PubMed · 10716859
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
A Yamadori. 2000. "Exceptional" case: what does it mean?. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1999.2264
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The authors report postictal language evaluation in patients monitored with bitemporal depth electrodes. Patients whose seizures began in the nondominant temporal lobe and propagated to the contralateral temporal lobe had a prolonged postictal language delay (PILD) with paraphasic errors compared with seizures that did not spread. Shorter propagation time was also associated with a longer PILD. Our study suggests that ictal involvement of the dominant temporal lobe is important in postictal language behavior.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Bird, Howard, and Franklin (2000) have proposed a semantic-conceptual explanation of grammatical category-specific deficits that attributes impairments in noun and verb processing to two distinct mechanisms. According to their account, apparent deficits in verb production are not category specific, but rather result from the lower imageability of verbs compared to concrete nouns. Noun deficits are said to result from differences in the distribution of semantic feature types such that damage to sensory features results in disproportionate impairments in naming nouns, especially animate nouns, compared to verbs. However, this hypothesis, which we call the "extended sensory/functional theory" (ESFT), fails on several counts. First, the assumption that representations of living things are more heavily freighted with sensory features than are those of nonliving objects does not have any reliable empirical basis. Second, the ESFT incorrectly predicts associations between deficits in processing sensory features and living things or functional features and nonliving things. Finally, there are numerous cases of patients with grammatical category-specific deficits that do not seem to be consistent with damage at the semantic level. All of this suggests that the ESFT is not a useful model for considering grammatical (or semantic) category-specific deficits.