语义范畴特异性损伤：一项个案研究

心理学报 ›› 2003, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (增刊): 23-28. cstr: 32110.14.2003.00023

语义范畴特异性损伤：一项个案研究

韩在柱¹, 舒华¹, 柏晓利², 毕彦超³

1 教育部脑与认知科学重点实验室,北京师范大学心理学院,北京 100875;
2 北京友谊医院,北京 100050;
3 认知神经心理学实验室,哈佛大学,美国

发布日期:2021-06-18

Category-specific Semantic Deficits：A Case Study

Han Zaizhu¹, Shu Hua¹, Bai Xiaoli², Bi Yanchao³

1 Key Laboratory for Cognitive Science and Learning of Ministry of Education & School of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China, 100875;
2 Beijing Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China, 100050;
3 Cognitive Neuropsychology Laboratory, Harvard University, USA

Online:2021-06-18
Supported by:
The present research is supported by BSF(7982021), National Pandeng Project (95-special-09), National Natural Science Foundation Of China (30070259), and the Key Scientific and Technological project of the Ministry of Education.

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 一些脑病患者对特定的语义范畴出现了选择性损伤,如有生命类和无生命类。他们的这种缺陷将有助于揭示人脑中语义知识的组织方式。本研究报道一例汉语患者,WJX,他选择性地损伤了有生命类知识,而对无生命类知识保存的相对较好。研究发现,他的非词典加工系统比较正常,如数字记忆广度,视觉及听觉辨认,嘴部肌肉运动等。但是,他在词典任务（如,听觉/视觉图形再认和图形命名）中却常常犯大量的语义错误。更重要的是,他对有生命类知识的正确率明显低于无生命类知识。该结果从汉语的角度为脑损伤能够选择地影响语义知识这一理论提供了新证据。本研究的调查结果也在一定程度上支持语义系统是按范畴组织起来的观点。

关键词: 语义知识的组织, 语义范畴特异性损伤, 有生命类。

Abstract: Brain-damaged patients with selective impairment to specific semantic categories of knowledge, like living things and nonliving things, have been reported repeatedly in the literature on various languages. These deficits have helped reveal how semantic knowledge is organized in the brain. In this study we present a Chinese patient, WJX, who has a selective deficit to living things compared to non-living things. His non-lexical processes (e.g. digit memory span, visual and phonetic discrimination, bucco-facial apraxia) are spared to a great extent. However, he often makes semantic errors in lexical tasks, including auditory/visual picture recognition, and oral picture naming. Furthermore, WJX makes a significantly larger percentage of errors on living things rather than non-living things. These results add further evidence from Chinese language to support the theory that brain damage can selectively affect semantic knowledge in the brain. We interpret these results as consistent with the proposal that the semantic system is organized along categorical dimensions.

Key words: Organization of semantic knowledge, Category-specific semantic deficit, Living things

中图分类号:

B842

韩在柱, 舒华, 柏晓利, 毕彦超. (2003). 语义范畴特异性损伤：一项个案研究. 心理学报, 35(增刊), 23-28.

Han Zaizhu, Shu Hua, Bai Xiaoli, Bi Yanchao. (2003). Category-specific Semantic Deficits：A Case Study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35(增刊), 23-28.

参考文献

1 Caramazza A, Shelton J R. Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate-inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1998, 10: 1-34
2 De Rezi E, Lucchelli F. Are semantic systems separately represented in the brain? The case of living category impairment. Cortex, 1994, 30: 3-25
3 Gainotti G, Silveri MC. Cognitive and anatomical locus of lesion in a patient with a category-specific semantic impairment for living things. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 1996, 13: 375-390
4 Hillis A E, Caramazza A. Category-specific naming and comprehension impairment: A double dissociation. Brain, 1991, 114: 2081-2094
5 Luckhurst L, Lloyd-Jones TJ. A selective deficit for living things after temporal lobectomy for relief of epileptic seizures. Brain and Language, 2001, 79: 266-296
6 Warrington E K, Shallice T. Category-specific semantic impairment. Brain, 1984, 107: 829-853
7 Funnel E, Sheridan J. Categories of knowledge? Unfamiliar aspects of living and nonliving things. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 1992, 9: 135-153
8 Farah M J, Meyer M M, McMullen P A. The living/nonliving things dissociation is not an artifact: Giving a prior implausible hypothesis a strong test. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 1996, 13: 137-154
9 Kurbat M A, Farah M J. Is the category-specific deficit for living things spurious? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1998, 10: 355-361
10 Shu H, Cheng Y, Zhang H. Name agreement, familiarity, image agreement and visual complexity for 235 pictures. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 1989, 21: 389-396
(舒华, 程元善, 张厚粲. 235个图形的命名一致性, 熟悉性, 表象一致性和视觉复杂性评定. 心理学报, 1989, 21: 389-396)
11 Snodgrass J G, Vanderwart M. A standardized set of 260 pictures. Norms of name agreement, image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem., 1980, 6: 174-215

编辑推荐 0

Metrics

阅读次数

全文

113

HTML			PDF

最新录用	在线预览	正式出版	最新录用	在线预览	正式出版
0	0	0	0	0	113

来源	本网站	其他网站

次数	107	6
比例	95%	5%

摘要

221

最新录用	在线预览	正式出版

0	0	221

来源	本网站	其他网站

次数	215	6
比例	97%	3%

[1]	华山, 姜欣桐, 高扬震宇, 穆妍, 杜忆. 音乐训练与音乐素养对共情能力的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(4): 544-558.
[2]	张环, 秦锡权, 刘雨, 林琳, 吴捷. 不同强度趋近动机积极情绪对基于语义关联性错误记忆的影响及其神经机制[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(3): 349-362.
[3]	张俐娟, 江妍雪, 马建平, 崔博洋, 张锦坤. 提取难度对困难材料提取练习效应的促进作用：来自行为和fNIRS的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(3): 363-379.
[4]	谢晓玲, 潘文谊, 张纯纯, 林静远, 李红. 连续反馈影响主导感的心理与脑电机制[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(3): 380-397.
[5]	李春好, 刘荣媛, 刘远豪. 经典和对偶共结果效应对前景集结果区间的依赖性：基于概率权重的视角[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(3): 398-414.
[6]	连浩敏, 张倩, 谷雪敏, 李寿欣. 持续性视觉注意对视觉工作记忆项目优先加工的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(2): 191-206.
[7]	史滋福, 夏笔奇, 刘欣, 陈火红, 靳紫阳, 彭玲艺. 时间预测中的任务分解效应：未来边界和思维焦点的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(2): 207-217.
[8]	郝磊, 许天委, 周文龙, 杨杰, 彭思雅, 刘明兰, 徐家华, 王延培, 谭淑平, 高家红, 贺永, 陶沙, 董奇, 秦绍正. 多种情感与认知任务驱动下大脑可泛化神经表征的发育模式[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(2): 218-231.
[9]	孙岩, 王艺锦, 侯沛雨, 冯雪, 兰帆. 抑郁倾向对自我关注重评和情境关注重评影响的脑网络研究[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(2): 232-246.
[10]	夏莲香, 刘凯歌, 李新宇, 叶群. 编码方式与叙事连贯性调节情绪对时间顺序记忆的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2025, 57(1): 1-17.
[11]	俞梦霞, 宋宜颖, 刘嘉. 实地导航训练提高大脑功能连接模式稳定性[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(12): 1661-1675.
[12]	赵文博, 曹宇琪, 徐木子, 杨春亮, 罗良. 学习判断对虚假记忆的反应性效应[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(12): 1691-1705.
[13]	王铖铖, 赵宇飞, 盛缨莹, 赵庆柏, 肖梦施, 韩磊. 数字SNARC效应的发生阶段[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(12): 1706-1717.
[14]	李想, 贾丽娜, 魏士琳, 陈俊涛, 夏尧远, 王芹, 金花. 运动特征对抽象动词具身表征的影响：来自fMRI及EMG的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(12): 1718-1733.
[15]	梁菲菲, 刘瑛, 贺斐, 冯琳琳, 王峥, 白学军. 中文阅读伴随词汇学习中的视觉复杂性效应：基于笔画数和词长的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2024, 56(12): 1734-1750.