Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 208, Issue 3, pp 369–383 | Cite as

Manipulability and object recognition: is manipulability a semantic feature?

Research Article

Abstract

Several lines of evidence exist, coming from neuropsychology, neuroimaging and behavioural investigations on healthy subjects, suggesting that an interaction might exist between the systems devoted to object identification and those devoted to online object-directed actions and that the way an object is acted upon (manipulability) might indeed influence object recognition. In this series of experiments on speeded word-to-picture-matching tasks, it is shown how the presentation of pairs of objects sharing similar manipulation causes greater interference with respect to objects sharing only visual similarity (experiment 1). Moreover, (experiment 2) it is shown how the repeated presentation of pairs of objects sharing a similar type of manipulation leads to a ‘negative’ serial position effect, with the number of errors increasing across presentations, a behaviour that is typically found in patients with access deficits to semantic representations. By contrast, the repeated presentation of pairs of objects sharing only visual similarity leads to an opposite ‘positive’ serial position effect, with errors decreasing across presentations. It is argued that a negative serial position effect is linked to interference occurring within the semantic system, and therefore that the way an object is manipulated is indeed a semantic feature, critical in defining manipulable object properties at a semantic level. To our knowledge, this constitutes the first direct evidence of manipulability being a semantic dimension. The results are discussed in the light of current models of semantic memory organization.

Keywords

Semantic memory Manipulability Object recognition Refractoriness Serial position 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Prof. Laurel Buxbaum and the second anonymous reviewer for the most helpful comments made on the draft of this paper.

References

  1. Allport D (1985) Distributed memory, modular subsystems and dysphasia. In: Eppstein S (ed) Current perspectives in dysphasia. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburg, pp 32–60Google Scholar
  2. Badre D, Wagner AD (2007) Left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and the cognitive control of memory. Neuropsychologia 45:2883–2901CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Belke E, Meyer AS, Damian MF (2005) Refractory effects in picture naming as assessed in a semantic blocking paradigm. Q J Exp Psychol A 58:667–692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertinetto PM, Burani C, Laudanna A, Marconi L, Ratti D, Rolando C, Thornton AM (2005) Corpus e Lessico di Frequenza dell’Italiano Scritto (CoLFIS). http://www.istc.cnr.it/material/database/colfis/
  5. Borgo F, Shallice T (2001) When living things and other ‘sensory quality’ categories behave in the same fashion: a novel category specificity effect. Neurocase 7:201–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boronat CB, Buxbaum LJ, Coslett HB, Tang K, Saffran EM, Kimberg DY, Detre JA (2005) Distinctions between manipulation and function knowledge of objects: evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 23:361–373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brambati SM, Myers D, Wilson A, Rankin KP, Allison SC, Rosen HJ, Miller BL, Gorno-Tempini ML (2006) The anatomy of category-specific object naming in neurodegenerative diseases. J Cogn Neurosci 18:1644–1653CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Buxbaum LJ, Saffran EM (2002) Knowledge of object manipulation and object function: dissociations in apraxic and nonapraxic subjects. Brain Lang 82:179–199CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Campanella F, Shallice T (in press) Refractoriness and the healthy brain: a behavioural study on semantic access. Cognition. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.005
  10. Campanella F, Mondani M, Skrap M, Shallice T (2009) Semantic access dysphasia resulting from left temporal lobe tumours. Brain 132:87–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Campanella F, D’Agostini S, Skrap M, Shallice T (2010) Naming manipulable objects: anatomy of a category specific effect in left temporal tumours. Neuropsychologia 48:1583–1597CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Canessa N, Borgo F, Cappa SF, Perani D, Falini A, Buccino G, Tettamanti M, Shallice T (2008) The different neural correlates of action and functional knowledge in semantic memory: an FMRI study. Cereb Cortex 18:740–751CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Capitani E, Laiacona M, Mahon B, Caramazza A (2003) What are the facts of semantic category-specific deficits? A critical review of the clinical evidence. Cogn Neuropsychol 20:213–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Caramazza A, Hillis A, Rapp B, Romani C (1990) The multiple semantics hypothesis: multiple confusions? Cogn Neuropsychol 7:161–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chao LL, Martin A (2000) Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. Neuroimage 12:478–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Collins A, Loftus E (1975) A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychol Rev 82:407–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Creem SH, Proffitt DR (2001) Grasping objects by their handles: a necessary interaction between cognition and action. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27:218–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Creem-Regehr SH, Lee JN (2005) Neural representations of graspable objects: are tools special? Cogn Brain Res 22:457–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Culham JC, Valyear KF (2006) Human parietal cortex in action. Curr Opin Neurobiol 16:205–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Damasio A, Damasio H (1994) Cortical systems for retrieval of concrete knowledge: the convergence zone framework. In: Koch D, Davis J (eds) Large-scale neuronal theories of the brain. Large-scale neuronal theories of the brain. Computational neuroscience. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 61–74Google Scholar
  21. Damasio H, Grabowski TJ, Tranel D, Hichwa RD, Damasio AR (1996) A neural basis for lexical retrieval. Nature 380:499–505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. De Renzi E, Lucchelli F (1994) Are semantic systems separately represented in the brain? The case of living category impairment. Cortex 30:3–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Devlin JT, Gonnerman LM, Andersen ES, Seidenberg MS (1998) Category-specific semantic deficits in focal and widespread brain damage: a computational account. J Cogn Neurosci 10:77–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Ellis R, Tucker M (2000) Micro-affordance: the potentiation of components of action by seen objects. Br J Psychol 91(Pt 4):451–471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Finlayson P, Cynader M (1995) Synaptic depression in visual cortex tissue slices: an in vitro model for cortical neuron adaptation. Exp Brain Res 106:145–155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Forde E, Humphreys G (1995) Refractory semantics in global aphasia: on semantic organisation and the access-storage distinction in neuropsychology. Memory 3:265–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Forde E, Humphreys G (1997) A semantic locus for refractory behavior: implications of access- storage distinctions and the nature of semantic memory. Cogn Neuropsychol 14:367–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Forde E, Humphreys GW (2007) Contrasting effects of repetition across tasks: implications for understanding the nature of refractory behavior and models of semantic memory. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 7:198–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Gainotti G (2000) What the locus of brain lesion tells us about the nature of the cognitive defect underlying category-specific disorders: a review. Cortex 36:539–559CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Gibson J (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  31. Glover S, Rosenbaum DA, Graham J, Dixon P (2004) Grasping the meaning of words. Exp Brain Res 154:103–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Goodale MA, Milner AD (1992) Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci 15:20–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Goodale MA, Milner AD, Jakobson LS, Carey DP (1991) A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them. Nature 349:154–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Gotts SJ, Plaut DC (2002) The impact of synaptic depression following brain damage: a connectionist account of “access/refractory” and “degraded-store” semantic impairments. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 2:187–213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Gotts SJ, Incidsa Della Rocchetta A, Cipolotti L (2002) Mechanisms underlying perseveration in aphasia: evidence from a single case study. Neuropsychologia 40:1930–1947CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Hasselmo ME (1995) Neuromodulation and cortical function: modeling the physiological basis of behavior. Behav Brain Res 67:1–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Hasselmo ME, Bower JM (1992) Cholinergic suppression specific to intrinsic not afferent fiber synapses in rat piriform (olfactory) cortex. J Neurophysiol 67:1222–1229PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Helbig HB, Graf M, Kiefer M (2006) The role of action representations in visual object recognition. Exp Brain Res 174:221–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Helbig HB, Steinwender J, Graf M, Kiefer M (2010) Action observation can prime visual object recognition. Exp Brain Res 200:251–258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Hoenig K, Sim EJ, Bochev V, Herrnberger B, Kiefer M (2008) Conceptual flexibility in the human brain: dynamic recruitment of semantic maps from visual, motor, and motion-related areas. J Cogn Neurosci 20:1799–1814CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Howard D, Nickels L, Coltheart M, Cole-Virtue J (2006) Cumulative semantic inhibition in picture naming: experimental and computational studies. Cognition 100:464–482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Huber DE, O’Reilly R (2003) Persistence and accommodation in short-term priming and other perceptual paradigms: temporal segregation through synaptic depression. Cogn Sci 27:403–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Huber DE, Clark TF, Curran T, Winkielman P (2008) Effects of repetition priming on recognition memory: testing a perceptual fluency-disfluency model. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 34:1305–1324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Humphreys GW, Riddoch M, Quinlan P (1988) Cascade processes in picture identification. Cogn Neuropsychol 5:67–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jeannerod M, Decety J, Michel F (1994) Impairment of grasping movements following a bilateral posterior parietal lesion. Neuropsychologia 32:369–380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Jefferies E, Lambon Ralph MA (2006) Semantic impairment in stroke aphasia versus semantic dementia: a case-series comparison. Brain 129:2132–2147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Jefferies E, Baker SS, Doran M, Lambon Ralph M (2007) Refractory effects in stroke aphasia: a consequence of poor semantic control. Neuropsychologia 45:1065–1079CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Kellenbach M, Brett M, Patterson K (2003) Actions speak louder than functions: the importance of manipulability and action in tool representation. J Cogn Neurosci 15:30–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Kiefer M, Sim EJ, Liebich S, Hauk O, Tanaka J (2007) Experience-dependent plasticity of conceptual representations in human sensory-motor areas. J Cogn Neurosci 19:525–542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Klatzky RL, Pellegrino J, McCloskey BP, Lederman SJ (1993) Cognitive representations of functional interactions with objects. Mem Cognit 21:294–303PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Martin A (2007) The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annu Rev Psychol 58:25–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. McClelland JL, Rumelhart DE (1985) Distributed memory and the representation of general and specific information. J Exp Psychol Gen 114:159–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Myung JY, Blumstein SE, Sedivy JC (2006) Playing on the typewriter, typing on the piano: manipulation knowledge of objects. Cognition 98:223–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Myung JY, Blumstein SE, Yee E, Sedivy JC, Thompson-Schill SL, Buxbaum LJ (2010) Impaired access to manipulation features in Apraxia: evidence from eyetracking and semantic judgment tasks. Brain Lang 112:101–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Page E (1963) Ordered hypotheses for multiple treatments: a significance test for linear ranks. J Am Stat Assoc 58:216–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pulvermuller F (2005) Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nat Rev Neurosci 6:576–582CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Rees G, Friston K, Koch C (2000) A direct quantitative relationship between the functional properties of human and macaque V5. Nat Neurosci 3:716–723CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Rieger G (1978) Grind-1: First report on the Magic Grinder story comprehension project. Discourse Processes 1:267–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rogers TT, Lambon Ralph MA, Garrard P, Bozeat S, McClelland JL, Hodges JR, Patterson K (2004) Structure and deterioration of semantic memory: a neuropsychological and computational investigation. Psychol Rev 111:205–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Rumelhart DE, Hinton G, McClelland JL (1986) A general framework for parallel distributed processing. In: Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL (eds) Parallel distributed processing, vol 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 45–76Google Scholar
  61. Saffran E, Schwartz M (1994) Of cabbages and things: semantic memory from a neuropsychological perspective—a tutorial review. In: Umiltà C, Moscovitch M (eds) Attention and performance 15: conscious and nonconscious information processing. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 507–536Google Scholar
  62. Schnur T, Schwartz M, Brecher A, Hodgson C (2006) Semantic interference during blocked cyclic naming: evidence from aphasia. J Memory Lang 54:199–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Selden NR, Gitelman DR, Salamon-Murayama N, Parrish TB, Mesulam MM (1998) Trajectories of cholinergic pathways within the cerebral hemispheres of the human brain. Brain 121(Pt 12):2249–2257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Shallice T (1993) Multiple semantics: whose confusion? Cogn Neuropsychol 10:251–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Siegel S, Castellan N (1988) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  66. Simmons W, Barsalou L (2003) The similarity-in-topography principle: reconciling theories of conceptual deficits. Cogn Neuropsychol 20:451–486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Smith E, Medin D (1981) Categories and concepts. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  68. Tsodyks M, Markram H (1997) The neural code between cortical pyramidal neurons depends on neurotransmitter release probability. Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:719–723CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Tucker M, Ellis R (1998) On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:830–846CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Tulving E (1972) Episodic and semantic memory. In: Tulving E, Donaldson W (eds) Organization of memory. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  71. Tyler LK, Moss HE (2001) Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends Cogn Sci 5:244–252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Tyler LK, Moss HE, Durrant-Peatfield MR, Levy JP (2000) Conceptual structure and the structure of concepts: a distributed account of category-specific deficits. Brain Lang 75:195–231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Ungerleider LG, Mishkin M (1982) Two cortical visual systems. In: Ingle J, Goodale M, Mansfield R (eds) Analysis of visual behavior. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  74. Varela J, Song S, Turrigiano G, Nelson S (1999) Differential depression at excitatory and inhibitory synapses in visual cortex. J Neurosci 19:4293–4304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Warrington EK, Cipolotti L (1996) Word comprehension. The distinction between refractory and storage impairments. Brain 119(Pt 2):611–625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Warrington EK, Leff A (2000) Jargon dyslexia: a single case study of intact reading comprehension in a jargon dysphasic. Neurocase 6:499–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Warrington EK, McCarthy R (1983) Category specific access dysphasia. Brain 106(Pt 4):859–878CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Warrington EK, McCarthy RA (1987) Categories of knowledge. Further fractionations and an attempted integration. Brain 110(Pt 5):1273–1296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Warrington EK, Shallice T (1984) Category specific semantic impairments. Brain 107(Pt 3):829–854CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Weisberg J, van Turennout M, Martin A (2007) A neural system for learning about object function. Cereb Cortex 17:513–521CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cognitive Neuroscience SectorInternational School for Advanced Studies SISSA-ISASTriesteItaly
  2. 2.Institute of Cognitive NeuroscienceUniversity CollegeLondonUK
  3. 3.Dipartimento di FilosofiaUniversità degli Studi di UdineUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations