Does normal processing provide evidence of specialised semantic subsystems?

Category-specificity in visual object recognition

Are all categories of objects recognized in the same manner visually? Evidence from neuropsychology suggests they are not: some brain damaged patients are more impaired in recognizing natural objects than artefacts whereas others show the opposite impairment. Category-effects have also been demonstrated in neurologically intact subjects, but the findings are contradictory and there is no agreement as to why category-effects arise. This article presents a pre-semantic account of category-effects (PACE) in visual object recognition. PACE assumes two processing stages: shape configuration (the binding of shape elements into elaborate shape descriptions) and selection (among competing representations in visual long-term memory), which are held to be differentially affected by the structural similarity between objects. Drawing on evidence from clinical studies, experimental studies with neurologically intact subjects and functional imaging studies, it is argued that PACE can account for category-effects at both behavioural and neural levels in patients and neurologically intact subjects. The theory also accounts for the way in which category-effects are affected by different task parameters (the degree of perceptual differentiation called for), stimulus characteristics (whether stimuli are presented as silhouettes, full line-drawings, or fragmented forms), stimulus presentation (stimulus exposure duration and position) as well as interactions between these parameters.

Negative priming in naming of categorically related objects: an fMRI study

Ignoring an object slows subsequent naming responses to it, a phenomenon known as negative priming (NP). A central issue in NP research concerns the level of representation at which the effect occurs. As object naming is typically considered to involve access to abstract semantic representations, Tipper 1985 proposed that the NP effect occurred at this level of processing, and other researchers supported this proposal by demonstrating a similar result with categorically related objects (e.g., Allport et al., 1985; Murray, 1995), an effect referred to as semantic NP. However, objects within categories share more physical or structural features than objects from different categories. Consequently, the NP effect observed with categorically related objects might occur at a structural rather than semantic level of representation. We used event related fMRI interleaving overt object naming and image acquisition to demonstrate for the first time that the semantic NP effect activates the left posterior-mid fusiform and insular-opercular cortices. Moreover, both naming latencies and left posterior-mid fusiform cortex responses were influenced by the structural similarity of prime-probe object pairings in the categorically related condition, increasing with the number of shared features. None of the cerebral regions activated in a previous fMRI study of the identity NP effect (de Zubicaray et al., 2006) showed similar activation during semantic NP, including the left anterolateral temporal cortex, a region considered critical for semantic processing. The results suggest that the identity and semantic NP effects differ with respect to their neural mechanisms, and the label "semantic NP" might be a misnomer. We conclude that the effect is most likely the result of competition between structurally similar category exemplars that determines the efficiency of object name retrieval.