This article was downloaded by: [University of Laval] On: 28 January 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 909989973] Publisher Psychology Press Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713657736 How to make a spaghetti sauce with a dozen small things I cannot name: A review of the impact of semantic-memory deficits on everyday actions Nathalie Bier ab; Joël Macoir ac a Centre de Recherche Université Laval Robert-Giffard, Québec, Canada b Faculté de Médecine, École de Réadaptation, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada c Faculté de Médecine, Département de Réadaptation, Université Laval, Québec, Canada First published on: 08 June 2009 To cite this Article Bier, Nathalie and Macoir, Joël(2010) 'How to make a spaghetti sauce with a dozen small things I cannot name: A review of the impact of semantic-memory deficits on everyday actions', Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 32: 2, 201 — 211, First published on: 08 June 2009 (iFirst) To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13803390902927885 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803390902927885 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY 2010, 32 (2), 201–211 NCEN How to make a spaghetti sauce with a dozen small things I cannot name: A review of the impact of semantic-memory deficits on everyday actions Semantic memory and everyday actions Nathalie Bier1,2 and Joël Macoir1,3 1 Centre de Recherche Université Laval Robert-Giffard, Québec, Canada Faculté de Médecine, École de Réadaptation, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada 3 Faculté de Médecine, Département de Réadaptation, Université Laval, Québec, Canada Downloaded By: [University of Laval] At: 13:34 28 January 2010 2 The purpose of this article is to present current evidence regarding the role of semantic memory in everyday actions. First we describe key models of everyday actions. We then discuss current evidence regarding the role of semantic memory in everyday actions. We reviewed articles reporting on the execution and representation of everyday actions in populations with semantic-memory deficits and single-object use in patients with semantic dementia. Although the evidence is sparse, the general conclusion of this review is that semantic memory seems necessary to support everyday actions. Finally, future challenges and research perspectives are discussed. Keywords: Semantic memory; Everyday action; Object use; Semantic dementia; Scripts; Schemas. INTRODUCTION S.C. is a 54-year-old native speaker of French, righthanded, a psychology professor with a PhD degree, who presented to us with a 4-year history of cognitive decline mainly characterized by word-finding problems and impaired comprehension. He presented with deficits on all tests requiring semantic processing but performed normally on tests exploring visual-perceptual abilities, motor control, and executive functions (Macoir, 2009). Along with neuroimaging data, these results were suggestive of a clinical diagnosis of possible semantic dementia (SD). SD is one of the main clinical variants of frontotemporal dementia (Neary et al., 1998). The clinical syndrome is characterized by a loss of knowledge of facts, objects, and the meaning of words, along with relative preservation of working memory, episodic memory, and visuospatial abilities (Hodges, Patterson, Oxbury, & Funnell, 1992a; Neary et al., 1998). S.C. participated in an experimental study designed to investigate the nature of his semantic impairment (Macoir, 2009). During this period, S.C. lived alone and frequently described how his semantic-memory deficits disrupted his world. In fact, everyday activities such as cooking, gardening, shopping, managing household finances, playing sports, taking care of the house, and so forth were all disrupted by his progressive loss of knowledge. However, he could still perform some activities, such as driving his car and purchasing clothes, purposefully. Here is one excerpt (translated from French) from S.C.’s spontaneous written description of the problems he encountered in his everyday life: I can prepare and eat all my meals very well. . . . However, I’ve lost many words related to things that I eat. For example, when I want to eat spaghetti, I know how to prepare it: to make the sauce and the whole meal. Visually, I know what I have to put into it to make it. However, I don’t remember all of the words that correspond to what I need. . . . The only words I remember since I made the recipe 4 days ago are: two cans of tomatoes, one can of tomato juice, rice, beef, pepper, and a dozen other small things I can see in my head. I don’t remember their names but I know where they are in my kitchen. . . . It’s when I go to the restaurant that my symptoms are obvious. When I read the menu, I don’t understand anymore. It is only what I eat regularly (once every two weeks), in two restaurants, that I can recognize instantly when I read [the menu]. But if I go back to a restaurant after many months, I don’t remember the name of what I ate, even when I read the menu. Address correspondence to Nathalie Bier, École de réadaptation, Université de Sherbrooke, 3001, 12e Avenue Nord, Sherbrooke (Québec), Canada, J1H 5N4. (E-mail: [email protected]). © 2009 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business http://www.psypress.com/jcen DOI: 10.1080/13803390902927885 Downloaded By: [University of Laval] At: 13:34 28 January 2010 202 BIER AND MACOIR Although he presented with substantial naming problems, as is usually the case in SD, S.C. clearly expressed in spontaneous speech the huge problems he encountered in his daily life. He obviously had some remaining knowledge but depended on his day-to-day, episodic memory (memory about events), and on the familiarity and frequency of the activities, to remember their meaning and how to do them. These observations led us to question the role of semantic memory in everyday-life functioning. Semantic memory incorporates concepts and knowledge in multiple domains, including word and object meaning. Its integrity appears to be essential to perform even the simplest everyday activities. For example, to properly do an activity such as making a cup of coffee, we must know or have the concepts of “to drink,” “coffee,” “water,” “cup,” and so on. We also have to know the kind of social context in which people drink coffee, and so forth. The purpose of this article is to provide an up-to-date review of the current evidence regarding the role of semantic memory in everyday actions. In the first part, we briefly describe models of everyday actions. We then review current evidence regarding the role of semantic memory in everyday actions. Finally, we summarize recent findings before highlighting challenges and future directions in the domain. MODELLING EVERYDAY ACTIONS Few researchers have studied disorders of everyday life from a cognitive perspective, perhaps because they are complex and difficult to measure, or because the cognitive skills necessary to carry them out are not fully understood (Forde & Humphreys, 2000). A few theories of everyday actions have been proposed in the literature, in which a specific role is attributed to our knowledge about the world, or to semantic memory, although this role is not well specified. Two main categories of theories emerge from the literature: (a) theories of high-level everyday actions, or scripts, and (b) theories of routine, well-learned actions, or schemas. Script theories regarding high-level everyday actions More than 30 years ago, Schank and Abelson (1977) introduced the term “scripts” to conceptualize how people represent their knowledge about familiar events and experiences encountered in their everyday life. More specifically, scripts are defined as general knowledge representations, abstracted from a class of similar events experienced hundreds of times, such as going to the restaurant, taking a course, or going to the doctor’s office. Scripts are conceptualized as goal-directed behaviors, hierarchically organized in subgoals and specifying actions (or plans) required to achieve the main goal. These actions are organized temporally and causally, as some of them have to be performed before others. For example, the script “going to the restaurant,” a classic example used by Schank and Abelson (1977), specifies that we must first get to the restaurant, then sit down, order, eat, pay, and so forth. According to this conception, the scripts remain general and do not refer to specific details (e.g., the very good spaghetti eaten at Da Giovanni, the unpleasant waitress), though we can associate specific details with a general script. Scripts help people to understand, plan, organize and execute actions, according to what is expected in a particular situation. Thus scripts are considered the core basis of human social interactions and goal-directed behavior. The concept of script was further developed by Grafman (1995, 2002). According to this author, the role of the cortex is to encode representations in long-term memory, corresponding to different types of information, such as lexico-semantic and people knowledge, but also goaloriented activities. Everyday-life, goal-oriented activities comprise a series of events structured in a particular sequence, called “structured event complex” (SEC). For example, “to take a taxi,” “to order at the restaurant,” “to eat the meal,” and “to pay the bill” constitute different SECs, which can be combined with other SECs and encoded and retrieved in a unique episode. Therefore, they allow the elaboration of a representation for the complex activity “to eat at the restaurant” and to fulfill the goal “having a nice dinner with friends” (Grafman, 2002). Although not well specified in Grafman’s theory, SECs seem to be at a higher level than scripts. For example, an event in an SEC such as “eating dinner” could comprise the scripts “cooking a particular recipe,” “using an electric kitchen appliance,” and so on. However, in the following sections, the term “script” is used to refer to high-level everyday-life activities. Grafman specifies that SECs may be conceptualized as memory units, belonging to domains of knowledge (e.g., sexual behavior, social behavior, mechanical knowledge), whose particular structure depend on the individual’s culture and personal preferences (Grafman, 1995). Similarities with other kinds of knowledge also characterize the organization of the SEC, such as frequency, familiarity, associative relations, and so forth (Grafman, 1995). Grafman’s proposition (2002) is not clear about the specific relationship between semantic knowledge and scripts. Other theoretical propositions have been put forward to account for scripts of everyday actions that are routinely executed, well learned, and object bounded, like brushing one’s teeth or preparing coffee (e.g., Botvinick & Plaut, 2004; Cooper & Shallice, 2000; Humphreys & Forde, 1998). These types of low-level scripts are referred to as “schemas.” Schema theories are discussed in the next section. Schema theories regarding low-level everyday actions According to Cooper and Shallice (2000), schemas depend on the environment and require specific timing in the execution of the different actions that compose the routine. In this respect, they differ from scripts, which are considered high-level actions, independent of the Downloaded By: [University of Laval] At: 13:34 28 January 2010 SEMANTIC MEMORY AND EVERYDAY ACTIONS environment (e.g., going to any restaurant), which can be combined with other activities (e.g., reading at the restaurant) and are of a more general nature regarding the descriptions of the subactions (e.g., going to the restaurant by car or in a taxi). Interesting models have been proposed to conceptualize the concept of schemas (for a review of these models, see Cooper, 2002). Among these models, Cooper and Shallice’s contention scheduling (CS) theory (Cooper, 2002, 2007; Cooper, Schwartz, Yule, & Shallice, 2005; Cooper & Shallice, 2000, 2006), based on the original work by Norman and Shallice (1986), has sparked a lot of interest in the last 20 years. In this model, CS is a relatively automatic system that is responsible for control in routine, well-learned, everyday actions. The CS model comprises the following three networks: the schema network, the object network, and the resource network. The schema network contains hierarchically stored, standardized schemas for routine actions. Schemas are ways or methods to achieve a goal. In this model, goals and schemas are closely related and are both represented in the schema network. For example, “making a cup of coffee” is a goal but is also a schema—that is, a way to achieve this goal. Each schema can be represented as an ordered set of subgoals, like “put sugar in coffee,” “put milk in coffee,” which also correspond to a schema that can be subdivided into subgoals/subschemas. As can be seen from this example, the schemas are assumed to have various levels of complexity. High-level schemas (or goals) such as “making coffee” or “putting sugar in coffee” can be broken down into low-level component schemas, which are discrete actions like “pick up.” The object network corresponds to the internal representation of objects. Finally, the resource network represents effectors required to execute a schema (e.g., language, hands). The object and resource networks interact with the schema network bidirectionally. Thus an object in the environment or a resource may trigger a schema, which in turn will activate appropriate objects/resources to be used. When a schema exceeds its selection threshold, following different activation mechanisms (e.g., environment, resources, other schemas), a selection process selects the schema and sends the output to the motor system in order to execute the action and achieve the goal. Thus specific deficits in object knowledge should have an impact on the triggering of schemas and their correct execution. CS may operate automatically or be monitored by intentional control (the supervisor attentional system, or SAS). To recap, everyday actions, from scripts to schemas, are conceptualized from a cognitive perspective as abstract knowledge units that integrate the sequential ordering of actions. Although not well specified in theoretical models, scripts and schemas appeared to be linked to object representations and to more general types of knowledge. Considering the possible importance of knowledge in everyday actions, actual evidence of disorders in everyday actions in patients with semantic-memory deficits is of particular interest. In fact, disorders in scripts or schemas have been mainly studied in relation to the prefrontal cortex, in a population with frontal lobe or 203 diffuse brain damage (Allain et al., 2008; Chevignard et al., 2000; Forde & Humphreys, 2000, 2002a; Forde, Humphreys, & Remoundou, 2004; Godbout & Doyon, 1995; Rumiati, Zanini, Vorano, & Shallice, 2001; Schwartz et al., 1995, 1998, 1999; Sirigu et al., 1995; Zanini, 2008; Zanini, Rumiati, & Shallice, 2002). However, few neuropsychological studies have specifically addressed the role of conceptual knowledge in everyday actions, from tasks consisting of verbally accessing scripts and schemas (e.g., verbal generation or categorization) to tasks oriented toward their effective execution. CURRENT EVIDENCE REGARDING THE ROLE OF SEMANTIC MEMORY IN EVERYDAY ACTIONS Disorders in script representation in patients with semantic-memory deficits According to Grafman and colleagues’ position (Sirigu et al., 1995), a lesion of the prefrontal cortex could lead to a deficit affecting the organization of scripts, whilst a lesion of the temporal lobe could lead to an impairment of the access to scripts or of the scripts themselves. Neuropsychological studies have shown that patients with prefrontal lobe dysfunction generally present with difficulties in organizing and prioritizing the sequential actions of scripts (Allain et al., 2008; Chevignard et al., 2000; Godbout & Doyon, 1995; Rumiati et al., 2001; Sirigu et al., 1995; Zanini, 2008; Zanini et al., 2002). For example, compared to normal subjects, patients with frontal lobe lesions make more sequential errors when asked to sort cards describing actions belonging to different scripts (e.g., taking the train, going to the restaurant; Allain et al., 2008). However, these patients showed normal performance when asked to identify the actions which are central to or distinctive of a particular script (Sirigu et al., 1995). Patients with focal lesions of the left temporal cortex were also observed in studies on script deficits but none of them showed impairment on the semantic dimension of script representation (Armus, Brookshire, & Nicholas, 1989; Godbout & Doyon, 1995; Lojek-Osiejuk, 1996; Sirigu et al., 1995). However, precise location of the cerebral lesion is not always specified in these studies, with the exception of one patient reported by Godbout and Doyon (1995), patient D.B., who had a left focal anterior temporal lobe lesion, a region that plays a critical role in semantic memory (Patterson, Nestor, & Rogers, 2007). Though their aim was to measure the contribution of script knowledge in script representation, these studies present no extensive assessment of semantic memory, and thus the relationship between the script deficits and the possible semantic impairment cannot be posited. Some studies have explored the semantic content of scripts with populations known to present semanticmemory impairments. For example, Allain et al. (2008) studied patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), who are recognized to have semantic memory (Hodges & Patterson, 1995; Hodges, Salmon, & Butters, 1992b) and executive Downloaded By: [University of Laval] At: 13:34 28 January 2010 204 BIER AND MACOIR function deficits (Binetti et al., 1996; Collette, Van der Linden, & Salmon, 1999); executive functions refer to high-level processes that facilitate adaptation to new or complex situations (Collette et al., 1999). The authors showed that patients with AD also presented with deficits in the organizational aspects of scripts and made many sequencing errors when asked to rearrange actions pertaining to a script. Furthermore, when patients with AD were asked to categorize actions according to the script to which they belong, they produced numerous sorting errors, a pattern consistent with the difficulties they encountered in sorting other kinds of semantic knowledge, as documented in other studies (Hodges et al., 1992b; Montanes, Goldblum, & Boller, 1996). Allain and his colleagues (2008) concluded that AD affects the syntactic and semantic aspects of scripts. In order to better discriminate between the respective roles of executive functions and semantic memory in scripts, Cosentino and collaborators (Cosentino, Chute, Libon, Moore, & Grosman, 2006) compared the performance of patients with AD, frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and SD on a semantic-judgment task. This task consisted in presenting a script written on a sheet of paper, like doing laundry or washing the dishes, along with four events that were in the correct order or an incorrect order (i.e., presence of sequential errors) or that comprised semantic errors (i.e., inappropriate object use, or action error). The patients had to decide whether the activity made sense or not. Patients with FTD performed worse than the other participants and showed significant deficits in the organizational component of the scripts. Patients with SD and AD were equally impaired in both the organizational and semantic components of the scripts. However, the verbal nature of the task may have compromised the performance of the patients with SD, and, as mentioned by the authors, no clear conclusion can be drawn from their results. To recap, results of studies that explored script generation in patients with potential semantic-memory deficits show impairment in the specific content of the scripts, although some studies on script deficits in patients with focal lesions of the left temporal lobe did not report similar results. However, in none of these studies did the investigators use a comprehensive evaluation of semantic memory, covering the conceptual knowledge assessed in the script tasks. Thus the specific contribution of semantic memory in script representation is not well established. Disorders in script execution in patients with semantic-memory deficits Some indications of impairment in script execution following semantic-memory deficits come from a few group studies conducted with patients with SD. From a general perspective, Mioshi and collaborators (Mioshi et al., 2007) showed that patients with SD present deficits in activities of daily living (ADL) measured using the Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD) (Gélinas, Gauthier, McIntyre, & Gauthier, 1999). The DAD is an informant-based questionnaire, originally developed for assessing functional impairments in AD, which includes questions on basic activities of daily living (BADL; dayto-day core survival abilities) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL; activities with a high level of complexity, reflecting the subject’s ability to live independently in the community). ADL questionnaires may be considered a general measure of “script execution” in the person’s daily living. Mioshi et al. (2007) reported that almost half of the 15 patients with SD whom they studied showed deficits in BADL, with around 5 to 10% showing moderate to severe deficits. “Dressing” was identified as a difficult activity for some patients, who had problems with “choosing clothes appropriate to the weather and occasion.” Also, more than 90% of the patients with SD showed a deficit in IALD. Patients were more dependent in language-based activities, such as using the phone and managing finances/correspondence, whilst they showed mild dependence in outings (shopping), leisure, and household chores. Meal preparation required supervision in some patients. Finally, patients with SD had difficulties in initiating, planning, and executing BADL and IADL. In their study on the behavioral profiles of frontotemporal dementia, Snowden et al. (2001) more specifically explored a group of 11 patients with SD. The authors did not explicitly measure ADL but some of their observations are relevant to this subject. With respect to BADL, 64% patients neglected hygiene, and 55% were more selective in their choice of food. Patients with SD pursued their daily-life activities purposefully but showed a narrowed repertoire of activities on which they spent excessive time, like doing jigsaws or painting. They also adhered to fixed routines and carried out tasks in the same way. Clinical observations of patients with SD also support these results (Bozeat, Lambon Ralph, Patterson, & Hodges, 2002a; Funnell, 2001; Hodges et al., 1992a; Lauro-Grotto, Piccini, & Shallice, 1997; Snowden, Griffiths, & Neary, 1996; Snowden & Neary, 2002). For example, Bozeat et al. (2002a) observed that, even if patients with SD can participate in some activities efficiently, like cooking, their repertoire is limited and stereotyped. These results suggest, as proposed by Snowden et al. (1996), that since patients have a progressively shrinking world view, they engage in activities for which they have remaining knowledge or that they encountered frequently in their everyday experiences. In other words, semantic-memory deficits may lead to abandoning some activities for which the individual has incomplete or no knowledge and thus to a limited range of ADL and leisure activities. To recap, patients with circumscribed semanticmemory impairments show difficulties in BADL (e.g., dressing appropriately), IADL (cooking, outings, and language-based activities), and leisure activities (which can be considered as the execution of scripts), although these difficulties are not described in detail. However, the severity of dementia is not well specified in these studies, which makes it impossible to establish the parallels between the severity of semantic-memory deficits SEMANTIC MEMORY AND EVERYDAY ACTIONS and functional deficits. In addition, it is difficult to interpret the results presented in these studies due to the possible occurrence of other deficits in individuals whose disease is at a very advanced stage. Thus the specific nature of ADL difficulties in semantic dementia remains unknown. However, some observations suggest that ADL and leisure deficits are expressed by a narrowing of the patients’ repertoire of activities and their rigid and stereotyped execution. Downloaded By: [University of Laval] At: 13:34 28 January 2010 Disorders in schema representation in patients with semantic-memory deficits To our knowledge, only one study has explored the nature of schema representations in the context of semanticmemory deficits. Buxbaum, Schwartz, and Carew (1997) measured D.M.’s knowledge of the sequential organization of everyday tasks (schemas) by asking him to organize photographs depicting the steps in six simple actions (e.g., lighting a candle, making a pot of coffee). D.M., suffering from SD, failed on one out of the six sequential organizations of actions, a performance that is suggestive of a deficit in schema representation since normal participants perform at ceiling on this task. However, Buxbaum et al. (1997) do not specify whether D.M.’s results were due to an organizational deficit or to a deficit in content knowledge. Disorders in schema execution in patients with semantic-memory deficits Group studies Some group studies explored, albeit indirectly, the role of semantic memory in ADL. More specifically, they assessed the ability of patients with left brain damage (LBD) and right brain damage (RBD) to perform simulated everyday routine actions (Buxbaum, Schwartz, & Montgomery, 1998; Hartmann, Goldenberg, Daumuller, & Hermsdorfer, 2005; Schwartz et al., 1998, 1999). Traditionally, the left hemisphere has been associated with semantic memory and language while the right hemisphere has been associated with attentional and spatial abilities (Gazzaniga, 1995). Accordingly, specific difficulties due to a loss of knowledge are more expected in LBD. Buxbaum et al. (1998) conducted a group study on 16 patients with LBD and tested their ability to execute routine actions derived from the Multi-Level Action Test (MLAT)—namely, spreading butter and jam on toast, wrapping a present, and packing a lunchbox. All the objects required to perform the task were placed on a table, and patients were asked to carry out the task. The patients with LBD made a total of 213 errors on the MLAT whereas only 29 errors were observed in the control group. Buxbaum et al. (1998) then compared these results with previous studies on patients with RBD (Schwartz et al., 1999) and closed head injury (Schwartz et al., 1998). They found that all types of patients had problems with simulated everyday tasks and showed the 205 same types of errors, with omission of a step being the most frequent type of mistake. However, patients with RBD were more affected than the other two groups. Hartmann and colleagues (2005) also contrasted the performance of patients with LBD (n = 25) and RBD (n = 16) on simple routine tasks. These patients were asked to execute two tasks, making coffee and using a tape recorder, with the items necessary to perform each activity placed on a table. Both groups of patients were equally impaired on the two tasks. However, according to the authors the LBD and RBD impairments originate from different mechanisms. In patients with LBD, making coffee was strongly correlated with tests of language and functional knowledge of objects. Hartmann et al. (2005) hypothesized that the coffee-making task may imply the retrieval of schema-like instructions in semantic memory, which may be compromised in patients with LBD. Comparatively, patients with RBD showed difficulties with the multistep sequencing aspects of the tasks caused by a general reduction in attentional resources. In these patients, the tape recorder task correlated with mechanical problem-solving tests, involving trial and error, and was thus probably carried out by patients using this strategy. To recap, group studies on patients with LBD and RBD indicate that deficits in both populations are not different from a quantitative point of view. Both populations produce high rates of errors, which predominantly consist in the omission of steps required to perform the tasks. However, some observations suggest that patients with LBD have specific difficulties in retrieving schemalike instructions from semantic memory in certain types of everyday actions (e.g., making coffee but not using a tape recorder). In spite of these interesting results, these studies do not elucidate the specific role of semantic memory in everyday actions since semantic memory for the objects used in the simulated tasks was not tested and associated with task execution. Case studies Some indications regarding the possible role of semantic memory in everyday routine actions come from case studies of patients with LBD and SD. For example, Buxbaum et al. (1998) reported the case of G.L., a patient with predominant LBD following a closed head injury. G.L. showed language and semantic-memory impairments as well as ideational apraxia, whilst other cognitive functions were well preserved. G.L. also showed substantial difficulties in executing the MLAT (e.g., interchanging objects: spatula for knife, juice for mustard), a performance that could suggest the impact of a semantic-memory impairment on simulated routine actions. However, G.L.’s performance on the MLAT was highly comparable to the performances of two patients with RBD, who presumably had no semanticmemory impairment. Therefore, a semantic origin for G.L.’s errors in everyday action tasks is doubtful unless deficits in everyday routine actions always manifest identically regardless of the functional origin of the impairment. Downloaded By: [University of Laval] At: 13:34 28 January 2010 206 BIER AND MACOIR In 1997, Buxbaum et al. reported on the case of D.M., a patient with SD who had a substantial semanticmemory deficit, as measured by an extensive semantic battery. He also failed on one of the six sequential organizations of everyday tasks (see description in the previous section). However, he could pantomime singleobject use and execute simulated everyday routine tasks almost normally, as measured by the MLAT. D.M. made few mistakes in the MLAT, without predominance for semantic substitutions. Buxbaum et al. concluded that intact semantic memory for single-object use is not necessary to ensure appropriate object utilization, although they did not specifically test D.M.’s remaining knowledge on these particular objects. More specifically, they suggested that D.M. may have used a direct route based on sensorimotor capacities, recruited directly from perception, to perform single-object tasks. To explain the preservation of D.M.’s performance in the more complex, multiple-object activities the authors proposed a hypothesis consisting in the summation of this direct route with an indirect, semantic route, relying on the remaining functional semantic knowledge. Thus semantic memory appears to be important for the execution of complex tasks. The single-case study conducted by Lauro-Grotto et al. (1997) also supports this hypothesis. R.M., a patient with SD, showed well-preserved abilities related to cooking despite a profound verbal semantic-memory deficit. She was able to cook 8 different types of foods and could mimic in detail the cooking procedure for 16 other foods that she could no longer name. Moreover, she showed no comprehension of the verbal instructions if asked to cook a specific food. On the other hand, she could gesture and rapidly execute the detailed cooking procedure (e.g., washing, preparing, and cooking) when presented with the actual food. For Lauro-Grotto et al., these results point towards a multimodal account of the organization of semantic memory comprising independent action semantic, visual semantic, and verbal semantic stores. In this model, R.M.’s pattern of performance could be explained by preserved access to the action semantic store from visual semantic representations, along with impaired access to this store from verbal semantic representations. This hypothesis supports the view that, in this patient, remaining complex knowledge about everyday tasks was still accessible and could support the patient’s performance in everyday life. To recap, even though the specific overlap between the semantic testing and the complex activities measures is not always specified, these case studies showed that some patients with a profound semantic deficit can perform everyday actions. However, the results also suggest that these patients rely on their remaining semantic knowledge, accessible from visual or functional input, and thus that semantic memory supports their actions, at least in part. Object use in patients with semantic-memory deficits Single-object use represents only part of the knowledge required to perform complex ADL. However, considering the interactions between objects and schemas or scripts, a review of the studies in this field seemed relevant. Many studies on object use in patients with SD have been motivated by the clinical observation of their normal or near-normal use of objects in daily life. Some studies explored single-object use and semantic-memory knowledge without measuring the same concepts in the two testing situations, and these studies are not discussed further (Buxbaum et al., 1997; Dumont, Ska, & Joanette, 2000; Lauro-Grotto et al., 1997). However, good matching was done in other studies, and results point toward the importance of semantic-memory knowledge in object use. With the specific aim of assessing object use in SD, Hodges and collaborators (Hodges, Spatt, & Patterson, 1999) compared the performance of two patients with SD, D.J.E. and I.F., to the performance of F.L., a patient with apraxia and corticobasal degeneration. The assessment battery comprised 20 familiar ADL objects that patients were asked to name and manipulate. Patients were then asked to match colored pictures of the same 20 objects to: (a) the typical recipient of the action (i.e., the object on which the action is performed); (b) their typical location (e.g., bathroom, kitchen, or study); and (c) another object with a similar use (matching objects for shared purpose). Finally, the assessment battery also included a task designed to evaluate the ability to solve mechanical problems without resorting to semantic-memory knowledge: the novel tool task. In this task, patients were presented with 6 different wooden cylinders and were asked to select, among a selection of novel tools, the one best suited to lift the cylinder out of its base. First, results showed that correct object use was partially linked to remaining semantic knowledge in patients with SD. D.J.E. correctly used 6 of the 7 objects for which he had residual knowledge. However, I.F. correctly used 9 objects although he showed residual semantic knowledge for only 2 of them. The authors suggested that in this patient, object use could be explained by a “trial-and-error” process. This position is explained below. Second, results from the novel tool experiment showed that both patients with SD had no difficulty inferring object use through a mechanical problemsolving process. Comparatively, F.L., the patient with apraxia, could not correctly use 12 of the 20 ADL objects whilst she showed no problem with identifying them. Moreover, her performance did not differ from chance in the novel tool experiment. In a later study, Hodges and collaborators (Hodges, Bozeat, Lambon Ralph, Patterson, & Spatt, 2000) obtained similar results in 9 patients with SD. In this particular study, the patients’ performance on object use was highly correlated to semantic-memory tests and, more specifically, to semantic-knowledge tasks performed with the same objects. Furthermore, patients with SD did not differ from controls on the mechanical problem solving. Similar results were also observed in 8 patients with SD reported by Bozeat and colleagues (Bozeat, Lambon Ralph, Patterson, & Hodges, 2002b), in 2 patients with SD studied by Hamanaka et al. (1996), as well as in Elvezio and Dirce, 2 patients with SD studied over a period of 4 years by Coccia and colleagues Downloaded By: [University of Laval] At: 13:34 28 January 2010 SEMANTIC MEMORY AND EVERYDAY ACTIONS (Coccia, Bartolini, Luzzi, Provinciali, & Lambon Ralph, 2004). Elvezio and Dirce showed parallel and longitudinal decline in object use and object knowledge, in tasks of visual and tactile naming as well as in tasks of demonstrating and describing the function of objects from visual and verbal input. Hodges et al. (2000; Hodges et al., 1999) suggested that the performance of these patients could be explained by the combined effect of two mechanisms: The patients may use object-specific remaining knowledge, which is supplemented by a combination of visual affordances and mechanical problem solving. Affordances refer to characteristics of the object (visual and/or tactile) that automatically trigger how to manipulate the object online. This hypothesis is in accordance with the positions of Buxbaum et al. (1997) and Riddoch et al. (Riddoch, Humphreys, Heslop, & Castermans, 2002). Although the results of Hodges et al. (2000; Hodges et al., 1999) point toward the necessary role of semantic memory in single-object use, preservation of object use in cases of severe semantic-memory deficits on these particular objects has also been reported (Negri, Lunardelli, Reverberi, Gigli, & Rumiati, 2007). The apparent contradiction between studies can be interpreted by taking into account some factors that may have a significant effect on the performance of SD patients with single objects. First, premorbid familiarity with the tested objects influences the interaction with them (Bozeat et al., 2002a, 2002b; Giovannetti et al., 2006). Second, the presence of a personally relevant schema within specific contexts may influence the patients’ performance (Graham, Lambon Ralph, & Hodges, 1999a; Hodges et al., 2000; Snowden, Griffiths, & Neary, 1994, 1999). According to this hypothesis, patients with SD come to build a memory of an object usage through frequent or even daily use of this object in everyday life (Bozeat et al., 2002a). In that case, the “knowledge” of the object’s function is limited to this precise use in that specific context. Thus, although they performed poorly on formal semantic-memory testing, patients performed well when using objects that are part of their everyday routine and that are supported by their episodic memory (Bozeat et al., 2002a; Funnell, 2001). Therefore, repeated experiences with objects could strengthen the patients’ degraded conceptual representations or help to maintain a very specific form of representation. For Hodges et al. (2000), the importance of episodic memory of object use (personal references) might explain the performance of patients with SD who performed well in using objects in specific situations. They suggest that R.M., the patient with SD who was remarkably able to cook and prepare food (Lauro-Grotto et al., 1997), could rely on such memories or references to perform during testing. Likewise, familiarity and personal references may also have contributed to the performances of patients A.M. (with AD) and D.L. (with SD), who could use objects for which they had no remaining knowledge (Negri et al., 2007). To recap, results on single-object use in SD indicate the importance of semantic memory in object use. Patients may be able to manipulate objects by supplementing their remaining semantic knowledge by a combination of 207 visual affordances and mechanical problem solving. Furthermore, they may also rely on their episodic memory of how an object is used in a particular context, without actual conceptual knowledge of this object. SUMMARY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS The objective of this literature review was to shed light on the specific role of semantic memory in everyday actions by reviewing studies on representation and execution of scripts and schemas in patients with semanticmemory deficits. In Table 1 we summarize and classify the evidence from the different studies containing enough details to infer the role of semantic memory in everyday actions. As can be seen, there is little rigorous evidence regarding the ability or inability of persons with semantic-memory deficits to perform everyday activities normally. Many studies presented methodological flaws or did not specifically intend to measure semantic-memory contribution to everyday actions. However, the following conclusions can be derived from the available data. 1. Semantic memory and script representation. Results in patients with AD suggest that semantic-memory deficits affect the semantic content of scripts. However, studies did not include comprehensive semantic-memory testing, and thus no firm conclusions can be drawn from the existing results. 2. Semantic memory and script execution. Results from questionnaires and clinical observations suggest that semantic-memory deficits have an impact on patients’ script execution. The deficit may be expressed by a narrowing of the repertoire of activities of patients with SD and their rigid and stereotyped execution. However, further studies, such as case descriptions or longitudinal group studies, are needed in order to better describe deficits in script execution. 3. Semantic memory and schema representation. Results from one patient with SD suggest that a deficit in schema representation may be found in cases of semanticmemory deficits. However, the specific relationship between the schema executions and the semantic impairment cannot be posited. This research area needs more studies and is a very promising avenue in the domain of semantic memory and everyday actions. 4. Semantic memory and schema execution. Results suggest that patients with LBD may have specific difficulties in retrieving schema-like instructions from semantic memory in certain types of everyday routine actions (execution of schemas). The performance in routine action testing (schemas) suggests that some patients with SD are able to execute everyday tasks almost normally. However, in many case studies (Buxbaum et al., 1997; Funnell, 2001; Lauro-Grotto et al., 1997), a central semantic-memory deficit is questionable, and results point toward the necessary role of remaining knowledge accessible from visual or functional input and the role of 208 BIER AND MACOIR TABLE 1 Semantic-memory deficits and everyday actions Preserved a. Script/schema representation — Deficits — Patients with AD D.M. b. Script/schema execution D.M. R.M. E.P. M.C. a,b Buxbaum et al., 1997 Lauro-Grotto et al., 1997a,b Funnell, 2001 Riddoch et al., 2002b Patients with LBD G.L. Patients with SD Allain et al., 2008 Cosentino et al., 2006 Grafman et al., 1991 Buxbaum et al., 1997a,b Hartmann et al., 2005 Buxbaum et al., 1998c Buxbaum et al., 1998c Mioshi et al., 2007 Snowden 2001c Downloaded By: [University of Laval] At: 13:34 28 January 2010 c. Object use D.M. R.M. J.H. and B.W. A.M. and D.L. Buxbaum et al., 1997a,b Lauro-Grotto et al., 1997a,b Bozeat et al., 2002a Negri et al., 2007 S.T. and M.K. D.J.E. and I.F. 9 patients with SD 10 patients with AD E.P. 8 patients with SD Elvezio and Dirce et al., Hamanaka et al., 1996 Hodges et al., 1999 Hodges et al., 2000 Dumont et al., 2000a Funnell, 2001a Bozeat et al., 2002b Coccia et al., 2004 Note. AD = Alzheimer’s disease. SD = semantic dementia. LBD = left brain damage. Other abbreviations are patients’ initials. Note that the table does not include studies regarding the execution of routine actions and single-object use or script/schema evaluation in the context of semantic-memory preservation. Thus the table does not report double dissociations. Also, the table does not include single case studies in which other important cognitive deficits were reported in conjunction with semantic-memory deficits and in which the contribution of semantic memory in simulated everyday routine actions cannot be isolated (e.g., patient F.K. in Forde & Humphreys, 2002b). aNo parallel between object use and semantic-memory testing or parallel not specified by the authors. bSemantic memory partially preserved. cNo detailed analysis of deficits in semantic memory or no evaluation of semantic memory. a direct, sensorimotor route to support their performance. However, more studies are needed on this aspect— for example, studies with patients presenting a clear central semantic-memory deficit. 5. Semantic memory and single-object use. Results on single-object use are more equivocal than those in script or schema execution. Generally, studies in SD showed that object use is disrupted following semantic-memory deficits. However, when patients are able to use objects, their performance may be supported by remaining conceptual knowledge, preserved motor components of object use, familiarity, and personal references regarding how an object is used in a particular context. Further studies with rigorous semantic testing could corroborate these results. Since the study of semantic-memory contribution to ADL is still in its infancy, greater clarification concerning these statements could come from three main research areas: cognitive neuropsychology, real-life observations of everyday activities, and optical imagery. First, elaborated theories about everyday actions in which the contribution of semantic memory is more specified are needed in order to formulate testable hypotheses regarding the role of semantic memory in scripts and schemas. For example, in the model proposed by Grafman (2002), knowledge about scripts would be encoded in posterior areas of the brain. However, the specific nature of this knowledge remains far from precise. Moreover, the connections between knowledge of objects and knowledge of complex everyday actions, as well as their interactions with action representation and execution, remain unspecified. In order to better understand the nature of the script content, more direct parallels between theories concerning everyday actions and semantic-memory models (e.g., Caramazza & Shelton, 1998; Warrington & Shallice, 1984) should be established. Similarly, the central role of semantic memory in language processing (Caramazza, 1997), object recognition (Humphreys & Riddoch, 2006), and object use (Rothi, Ochipa, & Heilman, 1991) is generally recognized. Theoretical models of semantic memory should be more explicit with regard to the role of semantic representations in human cognition and, considering the scope of this paper, in the representation and execution of everyday actions. Longitudinal studies, in which the severity of the SD is specified and precisely documented, would also help assess the impact of semantic memory on everyday actions (representation and execution) throughout the evolution of the disease. Finally, the role of goals in object use and everyday action should also be studied. Patients with SD may no longer understand the external goal of the action they have to perform in a testing situation. Normal participants can understand the action requested by the experimenter by generalizing from their knowledge of what is generally done (or expected) in a similar everyday situation. Thus, even without a specific internal goal, they can perform the action. For example, if the participant is asked to use a hammer, even without a personal plan to use it in a Downloaded By: [University of Laval] At: 13:34 28 January 2010 SEMANTIC MEMORY AND EVERYDAY ACTIONS specific context, a normal participant can execute what he or she would normally do in an everyday situation. Patients with SD, on the other hand, could have lost this capacity to generalize and thus to execute the requested task without having a personal, relevant, and specific goal for the object or the action. Their poor performance in object use could thus be the consequence of a misunderstanding of the external goal and/or a misunderstanding of the significance of the objects presented during testing. To our knowledge, this important aspect of task execution has not been studied in semantic-memory deficits. Studies aiming at the execution of scripts and schemas as well as studies focusing on the relationship between execution and representations are also needed. Table 2 describes examples of methods of investigation that could be used to better understand the nature of everyday action representations. As shown in this table, a semantic-ADL questionnaire could be a promising way to assess the functional impact of semantic memory. For example, does the patient have difficulty in preparing a meal? If so, can he or she recognize and use different kinds of foods or utensils? Are these difficulties consistent with the semantic-memory evaluation? In the same vein, real-life standardized observations of the patients’ engagement and level of independence in daily living should also be done in order to measure the functional impact of semantic-memory impairments. Simulated real-life situations in the researchers’ laboratory are practical and easy to use in the research context but are far from being representative of real-life situations (Bottari, Dutil, Dassa, & Rainville, 2006). The Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Profile (Bottari, Dassa, Rainville, & Dutil, 2009) is a promising instrument in this regard. It consists in observing a patient’s performance and rating his or her level of independence when executing a routine of actions in which some novel elements are introduced. The evaluation is done in the patient’s community and home living environment. The patient is asked to prepare a hot meal for two unexpected guests with $20, which is about the only information given to the patient. With these instructions, it is expected that the participant will think of buying food, then put on outdoor clothing, go to the grocery store, 209 buy food, prepare a hot meal for guests, have the meal with the guests, and clean up afterwards. Thus, the patient has to formulate a goal, to plan and organize a solution, to execute this plan, and to verify the achievement of the goal. The evaluation provides a vast amount of information regarding the person’s difficulties and strengths. Furthermore, as is done in other protocols (see Brennan, Giovannetti, Libon, Bettcher, & Duey, in press), patients are videotaped, which helps with further analysis of their performance and interrater reliability. With respect to activities the patients still engage in, it is important to assess the actual semantic or “semanticlike” nature of the remaining knowledge. According to Graham and colleagues (Graham, Patterson, & Hodges, 1999b), patients with SD may rely on their preserved episodic memory of day-to-day activities to remember how to do things and how to name objects. More specifically, their episodic memories would allow them to infer object use from their day-to-day experiences, a strategy that leads to a highly abnormal, limited, and sometimes incorrect “knowledge” about things and their usage. Future research should thus try to better assess the interaction between semantic and episodic memories in everyday actions. Finally, optical imaging techniques are a promising way to study the role of semantic memory in everyday tasks. For example, functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), which relies on optical techniques to detect changes in the hemodynamic response within the cortex (Arenth, Ricker, & Schultheis, 2007), requires compact experimental equipment and can be potentially used in any setting (lab, clinic, home). The technique is portable and is not sensitive to movement during data acquisition. Arenth et al. (2007) highlight the potential of this technique to monitor brain activity while individuals are engaged in actual, real-life functional activities. The possibility of monitoring the brain “in action” would expand our understanding of the cognitive abilities involved in everyday actions—for example, by pointing up the importance of temporal lobe activation during execution of scripts or schemas. However, this technique also has significant limitations. For example, the lack of standardization in its use across different TABLE 2 Examples of measures to assess representation and execution of scripts and schemas Measures Representation Associative matching between everyday activities and object matching (e.g., patient asked to associate a relevant object (coffee, hammer) to a picture/video depicting an action (e.g., someone getting out of bed) Matching everyday activities presented on video according to their similarities or associative content (e.g., videos of someone getting out of bed, eating breakfast, and eating at a restaurant) Judgment regarding the quality of the execution of everyday activities presented on video (e.g., patient asked to identify execution errors, such as added actions or misused objects) Familiarity judgment on everyday activities (e.g., patient asked to state whether he/she is familiar with an activity presented on video, such as shopping or doing financial tasks) Execution Functional evaluation—execution of scripts (e.g., making dinner for two) or schemas (e.g., brushing one’s teeth)—in real-life settings (home–community) Semantic-ADL (activities of daily living) questionnaire measuring the specific contribution of semantic memory in everyday life (patient’s and caregiver’s point of view) 210 BIER AND MACOIR studies (particularly for the parameters of cognitive function measures) limits the ability to establish its validity. Although these limitations will have to be overcome, fNRIS appears to be a promising and exciting way to study everyday actions from a neurological perspective. In conclusion, a combination of these investigation methods and a rigorous semantic evaluation of everyday actions will definitely expand our understanding of the role of semantic memory in everyday life and enable us to construct an integrated model of cognition and everyday action. Original manuscript received 7 October 2008 Revised manuscript accepted 25 March 2009 First published online 8 June 2009 Downloaded By: [University of Laval] At: 13:34 28 January 2010 REFERENCES Allain, P., Le Gall, D., Foucher, C., Etcharry-Bouyx, F., Barré, J., Dubas, F., et al. (2008). Script representation in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Cortex, 44, 294–304. Arenth, P. M., Ricker, J. H., & Schultheis, M. T. (2007). Applications of functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to neurorehabilitation of cognitive disabilities. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 21, 38–57. Armus, S. R., Brookshire, R. H., & Nicholas, L. E. (1989). Aphasic and non-brain-damaged adults’ knowledge of scripts for common situations. Brain and Language, 36, 518–528. Binetti, G., Magni, E., Padovani, A., Cappa, S. F., Bianchetti, A., & Trabucchi, M. (1996). Executive dysfunction in early Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 60, 91–93. Bottari, C., Dutil, E., Dassa, C., & Rainville, C. (2006). Choosing the most appropriate environment to evaluate independence in everyday activities: Home or clinic? Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 53, 98–106. Bottari, C., Dassa, C., Rainville, C., & Dutil, E. (2009). The factorial validity and internal consistency of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Profile in individuals with traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 19, 177–207. Botvinick, M., & Plaut, D. C. (2004). Doing without schema hierarchies: A recurrent connectionist approach to normal and impaired routine sequential action. Psychology Review, 111, 395–429. Bozeat, S., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Patterson, K., & Hodges, J. R. (2002a). The influence of personal familiarity and context on object use in semantic dementia. Neurocase, 8, 127–134. Bozeat, S., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Patterson, K., & Hodges, J. R. (2002b). When objects lose their meaning: What happens to their use? Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 2, 236–251. Brennan, L., Giovannetti, T., Libon, D. J., Bettcher, B. M., & Duey, K. (in press). The impact of goal cues on everyday action performance in dementia. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation. Epub ahead of print, 14 October 2008, DOI: 10.1080/09602010802405623. Buxbaum, L. J., Schwartz, M., & Carew, T. G. (1997). The role of semantic memory in object use. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 219–254. Buxbaum, L. J., Schwartz, M., & Montgomery, M. W. (1998). Ideational apraxia and naturalistic action. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 15, 617–643. Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177–208. Caramazza, A., & Shelton, J. R. (1998). Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate–inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neurosciences, 10, 1–34. Chevignard, M., Pillon, B., Pradat-Diehl, P., Taillefer, C., Rousseau, S., Le Bras, C., et al. (2000). An ecological approach to planning dysfunction: Script execution. Cortex, 36, 649–669. Coccia, M., Bartolini, M., Luzzi, S., Provinciali, L., & Lambon Ralph, M. (2004). Semantic memory is an amodal, dynamic system: Evidence from the interaction of naming and object use in semantic dementia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 513–527. Collette, F., Van der Linden, M., & Salmon, E. (1999). Executive dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease. Cortex, 35, 57–72. Cooper, R. (2002). Order and disorder in everyday action: The roles of contention scheduling and supervisory attention. Neurocase, 8, 61–78. Cooper, R. (2007). Tool use and related errors in ideational apraxia: The quantitative simulation of patient error profiles. Cortex, 43, 319–337. Cooper, R., Schwartz, M. F., Yule, P., & Shallice, T. (2005). The simulation of action disorganisation in complex activities of daily living. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 959–1004. Cooper, R., & Shallice, T. (2000). Contention scheduling and the control of routine activities. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17, 297–338. Cooper, R., & Shallice, T. (2006). Hierarchical schemas and goals in the control of sequential behaviour. Psychological Review, 113, 887–916. Cosentino, S., Chute, D., Libon, D., Moore, P., & Grosman, M. (2006). How does the brain support script comprehension? A study of executive processes and semantic knowledge in dementia. Neuropsychology, 20, 307–318. Dumont, C., Ska, B., & Joanette, Y. (2000). Conceptual apraxia and semantic memory deficit in Alzheimer’s disease: Two sides of the same coin? Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 6, 693–703. Forde, E. M., & Humphreys, G. W. (2000). The role of semantic knowledge and working memory in everyday tasks. Brain and Cognition, 44, 214–252. Forde, E. M., & Humphreys, G. W. (2002a). Dissociations in routine behaviour across patients and everyday tasks. Neurocase, 8, 151–167. Forde, E. M., & Humphreys, G. W. (2002b). The role of semantic knowledge in short-term memory. Neurocase, 8, 13–27. Forde, E. M., Humphreys, G. W., & Remoundou, M. (2004). Disordered knowledge of action order in action disorganisation syndrome. Neurocase, 10, 19–28. Funnell, E. (2001). Evidence for scripts in semantic dementia: Implications for theories of semantic memory. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 18, 323–341. Gazzaniga, M. S. (1995). Principles of human brain organization derived from split-brain studies. Neuron, 14, 217–228. Gélinas, I., Gauthier, L., McIntyre, M., & Gauthier, S. (1999). Development of a functional measure for persons with Alzheimer’s disease: The disability assessment for dementia. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53, 471–481. Giovannetti, T., Sestito, N., Libon, D. J., Schmidt, K. S., Gallo, J. L., Gambino, M., et al. (2006). The influence of personal familiarity on object naming, knowledge, and use in dementia. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21, 607–614. Godbout, L., & Doyon, J. (1995). Mental representation of knowledge following frontal-lobe or postrolandic lesions. Neuropsychologia, 33, 1671–1696. Grafman, J. (1995). Similarities and distinctions among current models of prefrontal cortical functions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 769, 337–338. Grafman, J. (2002). The structured event complex and the human prefrontal cortex. In D. T. Stuss & R. T. Knight (Eds.), Principles of frontal lobe function (pp. 292–310). New York: Oxford University Press. Grafman, J., Thompson, K., Weingartner, H., Martinez, R., Lawlor, B. A., & Sunderland, T. (1991). Script generation as an indicator of knowledge representation in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Brain and Language, 40, 344–358. Graham, K. S., Lambon Ralph, M. A., & Hodges, J. R. (1999a). A questionable semantics: The interaction between semantic knowledge and autobiographical experience in semantic dementia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 16, 689–698. Downloaded By: [University of Laval] At: 13:34 28 January 2010 SEMANTIC MEMORY AND EVERYDAY ACTIONS Graham, K. S., Patterson, K., & Hodges, J. R. (1999b). Episodic memory: New insights from the study of semantic dementia. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 9, 245–250. Hamanaka, T., Matsui, A., Yoshida, S., Nakanishi, M., Fujita, K., & Banno, T. (1996). Cerebral laterality and categoryspecificity in cases of semantic memory impairment with PET findings associated with identification amnesia for familiar faces. Brain and Cognition, 30, 368–372. Hartmann, K., Goldenberg, G., Daumuller, M., & Hermsdorfer, J. (2005). It takes the whole brain to make a cup of coffee: The neuropsychology of naturalistic actions involving technical devices. Neuropsychologia, 43, 625–637. Hodges, J. R., Bozeat, S., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Patterson, K., & Spatt, J. (2000). The role of conceptual knowledge in object use—evidence from semantic dementia. Brain, 123, 1913–1925. Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (1995). Is semantic memory consistently impaired early in the course of Alzheimer’s disease? Neuroanatomical and diagnostic implications. Neuropsychologia, 33, 441–459. Hodges, J. R., Patterson, K., Oxbury, S., & Funnell, E. (1992a). Semantic dementia: Progressive fluent aphasia with temporal lobe atrophy. Brain, 115, 1783–1806. Hodges, J. R., Salmon, D. P., & Butters, N. (1992b). Semantic memory impairment in Alzheimer’s disease: Failure of access or degraded knowledge? Neuropsychologia, 30, 301–314. Hodges, J. R., Spatt, J., & Patterson, K. (1999). “What and how”: Evidence for the dissociation of object knowledge and mechanical problem-solving skills in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 96, 9444–9448. Humphreys, G., & Forde, E. M. E. (1998). Disordered action schema and action disorganisation syndrome. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 15, 771–811. Humphreys, G., & Riddoch, M. J. (2006). Features, objects, action: The cognitive neuropsychology of visual object processing, 1984–2004. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23, 156–183. Lauro-Grotto, R., Piccini, C., & Shallice, T. (1997). Modalityspecific operations in semantic dementia. Cortex, 33, 593–622. Lojek-Osiejuk, E. (1996). Knowledge of scripts reflected in discourse of aphasics and right-brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 53, 58–80. Macoir, J. (2009). Is a plum a memory problem? Longitudinal study of the reversal of concreteness effect in a patient with semantic dementia. Neuropsychologia, 47, 518–535. Mioshi, E., Kipps, C. M., Dawson, K., Mitchell, J., Graham, A., & Hodges, J. R. (2007). Activities of daily living in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer disease. Neurology, 68, 2077–2084. Montanes, P., Goldblum, M. C., & Boller, F. (1996). Classification deficits in Alzheimer’s disease with special reference to living and nonliving things. Brain and Language, 54, 335–358. Neary, D., Snowden, J. S., Gustafson, L., Passant, U., Stuss, D., Black, S., et al. (1998). Frontotemporal lobar degeneration: A consensus on clinical diagnostic criteria. Neurology, 51, 1546–1554. Negri, G. A., Lunardelli, A., Reverberi, C., Gigli, G. L., & Rumiati, R. I. (2007). Degraded semantic knowledge and accurate object use. Cortex, 43, 376–388. 211 Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. Davidson, G. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self regulation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4, pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum Press. Patterson, K., Nestor, P. J., & Rogers, T. T. (2007). Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain. Nature Review Neurosciences, 8, 976–987. Riddoch, M. J., Humphreys, G. W., Heslop, J., & Castermans, E. (2002). Dissociations between object knowledge and everyday action. Neurocase, 8, 100–110. Rothi, L. J. G., Ochipa, C., & Heilman, K. M. (1991). A cognitive neuropsychological model of limb praxis. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 8, 443–458. Rumiati, R., Zanini, S., Vorano, L., & Shallice, T. (2001). A form of ideational apraxia as a selective deficit of contention scheduling. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 18, 617–642. Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Schwartz, M. F., Buxbaum, L. J., Montgomery, M. W., Fitzpatrick-DeSalme, E., Hart, T., Ferraro, M., et al. (1999). Naturalistic action production following right hemisphere stroke. Neuropsychologia, 37, 51–66. Schwartz, M. F., Montgomery, M. W., Buxbaum, L. J., Lee, S. S., Carew, T. G., Coslett, H. B., et al. (1998). Naturalistic action impairment in closed head injury. Neuropsychology, 12, 13–28. Schwartz, M. F., Montgomery, M. W., Fitzpatrick-DeSalme, E. J., Ochipa, C., Coslett, H. B., & Mayer, N. H. (1995). Analysis of a disorder of everyday action. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12, 863–892. Sirigu, A., Zalla, T., Pillon, B., Grafman, J., Dubois, B., & Agid, Y. (1995). Planning and script analysis following prefrontal lobe lesions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 769, 277–288. Snowden, J. S., Bathgate, D., Varma, A., Blackshaw, A., Gibbons, Z. C., & Neary, D. (2001). Distinct behavioural profiles in frontotemporal dementia and semantic dementia. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 70, 323–332. Snowden, J. S., Griffiths, H., & Neary, D. (1994). Semantic dementia: Autobiographical contribution to preservation of meaning. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11, 265–288. Snowden, J. S., Griffiths, H. L., & Neary, D. (1996). Semanticepisodic memory interactions in semantic dementia: Implications for retrograde memory function. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 13, 1101–1137. Snowden, J. S., Griffiths, H. L., & Neary, D. (1999). The impact of autobiographical experience on meaning: Reply to Graham, Lambon Ralph, and Hodges. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 16, 673–687. Snowden, J. S., & Neary, D. (2002). Relearning of verbal labels in semantic dementia. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1715–1728. Warrington, E. K., & Shallice, T. (1984). Category specific semantic impairments. Brain, 107, 829–854. Zanini, S. (2008). Generalised script sequencing deficits following frontal lobe lesions. Cortex, 44, 140–149. Zanini, S., Rumiati, R. I., & Shallice, T. (2002). Action sequencing deficit following frontal lobe lesion. Neurocase, 8, 88–99.
© Copyright 2024