Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:14:03.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adapting the Pyramids and Palm Trees Test and the Kissing and Dancing Test and developing other semantic tests for the Chinese population

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2013

QIHAO GUO ,
CHENXI HE ,
XIAOLIANG WEN ,
LUPING SONG ,
ZAIZHU HAN  and
YANCHAO BI
QIHAO GUO
Affiliation:
Fudan University
CHENXI HE
Affiliation:
Beijing Normal University
XIAOLIANG WEN
Affiliation:
Beijing Normal University
LUPING SONG
Affiliation:
China Rehabilitation Research Center
ZAIZHU HAN
Affiliation:
Beijing Normal University
YANCHAO BI*
Affiliation:
Beijing Normal University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Yanchao Bi, State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, People's Republic of China. E-mail: ybi@bnu.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The semantic system is a core component underlying many cognitive functions, and its deterioration can lead to various behavioral deficits. The Pyramids and Palm Trees Test (Howard & Patterson, 1992) and the Kissing and Dancing Test (Bak & Hodges, 2003) are among the most widely used semantic assessments, and they have been adapted into many languages and for many populations. We adapted these tests to the Mainland Chinese population by adopting culturally appropriate items and collecting normative data in healthy Chinese participants. In addition, accumulating research has shown that semantic representations have multidimensional structures that include various types of knowledge, and in the Pyramids and Palm Trees Test mainly evaluates associative relationships. Therefore, we developed additional tests to examine three other aspects of semantic knowledge: taxonomic, functional, and manipulative. We found significant correlations among all tests in healthy participants. Moreover, the level of education and age affected performance on the tests of associative relationships, taxonomic relationships, and manipulation similarity.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 35 , Issue 6 , November 2014 , pp. 1001 - 1019
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Albanese, E., Capitani, E., Barbarotto, R., & Laiacona, M. (2000). Semantic category dissociations, familiarity and gender. Cortex, 36, 733–746.Google Scholar
Bak, T. H., & Hodges, J. R. (2003). Kissing and dancing—A test to distinguish the lexical and conceptual contributions to noun/verb and action/object dissociation: Preliminary results in patients with frontotemporal dementia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 16, 169–181.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, M. S., Lee, K. E., Haxby, J. V., & Martin, A. (2002). Parallel visual motion processing streams for manipulable objects and human movements. Neuron, 34, 149–159.Google Scholar
Bi, Y., Han, Z., Shu, H., & Caramazza, A. (2007). Nouns, verbs, objects, actions, and the animate/inanimate effect. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24, 485–504.Google Scholar
Boronat, C. B., Buxbaum, L. J., Coslett, H. B., Tang, K., Saffran, E. M., Kimberg, D. Y., et al. (2005). Distinctions between manipulation and function knowledge of objects: Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. Cognitive Brain Research, 23, 361–373.Google Scholar
Brickman, A. M., Paul, R. H., Cohen, R. A., Williams, L. M., MacGregor, K. L., Jefferson, A. L., et al. (2000). Category and letter verbal fluency across the adult lifespan: Relationship to EEG theta power. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 561–573.Google Scholar
Buxbaum, L. J., & Saffran, E. M. (2002). Knowledge of object manipulation and object function: Dissociations in apraxic and nonapraxic subjects. Brain and Language, 82, 179–199.Google Scholar
Buxbaum, L. J., Schwartz, M. F., & Carew, T. G. (1997). The role of semantic memory in object use. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 219–254.Google Scholar
Callahan, B. L., Macoir, J., Hudon, C., Bier, N., Chouinard, N., Cossette-Harvey, M., et al. (2010). Normative data for the Pyramids and Palm Trees Test in the Quebec–French population. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 25, 212–217.Google Scholar
Capitani, E., Laiacona, M., & Barbarotto, R. (1999). Gender affects word retrieval of certain categories in semantic fluency tasks. Cortex, 35, 273–278.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A., & Shelton, J. R. (1998). Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate–inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 1–34.Google Scholar
Chao, L. L., Haxby, J. V., & Martin, A. (1999). Attribute-based neural substrates in temporal cortex for perceiving and knowing about objects. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 913–919.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. R., & Garthwaite, P. H. (2005). Testing for suspected impairments and dissociations in single-case studies in neuropsychology: Evaluation of alternatives using Monte Carlo simulations and revised tests for dissociations. Neuropsychology, 19, 318–331.Google Scholar
Crutch, S. J. (2006). Qualitatively different semantic representations for abstract and concrete words: Further evidence from the semantic reading errors of deep dyslexic patients. Neurocase, 12, 91–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crutch, S. J., Ridha, B. H., & Warrington, E. K. (2006). The different frameworks underlying abstract and concrete knowledge: Evidence from a bilingual patient with a semantic refractory access dysphasia. Neurocase, 12, 151–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2005). Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks. Brain, 128, 615–627.Google Scholar
Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2007). Semantic priming in deep-phonological dyslexia: Contrasting effects of association and similarity upon abstract and concrete word reading. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24, 1–20.Google Scholar
Da Silva, C. G., Petersson, K. M., Faisca, L., Ingvar, M., & Reis, A. (2004). The effects of literacy and education on the quantitative and qualitative aspects of semantic verbal fluency. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 26, 266–277.Google Scholar
Gerlach, C. (2007). A review of functional imaging studies on category specificity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 296–314.Google Scholar
Gudayol-Ferre, E., Lara, J. P., Herrera-Guzman, I., Bohm, P., Rodes, E., Ansaldo, A. I., et al. (2008). Semantic memory as assessed by the Pyramids and Palm Trees Test: The impact of sociodemographic factors in a Spanish-speaking population. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 14, 148–151.Google Scholar
Howard, D., & Patterson, K. (1992). The Pyramids and Palm Trees Test: A test for semantic access from words and pictures. Bury St. Edmunds: Thames Valley Test Company.Google Scholar
James, T. W., & Gauthier, I. (2003). Auditory and action semantic features activate sensory-specific perceptual brain regions. Current Biology, 13, 1792–1796.Google Scholar
Joseph, J. E. (2001). Functional neuroimaging studies of category specificity in object recognition: A critical review and meta-analysis. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 1, 119–136.Google Scholar
Kellenbach, M. L., Brett, M., & Patterson, K. (2001). Large, colorful, or noisy? Attribute- and modality-specific activations during retrieval of perceptual attribute knowledge. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 1, 207–221.Google Scholar
Laiacona, M., & Caramazza, A. (2004). The noun/verb dissociation in language production: Varieties of causes. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 103–123.Google Scholar
Lambon Ralph, M. A. L., Moriarty, L., Sage, K., & York Speech Therapy Interest Group. (2002). Anomia is simply a reflection of semantic and phonological impairments: Evidence from a case-series study. Aphasiology, 16, 56–82.Google Scholar
Laws, K. R. (1999). Gender affects naming latencies for living and nonliving things: Implications for familiarity. Cortex, 35, 729–733.Google Scholar
Lin, N., Guo, Q., Han, Z., & Bi, Y. (2010). Motor knowledge is one dimension for concept organization: Further evidence from a Chinese semantic dementia case. Brain and Language, 119, 110–118.Google Scholar
Martin, N., Schwartz, M. F., & Kohen, F. P. (2006). Assessment of the ability to process semantic and phonological aspects of words in aphasia: A multi-measurement approach. Aphasiology, 20, 154–166.Google Scholar
Miceli, G., Fouch, E., Capasso, R., Shelton, J. R., Tomaiuolo, F., & Caramazza, A. (2001). The dissociation of color from form and function knowledge. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 662–667.Google Scholar
Noppeney, U., Josephs, O., Kiebel, S., Friston, K. J., & Price, C. J. (2005). Action selectivity in parietal and temporal cortex. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 641–649.Google Scholar
Noppeney, U., & Price, C. J. (2002). Retrieval of visual, auditory, and abstract semantics. NeuroImage, 15, 917–926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliver, R. T., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2003). Dorsal stream activation during retrieval of object size and shape. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 309–322.Google Scholar
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 Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 976–987.Google Scholar
Perlmuter, L. C., & Tun, P. (1987). Age and diabetes related changes in verbal fluency. Experimental Aging Research, 13, 9–14.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F., & Hauk, O. (2006). Category-specific conceptual processing of color and form in left fronto-temporal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 16, 1193–1201.Google Scholar
Rami, L., Serradell, M., Bosch, B., Caprile, C., Sekler, A., Villar, A., et al. (2008). Normative data for the Boston Naming Test and the Pyramids and Palm Trees Test in the elderly Spanish population. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 30, 1–6.Google Scholar
Sacchett, C., & Humphreys, G. W. (1992). Calling a squirrel a squirrel but a canoe a wigwam: A category-specific deficit for artifactual objects and body parts. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 9, 73–86.Google Scholar
Sun, H. L., Huang, J. P., Sun, D. J., Li, D. J., & Xing, H. B. (1997). Introduction to language corpus system of modern Chinese study. In Hu, M. Y. (Ed.), Paper collection for the Fifth World Chinese Teaching Symposium (pp. 459–466). Beijing: Peking University Press.Google Scholar
Tessari, A., Canessa, N., Ukmar, M., & Rumiati, R. (2007). Neuropsychological evidence for a strategic control of multiple routes in imitation. Brain, 130, 1111–1126.Google Scholar
Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In Donaldson, E. T. W. (Ed.), Organization of memory (pp. 381–403). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Warrington, E. K. (1975). The selective impairment of semantic memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27, 635–657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warrington, E. K., & McCarthy, R. A. (1983). Category specific access dysphasia. Brain, 106, 859–878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warrington, E. K., & McCarthy, R. A. (1987). Categories of knowledge: Further fractionations and an attempted integration. Brain, 110, 1273–1296.Google Scholar
Zhang, X., Han, Z., & Bi, Y. (2012). Are abstract and concrete concepts organized differently? Evidence from the blocked translation paradigm. Applied Psycholinguistics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S0142716412000124Google Scholar