Common and Contrasting Areas of Activation for Abstract and Concrete Concepts: An H215O PET Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lesion studies indicate that the lateral and inferior temporal cortex is a critical area of semantic memory storage, but little is known about the cortical organization of semantics within this area. One proposition has been that dominant physical characteristics of objects (structure, motility) are determining factors. A positron emission tomography experiment using the H2(15)O bolus method was performed to test this hypothesis by contrasting activation for concrete and abstract concepts. Unlike previous studies that considered this question, the task required explicit word meaning judgments, and blocks of trials were designed to be of equal difficulty for the two word classes. The task required elderly participants to read aloud the pair of words that was closer in meaning (e.g., spade-shovel vs. spade-carpet). Subtraction analyses that compared the semantic judgment tasks with a baseline condition indicated that both abstract and concrete concepts activated the left lateral temporal cortex. A direct comparison of abstract versus concrete scans indicated differences in the lateralization of fusiform activation. We conclude that although concreteness might be a critical factor in the fusiform cortex, it is not dominant in the lateral temporal cortex. A multistudy overview suggests that tasks that focus on one concept per trial activate areas posterior to y = -40, whereas those that invoke several concepts, as in the present study, activate areas anterior to this. Increased processing complexity may proceed in a posterior-anterior direction in the lateral temporal cortex.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".