. Aplicaciones a la clínica. En: Benedet MJ, editor. Acercamiento neurolingüístico a las alteraciones del lenguaje. Madrid: EOS; 2006. p. 219–23.

3. Omar Martinez E. El problema del diagnóstico de la afasia desde la perspectiva de la Neuropsicología Cognitiva. Revista del Hospital Psiquiátrico de La Habana 2011;8(3).

4. Omar Martinez E, Reyes Saborit A, Pardo Maza VM. Test de emparejamiento semántico de imágenes para la exploración neuropsicológica en la afasia. Neurol Arg. 2013;5(1):12–8. doi: 10.1016/j.neuarg.2012.10.006

5. Benedet MJ. Repertorio de instrumentos de exploración neurolingüística de las alteraciones del lenguaje. Madrid: EOS; 2006.

6. Ruiz JM, Fernández S, González J. Tipos de categorías semánticas y modalidad de los estímulos en el aprendizaje procedimental: implicaciones sobre los modelos de memoria semántica. Psicothema. 2010;22:739–44.

7. González M, Rodríguez J, Cuetos F. Variabilidad de los errores semánticos presentados por pacientes con daño cerebral. Psicothema. 2008;20:745–800.

8. Lezak MD. Neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995.

9. Collins AM, Loftus EF. A spreading –activation theory of semantic processing. Psychol Rev. 1975;82:407–28.

10. Collins AM, Quillian MR. Retrieval time for semantic memory. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav. 1969;8:240–7.

11. Glass AL, Holyoak KJ. Alternative conceptions of semantic memory. Cognition. 1975;3:313–39.

12. McCloskey M, Glucksberg S. Decision processes in verifying category membership statements: implications for models of semantic memory. Cogn Psychol. 1979;11:1–37.

13. Meyer DE. On the representation and retrieval of stored semantic information. Cogn Psychol. 1970;1:242–300.

14. Rosch E, Mervis CB. Family resemblance: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cogn Psychol. 1975;7:573–605.

15. Smith EE, Shoben EJ, Rips LJ. Structure and process in semantic memory: featural model for semantic decisions. Psychol Rev. 1974;81:214–41.

16. Farah MJ, McClelland JL. A computational model of semantic memory impairment: modality –specificity and emergent category specificity. J Exp Psychol. 1991;120:339–57.

17. Warrington EK, McCarthy RA. Categories of knowledge: further fractionations and an attempted integration. Brain. 1987;110:1273–96.

18. Warrington EK, McCarthy RA. Multiple meaning systems in the brain: a case for visual semantics. Neuropsychologia. 1994;32:1465–73.

19. Warrington EK, Shallice T. Category specific semantic impairments. Brain. 1984;107:829–54.

20. Martin A. The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:25–45.

21. Caramazza A, Hillis AE, Rapp BC, Romani C. The multiple semantics hypothesis: multiple confusions? Cogn Neuropsychol. 1990;7:161–89.

22. Rosch E. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. J Exp Psychol. 1975;104:192–233.

23. Vigliocco G, Vinson DP, Lewi W, Garrett MF. The meanings of object and action words. Cogn Psychol. 2004;48:422–88.

24. Vinson DP, Vigliocco G. A semantic analysis of noun –verb dissociations in aphasia. J Neurolinguistics. 2002;15:317–51.

25. Caramazza A, Shelton JR. Domain –specific knowledge systems in the brain: the animate –inanimate distinction. J Cogn Neurosci. 1998;10:1–34.

26. Saffran EJ, Schwartz MF. Of cabbages and things: semantic memory from a neuropsychological point of view: a tutorial review. Attention & Performance. 1994;15:507–36

27. Cree GS, McRae K. Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). J Exp Psychol. 2003;132:163–201.

28. Garrard P, Lambon –Ralph MA, Patterson K, Pratt KH, Hodges JR. Semantic feature knowledge and picture naming in dementia of Alzheimer’s type: a new approach. Brain Lang. 2005;93:79–94.

29. Harley T, Grant F. The role of functional and perceptual attributes: evidence from picture naming in dementia. Brain Lang. 2004;91:223–34.

30. Tyler LK, Moss HE. Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends Cogn Sci. 2001;5:244–52.

31. Benedet MJ. Fundamentos teóricos de neurolingüística: procesamiento normal del lenguaje. En: Benedet MJ, editor. Acercamiento neurolingüístico a las alteraciones del lenguaje. Madrid: EOS; 2006. p. 119–44.

32. Tyler LK, Moss HE. The conceptual structure of cabbages and things. Brain Lang. 2003;87:84–5.

33. Randall B, Moss HE, Rodd J, Greer M, Tyler LK. Distinctiveness and correlation in conceptual structure: behavioral and computational studies. J Exp Psychol. 2004;30:393–406.