Naming dynamic and static actions: neuropsychological evidence.

There has been considerable interest in identifying the neural correlates of action naming, but the bulk of previous work on this topic has utilized static stimuli. Recent research comparing the visual processing of dynamic versus static actions suggests that these two types of stimuli engage largely overlapping neural systems, raising the possibility that the higher-order processing requirements for naming dynamic and static actions might not be very different. To explore this issue in greater depth, we developed the Dynamic Action Naming Test (DANT), which consists of 158 video clips 3-5s in length, for each of which the participant is asked to produce the most appropriate verb. We administered the DANT to 78 brain-damaged patients drawn from our Patient Registry, and to a demographically matched group of 50 normal participants. Out of the 16 patients who performed defectively on the DANT, nearly all (15/16) had damage in the left hemisphere. Lesion analysis indicated that the frontal operculum was the most frequent area of damage in the 15 patients; also, damage to the posterolateral temporal-occipital sector (in and near MT) was specifically related to defective dynamic action naming. Most of the brain-damaged participants (n=71) also received our Static Action Naming Test (SANT), and we found that performances on verb items that were common across the DANT and SANT were highly correlated (R=.91). Moreover, patients who failed the DANT almost invariably also failed the SANT. These findings lend further support to the hypothesis that there is considerable commonality in the neural systems underlying the use of verbs to orally name dynamic and static actions, a conclusion that is in turn compatible with the concept of "representational momentum". Our results also contribute more generally to the rapidly growing field of research on embodied cognition.     

Introduction: Naming the ineffable

This article does not have an abstract     

Wages of Violence: Naming and Identity in Postcolonial Bombay.

Wages of Violence: Naming and Identity in Postcolonial Bombay. Thomas Blom Hansen. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. 280 pp.     

Naming biology

Historians of science recite familiar textbook stories about the origin of the term biology. With this note, Peter McLaughlin shows us antecedents that suggest it is worth thinking more about the traditions from which the familiar usage of the term emerged. We invited McLaughlin to submit this addition to our understanding of the foundation of "biology," and we thank him for his willingness to add to our knowledge in this way.     

The Brain Network of Naming: A Lesson from Primary Progressive Aphasia

Objective

Word finding depends on the processing of semantic and lexical information, and it involves an intermediate level for mapping semantic-to-lexical information which also subserves lexical-to-semantic mapping during word comprehension. However, the brain regions implementing these components are still controversial and have not been clarified via a comprehensive lesion model encompassing the whole range of language-related cortices. Primary progressive aphasia (PPA), for which anomia is thought to be the most common sign, provides such a model, but the exploration of cortical areas impacting naming in its three main variants and the underlying processing mechanisms is still lacking.

Methods

We addressed this double issue, related to language structure and PPA, with thirty patients (11 semantic, 12 logopenic, 7 agrammatic variant) using a picture-naming task and voxel-based morphometry for anatomo-functional correlation. First, we analyzed correlations for each of the three variants to identify the regions impacting naming in PPA and to disentangle the core regions of word finding. We then combined the three variants and correlation analyses for naming (semantic-to-lexical mapping) and single-word comprehension (lexical-to-semantic mapping), predicting an overlap zone corresponding to a bidirectional lexical-semantic hub.

Results and Conclusions

Our results showed that superior portions of the left temporal pole and left posterior temporal cortices impact semantic and lexical naming mechanisms in semantic and logopenic PPA, respectively. In agrammatic PPA naming deficits were rare, and did not correlate with any cortical region. Combined analyses revealed a cortical overlap zone in superior/middle mid-temporal cortices, distinct from the two former regions, impacting bidirectional binding of lexical and semantic information. Altogether, our findings indicate that lexical/semantic word processing depends on an anterior-posterior axis within lateral-temporal cortices, including an anatomically intermediate hub dedicated to lexical-semantic integration. Within this axis our data reveal the underpinnings of anomia in the PPA variants, which is of relevance for both diagnosis and future therapy strategies.     

Naming progastrin-derived peptides

The antral hormone gastrin continues to be in focus, because its hormonal and growth promoting effects are essential both for the function of the normal stomach and for the pathogenesis of major dyspeptic and neoplastic diseases. Deduction of the progastrin structure has improved the insight in the cellular synthesis of gastrin, but has also revealed that the biosynthetic machinery is complex, and, accordingly, that progastrin is processed to a multitude of more or less bioactive fragments. The naming of these fragments has, however, become inconsistent and confusing. Therefore, we propose a systematic nomenclature for progastrin-derived peptides of which there are three classes: (I) The gastrins with the evolutionary preserved tetrapeptide amide (Trp-Met-Asp-PheNH₂) at the C-terminus, which ensures high-affinity binding to the gastrin (CCK-B) receptor. Among the gastrins, gastrin-34 and gastrin-17 constitute the primary forms. (II) Processing intermediates, which are early products of progastrin that contain the structure of the primary gastrins within their sequence, but still cannot bind the gastrin receptor due to insufficient processing at their C-terminus. (III) Flanking fragments from the N- and C-termini of progastrin that do not contain any primary gastrin in their sequence, but nevertheless may undergo posttranslational processing. Each fragment can be specified with suffixes corresponding to the derived sequence in progastrin.     

Naming taxa from cladograms: a cautionary tale

The recent publication of a new hypothesis of cladistic relationships among American frogs referred to the genus Rana, accompanied by a new taxonomy and a new nomenclature of this group [Hillis D.M., Wilcox, T.P., 2005. Phylogeny of the New World true frogs (Rana). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 34, 299-314], draws attention to the problems posed by the use of a "double nomenclature", following both the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (designated here as "onomatophore-based nomenclature") and the rules of the draft Phylocode (designated here as "definition-based nomenclature"). These two nomenclatural systems, which rely upon widely different theoretical bases, are incompatible, and the latter cannot be viewed as a "modification" of the former. Accordingly, scientific names (nomina) following both systems should be clearly distinguished in scientific publications. Onomatophore-based nomina should continue to be written as they have been for about 250 years, whereas definition-based nomina should be written in a specific way, e.g., Lithobates. The combined use of both nomenclatural systems for the same taxonomy in the same paper requires good knowledge and careful respect of the rules of the Code regarding availability, allocation and validity of nomina. As shown by this example, not doing so may result in various problems, in particular in publishing nomina nuda or in using nomenclatural ranks invalid under the current Code. Attention is drawn to the fact that new nomina published without diagnostic characters are not available under the Code, and that the latter currently forbids the use of more than two ranks (subgenus and "aggregate of species") between the ranks genus and species.