Naming and Categorization in Healthy ParticipantsCrowded Domains and Blurred Effects of Gender

  1. Francisco Javier Moreno-Martínez 1
  2. Iván Moratilla-Pérez 1
  1. 1 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (Spain)
Revista:
The Spanish Journal of Psychology

ISSN: 1138-7416

Año de publicación: 2016

Volumen: 19

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1017/SJP.2016.59 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: The Spanish Journal of Psychology

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

The study of category-specific effects has produced compelling insights into the structure, organization and functioning of cognitive processes. According to some accounts, the greater intra-category structural similarity for living things (LT) contributes to faster access to superordinate pictorial information, making LT easier to classify than structurally dissimilar items (i.e., nonliving things: NLT). Conversely, LT would be harder to name than NLT, as they must compete with within-domain structurally similar items in order to be properly discriminated. Additionally, it has been reported that men perform better with NLT than women, whereas women surpass men with LT but the reasons for this remain unclear. In the current study, we explored both the visual crowding hypothesis and the effects of gender by testing the performance of 40 healthy participants in classification and naming tasks. Analyses revealed that LT were classified significantly faster than NLT (ηp2 = .11), but named significantly slower (ηp2 = .25). Interestingly, the same results persisted after removing atypical categories that are known to distort the interpretation of data from the analyses. Moreover, we did not find the expected effects of gender. Men were more accurate than women naming NLT (ηp2 = .13), and women did not surpass men in any task.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Astor R. S., Ortiz M. L., & Sutherland R. J. (1998). A characterization of performance by men and women in a virtual water task: A large and reliable sex difference. Behavioral Brain Research, 93, 185–190.
  • Barbarotto R., Capitani E., & Laiacona M. (2001). Living musical instruments and inanimate body parts? Neuropsychologia, 39, 406–414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0028-3932(00)00128-7
  • Barbarotto R., Laiacona M., Macchi V., & Capitani E. (2002). Picture reality decision, semantic categories and gender – a new set of pictures, with norms and an experimental study. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1637–1653.
  • Bermeitinger C., Wentura D., & Frings C. (2008). Nature and facts about natural and artifactual categories: Sex differences in the semantic priming paradigm. Brain and Language, 106, 153–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. bandl.2008.03.003
  • Biggs T. C., & Marmurek H. H. C. (1990). Picture and word naming: Is facilitation due to processing overlap? The American Journal of Psychology, 103, 81–110. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2307/1423260
  • Brousseau G., & Buchanan L. (2004). Semantic category effect and emotional valence in female university students. Brain and Language, 90, 241–248. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00437-1
  • Bryden M. (1979). Evidence for sex differences in cerebral organization. In M. Witting & A. Peterson (Eds.), Determinants of sex-related differences in cognitive functioning (pp. 121–143). New York, NY: Academic Press.
  • Burton L. A., Henninger D., & Hafetz J. (2005). Gender differences in relations of mental rotation, verbal fluency, and SAT scores to finger length ratios as hormonal indexes. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 493–505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2801_3
  • Capitani E., Laiacona M., & Barbarotto R. (1999). Gender affects word retrieval of certain categories in semantic fluency tasks. Cortex, 35, 273–278. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70800-1
  • 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. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 213–261. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/02643290244000266
  • Caplan P. J., Crawford M., Hyde J. S., & Richardson J. T. E. (1997). Gender differences in human cognition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Caramazza A., & Shelton J. R. (1998). Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate-inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10, 1–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/089892998563752
  • Collins D. W., & Kimura D. (1997). A large sex difference on a two-dimensional mental rotation task. Behavioral Neuroscience, 111, 845–849. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0735-7044.111.4.845
  • Coppens P., & Frisinger D. (2005). Category-specific naming effect in non-brain-damaged individuals. Brain and Language, 94, 61–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. bandl.2004.11.008
  • Delgado A. R., & Prieto G. (1996). Sex differences in visuospatial ability. Do performance factors play such an important role? Memory and Cognition, 24, 504–510. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03200938
  • Filliter J. H., McMullen P. A., & Westwood D. (2005). Manipulability and living/non-living category effects on object recognition. Brain & Cognition, 57, 61–65.
  • Funnell E., & Sheridan J. (1992). Categories of knowledge? Unfamiliar aspects of living and nonliving things. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 9, 135–153. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/02643299208252056
  • Gaffan D., & Heywood C. A. (1993). A spurious categoryspecific visual agnosia for living things in normal human and nonhuman primates. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 118–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ jocn.1993.5.1.118
  • 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, 539–559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70537-9
  • Gainotti G. (2005). The influence of gender and lesion location on naming disorders for animals, plants and artefacts. Neuropsychologia, 43, 1633–1644. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.01.016
  • Gainotti G. (2010). The influence of anatomical locus of lesion and of gender-related familiarity factors in category-specific semantic disorders for animals, fruits and vegetables: A review of single-case studies. Cortex, 46, 1072–1087. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. cortex.2010.04.002
  • Gale T. M., Laws K. R., & Foley K. (2006). Crowded and sparse domains in object recognition: Consequences for categorisation and naming. Brain and Cognition, 60, 139–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2005.10.003
  • Gerlach C. (2001). Structural similarity causes different category-effects depending on tasks characteristics. Neuropsychologia, 39, 895–900. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00031-8
  • Gerlach C., & Marques J. F. (2014). Visual complexity exerts opposing effects on object categorization and identification. Visual Cognition, 22, 751–769. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2014.915908
  • Halpern D. F. (2000). Sex differences and cognitive abilities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Harris L. (1978). Sex differences and spatial ability: Possible environmental, genetic and neurological factors. In K. Kinsbourne (Ed.), Asymmetrical function of the brain (pp. 405–522). London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Humphreys G. W., & Forde E. M. E. (2001). Hierarchies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: “Category-specific” neuropsychological deficits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 453–509.
  • Humphreys G. W., Riddoch M. J., & Quinlan P. T. (1988). Cascade processes in picture identification. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5, 67–104. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/02643298808252927
  • Hutt C. (1979). Cerebral asymmetry and hemispheric specialization–some implications of sex differences. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 2, 73–86.
  • Hyde J. S., & Linn M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.104.1.53
  • Kimura D. (1999). Sex and cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Låg T. (2005). Category-specific effects in object identification: What is ‘normal’? Cortex, 41, 833–841.
  • Laiacona M., & Barbarotto R. (2005). On double dissociations, controls and gender: Some neglected data about category specificity. Cortex, 41, 858–859. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0010-9452(08)70307-1
  • Laiacona M., Barbarotto R., & Capitani E. (1998). Semantic category dissociations in naming: Is there a gender effect in Alzheimer’s disease? Neuropsychologia, 36, 407–419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S00283932(97)00125-5
  • Laiacona M., Luzzatti C., Zonca G., Guarnaschelli C., & Capitani E. (2001). Lexical and semantic factors influencing picture naming in aphasia. Brain and Cognition, 46, 184–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2626(01)80061-0
  • Laws K. R. (1999). Gender affects naming latencies for living and nonliving things: Implications for familiarity. Cortex, 35, 729–733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70831-1
  • Laws K. R. (2000). Category-specific naming errors in normal subjects: The influence of evolution and experience. Brain and Language, 75, 123–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ brln.2000.2348
  • Laws K. R. (2004). Sex differences in lexical size across semantic categories. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 23–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00048-5
  • Laws K. R. (2005). Illusions of normality: A methodological critique of category specific naming. Cortex, 41, 842–851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70303-4
  • Laws K. R., Adlington R. L., Moreno-Martinez F. J., & Gale T. M. (2010). Category-specificity: Evidence for modularity of mind. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
  • Laws K. R., & Gale T. M. (2002). Category-specific naming and the visual characteristics of line-drawn stimuli. Cortex, 38, 7–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70635-X
  • Laws K. R., Gale T. M., Leeson V. C., & Crawford J. R. (2005). When is category specific in Alzheimer’s disease? Cortex, 41, 452–463.
  • Laws K. R., Gale T. M., Moreno-Martínez F. J., Adlington R. L., Irvine K., & Sthanakiya S. (2009). Category-specific semantics in Alzheimer’s dementia and normal aging? In Alzheimer’s Disease Research Compendium (pp. 143–164). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
  • Laws K. R., & Hunter M. Z. (2006). The impact of colour, spatial resolution, and presentation speed on category naming. Brain and Cognition, 62, 89–97. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.bandc.2006.03.002
  • Laws K. R., Leeson V. C., & Gale T. M. (2002). The effect of ‘masking’ on picture naming latencies. Cortex, 38, 137–147.
  • Laws K. R., & Neve C. (1999). A ‘normal’ category-specific advantage for naming living things. Neuropsychologia, 37, 1263–1269.
  • Lloyd-Jones T. J., & Humphreys G. W. (1997a). Perceptual differentiation as a source of category effects in object processing: Evidence from naming and object decision. Memory and Cognition, 25, 18–35. http://dx.doi. org/10.3758/BF03197282
  • Lloyd-Jones T. J., & Humprheys G. W. (1997b). Categorizing chairs and naming pears: Category differences in object processing as a function of task and priming. Memory and Cognition, 25, 606–624. http:// dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03211303
  • Marra C., Ferraccioli M., & Gainotti G. (2007). Gender-related dissociations of categorical fluency in normal subjects and in subjects with Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychology, 21, 207–211.
  • McGlone J. (1980). Sex differences in human brain asymmetry: A critical survey. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 215–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00004398
  • McKenna P., & Parry R. (1994). Category-specificity in the naming of natural and man-made objects: Normative data from adults and children. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 4, 255–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09602019408401461
  • Moreno-Martinez F. J., Goñi-Imízcoz M., & Spitznagel M. B. (2011). Domain or not domain? That is the question: Longitudinal semantic deterioration in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain & Cognition, 77, 89–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. bandc.2011.05.006
  • Moreno-Martínez F. J., & Laws K. R. (2007). An attenuation of the ‘normal’ category effect in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: A review and bootstrap analysis. Brain & Cognition, 63, 136–142.
  • Moreno-Martínez F. J., & Laws K. R. (2008). No category specificity in Alzheimer’s disease: A normal aging effect. Neuropsychology, 22, 485–490.
  • Moreno-Martínez F. J., Laws K. R., & Schulz J. (2008). The impact of dementia, age and sex on category fluency: Greater deficits in women with Alzheimer’s disease. Cortex, 44, 1256–1264. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.cortex.2007.11.008
  • Moreno-Martínez F. J., & Montoro P. R. (2010). Longitudinal patterns of fluency impairment in dementia: The role of domain and “nuisance variables”. Aphasiology, 24, 1389–1399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02687030903515370
  • Moreno-Martínez F. J., & Montoro P. R. (2012). An ecological alternative to Snodgrass & Vanderwart: 360 high quality colour images with norms for seven psycholinguistic variables. Plos One, 7, e37527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0037527
  • Moreno-Martínez F. J., & Rodríguez-Rojo I. C. (2015). On colour, category effects and Alzheimer’s disease: A critical review of studies and further longitudinal evidence. Behavioural Neurology. Article ID 960725. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/960725
  • Parsons T. D., Rizzo A. A., van der Zaag C., McGee J. S., & Buckwalter J. G. (2005). Gender and cognitive performance: A test of the common cause hypothesis. Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition, 12, 78–88.
  • Price C. J., & Humphreys G. W. (1989). The effects of surface detail on object categorization and naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 797–828. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/14640748908402394
  • Salmon J. P., Matheson H. E., & McMullen P. A. (2014). Photographs of manipulable objects are named more quickly than the same objects depicted as line-drawings: Evidence that photographs engage embodiment more than line-drawings. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1187. http://dx. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01187
  • Shaw P., Brierley B., & David A. S. (2005). A critical period for the impact of amygdala damage on the emotional enhancement of memory? Neurology, 65, 326–328. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000168867.40688.9b
  • Shelton J. R., Fouch E., & Caramazza A. (1998). The selective sparing of body part knowledge: A case study. Neurocase, 4, 339–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 13554799808410631
  • Stewart F., Parkin A. J., & Hunkin N. M. (1992). Naming impairments following recovery from herpes simplex encephalitis: Category-specific? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44, 261–284. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/02724989243000037
  • Tanaka J. W., & Presnell L. M. (1999). Color diagnosticity in object recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1140–1153. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03207619
  • Tulving E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory (pp. 381–402). New York, NY: Academic Press.
  • Wallentin M. (2009). Putative sex differences in verbal abilities and language cortex: A critical review. Brain & Language, 108, 175–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. bandl.2008.07.001
  • Warrington E. K., & McCarthy R. A. (1987). Categories of knowledge: Further fractionations and an attempted integration. Brain, 110, 1273–1296. http://dx.doi. org/10.1093/brain/110.5.1273
  • Warrington E. K., & Shallice T. (1984). Category specific semantic impairments. Brain, 107, 829–853. http://dx.doi. org/10.1093/brain/107.3.829
  • Weiss E. M., Kemmler G., Deisenhammer E. A., Fleischhacker W. W., & Delazer M. (2003). Sex differences in cognitive functions. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 863–875. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00288-X
  • Zannino G. D., Perri R., Caltagirone C., & Carlesimo G. A. (2007). Category-specific naming deficit in Alzheimer’s disease: The effect of a display by domain interaction. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1832–1839.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet