A normal' category-specific advantage for naming living things.
'Artefactual' accounts of category-specific disorders for living things have highlighted that compared to nonliving things, living things have lower name frequency, lower concept familiarity and greater visual complexity and greater within-category structural similarity or 'visual crowding' [7]. These hypotheses imply that deficits for living things are an exaggeration of some 'normal tendency'. Contrary to these notions, we found that normal subjects were consistently worse at naming nonliving than living things in a speeded presentation paradigm. Moreover, their naming was not predicted by concept familiarity, name frequency or visual complexity; however, a novel measure of visual familiarity (i.e. for the appearance of things) did significantly predict naming. We propose that under speeded conditions, normal subjects find nonliving things harder to name because their representations are less visually predictable than for living things (i.e. nonliving things show greater within-item structural variability). Finally, because nonliving things have multiple representations in the real world, this may lower the probability of finding impaired naming and recognition in this category.
Laws
K R
KR
Department of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Herts, UK. K.Laws@Herts.ac.uk
Neve
C
C
D000328:Adult; D000849:Anomia / Q000145:classification / Q000503:physiopathology; D003210:Concept Formation / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009275:Names; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual / Q000502:physiology*; D011336:Probability; D012016:Reference Values; D012660:Semantics; D013223:Statistics as Topic; D013997:Time Factors