Institute of Psychological Sciences and Institute of Neuroscience, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2011 Oct;27(7):587-613. doi: 10.1080/02643294.2011.609652.
There are very numerous reports in the neuropsychological literature of patients showing, in naming and/or comprehension tasks, a disproportionate deficit for nouns in comparison with verbs or a disproportionate deficit for verbs in comparison with nouns. A number of authors advanced that, in at least some or even in every of these reported cases, the noun/verb dissociation in fact reflected an underlying conceptual deficit disproportionately affecting either object or action concepts. These patterns thus would put an additional constraint on theories of conceptual knowledge organization, which should be able to explain how brain damage could selectively disrupt the concepts of objects or the concepts of actions. We have reviewed 69 papers (published from 1984 to 2009) that reported a pattern of a noun or a verb disproportionate deficit in a single-case, multiple-case, or group study of brain-damaged patients with various aetiologies. From this review, we concluded that none of these studies provided compelling evidence in favour of the interpretation that the observed noun or verb disproportionate deficit arose at the conceptual processing level and, accordingly, that this level may be organized according to the "object/action" dimension. Furthermore, we argue that investigating conceptual impairments in brain-damaged patients according to the "object/action" dichotomy is not empirically fruitful if the purpose is to inform theories of conceptual knowledge organization. In order to provide evidence relevant to these theories, one needs to consider finer grained distinctions within both the object and the action category when investigating the scope of the patients' conceptual impairment.
在神经心理学文献中有大量报告表明,在命名和/或理解任务中,患者在名词方面的表现明显不如动词,或者在动词方面的表现明显不如名词。一些作者提出,在至少一些,甚至在所有这些报告的病例中,名词/动词分离实际上反映了一种潜在的概念缺陷,这种缺陷不成比例地影响了物体或动作概念。这些模式因此对概念知识组织的理论提出了额外的限制,这些理论应该能够解释大脑损伤如何选择性地破坏物体概念或动作概念。我们回顾了 69 篇论文(发表于 1984 年至 2009 年),这些论文报告了单个病例、多个病例或脑损伤患者的群体研究中出现名词或动词不成比例缺陷的模式,这些患者的病因各不相同。从这项回顾中,我们得出结论,这些研究都没有提供令人信服的证据支持这样一种解释,即观察到的名词或动词不成比例的缺陷是在概念处理水平上产生的,因此,这个水平可能是根据“物体/动作”维度组织的。此外,我们认为,如果目的是为概念知识组织的理论提供信息,那么根据“物体/动作”二分法研究脑损伤患者的概念障碍在经验上是没有成效的。为了为这些理论提供相关证据,当研究患者概念损伤的范围时,需要考虑在物体和动作类别内进行更细粒度的区分。