4.6 Article

Linking language and categorization: Evidence from aphasia

Journal

CORTEX
Volume 49, Issue 5, Pages 1187-1194

Publisher

ELSEVIER MASSON, CORPORATION OFFICE
DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.06.006

Keywords

Categorization; Language; Aphasia; Cognitive control; Language and thought

Funding

  1. Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute
  2. IGERT training grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In addition to its use in communication, language appears to have a variety of extra-communicative functions; disrupting language disrupts performance in seemingly non-linguistic tasks. Previous work has specifically linked linguistic impairments to categorization impairments. Here, we systematically tested this link by comparing categorization performance in a group of 12 participants with aphasia and 12 age- and education-matched control participants. Participants were asked to choose all of the objects that fit a specified criterion from sets of 20 pictured objects. The criterion was either high-dimensional (i.e., the objects shared many features, such as farm animals) or low-dimensional (i.e., the objects shared one or a few features, such as things that are green). Participants with aphasia were selectively impaired on low-dimensional categorization. This selective impairment was correlated with the severity of their naming impairment and not with the overall severity of their aphasia, semantic impairment, lesion size, or lesion location. These results indicate that linguistic impairment impacts categorization specifically when that categorization requires focusing attention and isolating individual features - a task that requires a larger degree of cognitive control than high-dimensional categorization. The results offer some support for the hypothesis that language supports cognitive functioning, particularly the ability to select task-relevant stimulus features. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available