2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.10.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The neural basis of semantic cognition: Converging evidence from neuropsychology, neuroimaging and TMS

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

46
484
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 446 publications
(559 citation statements)
references
References 138 publications
46
484
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, even though percentage of correct responses was equivalent for both groups, the pattern of brain activity that emerged from the semantic task differed between younger and older participants. Consistent with our hypothesis, significant age-related changes were found within several key regions of the semantic network: the left IPC, the temporoparietal region bilaterally and, more surprisingly, the left ATL (Binder, et al, 2009;Jefferies, 2013;Jefferies & Lambon Ralph, 2006;Patterson, et al, 2007;Whitney, et al, 2011).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 72%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, even though percentage of correct responses was equivalent for both groups, the pattern of brain activity that emerged from the semantic task differed between younger and older participants. Consistent with our hypothesis, significant age-related changes were found within several key regions of the semantic network: the left IPC, the temporoparietal region bilaterally and, more surprisingly, the left ATL (Binder, et al, 2009;Jefferies, 2013;Jefferies & Lambon Ralph, 2006;Patterson, et al, 2007;Whitney, et al, 2011).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 72%
“…Typically, this semantic network includes key regions such as the anterior temporal lobe (ATL) region, which is considered to represent a candidate site for the storage of conceptual representations, and for processing concepts at an amodal and abstract level (Jefferies & Lambon Ralph, 2006;Patterson, Nestor, & Rogers, 2007). The left inferior prefrontal cortex (IPC) and left temporoparietal region, in contrast, appear to be involved in strategic search and control 4 processes required for semantic processing (Binder, et al, 2009;Jefferies, 2013;Jefferies & Lambon Ralph, 2006;Whitney, Kirk, O'Sullivan, Lambon Ralph, & Jefferies, 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The left temporal lobe is thought to support both lexical and semantic level processing (e.g., Indefrey, 2011, Jefferies, 2013; see also Cloutman et al, 2009), and indeed, damage here is associated with exaggerated relatedness effects in language production (Schnur, Lee, Coslett, Schwartz, & Thompson-Schill, 2005) and M A N U S C R I P T…”
Section: Neural Substrates Of Semantic Interferencementioning
confidence: 78%
“…Semantic level processing, however, is thought to occur in more anterior regions of the temporal lobe. The anterior temporal pole is thought to serve as a semantic hub binding distributed features to form core semantic representations (reviewed in Patterson, Nestor, & Rogers, 2007; see also Jefferies, 2013;Visser, Jefferies, & Lambon Ralph, 2010), where regions located more anteriorly in the MTG serve as an interface between lexical input processing regions and the anterior temporal pole (e.g., Binney, Embleton, Jefferies, Parker, & Lambon Ralph, 2010), making the anterior temporal lobe (including the anterior MTG) one likely candidate for the neural locus of the relatedness effect in comprehension. Thus, the first aim of this study was to test whether damage to separate temporal lobe regions creates exaggerated relatedness effects in production vs. comprehension (i.e., posterior vs. anterior temporal lobe, respectively), as this would provide support for the assumptions that the competition creating semantic interference arises at different levels of the language system.…”
Section: Neural Substrates Of Semantic Interference 10mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The left posterior middle temporal gyrus has also been identified as an important region of the semantic network (Whitney et al, 2012;Jefferies, 2013;Noonan et al, 2013). More specifically, it has been recently suggested that this region plays a major role in the executive aspects of semantic cognition, including the manipulation and selection of task relevant knowledge as well as the inhibition of task-irrelevant knowledge.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%