Scientists Identify Brain's Concept Control Core

Van Cutter Romney writes "Scientists have identified the part of the brain which matches words to objects. While scanning brains from people who suffer from Semantic Dementia they have found that the front end of the temporal lobe seems to be crucial to conceptual application. A better understanding on how this part of the brain works can help develop therapies to counteract Semantic Dementia — the second most common form of dementia after Alzheimer's disease."

Comments

Well..

[cbiltcliffe]

How about Pinky's Concept Control Core? How come Pinky always gets treated badly?

Head Banging

[MECC]

That explains why banging the front of my head against a wall helps me think.

Father Jack taught me...

[TheWoozle]

...that all I ever need is four words: "Drink! Arse! Feck! Girls!"

Re:Father Jack taught me...

[ElectricOkra]

it does if you get BBC America.. they were showing it every Saturday in the afternoon.. don't know if they still do it on a regular basis, but you can catch it if you look for it...

Plus, there are several PBS stations across the US that show it on Saturday nights next to Fawlty Towers and the Vicar of Dibley, etc....

Semantic what?

[UbuntuDupe]

It would have been nice for a link to describe what Semantic Dementia is so we could get some background info. At least link to wikipedia's article about it. Unfortunately, it's very sparse, but does reveal what I wanted to know:

***

Signs and Symptoms

SD patients often present with the complaint of word-finding difficulties. On further questioning, patients often appear to have lost the meaning of certain words (e.g. asking "What is a fish?"). As the disease progresses, behavioural and personality changes are often seen similar to those seen in frontotemporal dementia although cases have been described of 'pure' semantic dementia with few late behavioural symptoms.

Neuropsychology

Patients perform poorly on tests of semantic knowledge. Published tests include both verbal and non-verbal tasks e.g. The Warrington concrete and abstract word synonym test (Warrington EK, McKenna P, Orpwood L. Single word comprehension: a concrete and abstract word synonym test. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 1998; 8: 143-154.) and The Pyramids and Palm Trees task (Howard and Patterson, 1992)

Testing will also reveal deficits in picture naming (with semantic errors being made e.g. "dog" for a picture of a hippopotamus) and category fluency (e.g. "Please list as many animals as you can in one minute").

I think they've got it!

[ColdWetDog]

Semantic dementia that is. FTFA:

"People have been talking about how the brain encodes concepts for 150 years. We believe we have found it,"

What they supposedly found was WHERE the brain encodes semantic functioning. No mention of how. Maybe the Reuter's journalist took it out of context or just doesn't understand what fMRI (functional MRI - go look it up on Google) does. We've known for a long time that parts of the temoporal lobe have to do with language parsing.

Note to editors: Can we have something more detailed than an incorrect, mangled edit of a PR blurb? This says roughly nothing.

Now, I'm off to take my happy pills for the morning. Back later. Hope this all works out.

Re:I think they've got it!

[drmarcj]

Note that they were not talking about an fMRI study.This was an anatomical MRI study. The idea is they looked at patients who have difficulty matching words to the objects they represent and correlated their deficit with what regions of the brain appear to be degenerating in the patients. Your point is very well taken about fMRI - it is more likely to tell you where something is happening than to tell you why.

Re:I think they've got it!

[lawpoop]

The *only* thing we can know about the brain these days is where stuff happens. AFAICT, we dont' have any theory* about how exactly the brain works or what 'thought' ( or even memory ) is. We do have some hypotheses, but nothing that even remotely explains behavior, or has created a model that has anywhere near the ability of a cockroach.

Until we have such a theory, *all* headlines should read "Scientists discover *where* $mental_phenomenon takes place."

* 'Theory' in the scientific sense -- a hypothesis tested through falsifiable experiment.

Re:I think they've got it!

[Zenaku]

Different functions. Broca's area deals more with parsing grammar. What is a noun and what is a verb, word order, etc. It encodes the thought you want to communicate (or decodes the thought being commicated to you) from the brains inner "mentalese" language, into the grammatically correct sentence structure of whatever language you speak. But it doesn't deal with the semantic meaning of the words. If I say to you "The groglent fumbershun melloped into the borsk." you can tell that the sentance is grammatical, and can probably identify the nouns, verbs and adverbs. But the words don't mean anything.

Imagine that the dictionary in your brain comes in three volumes, and every word you know appears in each volume. Volume 1 only contains the pronunciation of the word. Volume 2 only contains its part of speech. And Volume 3 only contains the definition.

Re:I think they've got it!

[radtea]

What they supposedly found was WHERE the brain encodes semantic functioning. No mention of how.

Furthermore, semantic functioning is not conceptual encoding.

Non-humans have concepts: abstract categories whose members they treat indifferently. When a dog that has been house-trained is in a house different from the house it was trained in, it has no difficulty understanding that it isn't supposed to crap on the floor. It has a concept of "house" whose members can be identified by their particulars, but which are all treated in a common way.

Indeed, if other species didn't have some conceptual ability, it is very unlikely we would have any. Evolution works primarily by elaboration, so without some elaborative material to operate on it is very unlikely a species with our conceptual powers would arise. It would be like a planet of snakes suddenly evolving a species of sprinters.

Human reasoning ability comes from a combination of pre-existing capabilities: the aforementioned conceptual capacity we share with many other species, and the equally wide-spread capacity to use symbols such as sounds to refer to other things, like a predator approaching. In humans evolution has enhanced the ability to use symbols so that any symbol can refer to anything, including concepts.

Misleading Headline

[ruiner13]

the headline implies they've found the location in the brain where it happens, but then they say "it seems to be the frontal lobe". Ok, that's a very large section of the brain, and it doesn't even sound like they are 100% sure. How does a "we think we have an idea" story make it to the front page (repeatedly)?

Correlation doesn't imply causality

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

It could be that words are matched to objects in the non-material spirit realm of the soul and that the part of the brain highlighted in this study is merely where those results are communicated back to the physical world. Or are you one of those un-American communist types who doesn't believe in souls?

Re:Correlation doesn't imply causality

[monoqlith]

It is true that correlation by itself does not necessitate causality. But people too often use that as an excuse to discredit a causal relationship that by every criterion is a reasonable one. You should remember that correlation is still a necessary condition for causality(if not a sufficient one), and it is often one of the first clues we have in deciding what causes some effect. If 99% of people with Semantic dementia have some problem with their temporal lobe, and no other observable factor has such a high correlation with semantic dementia, it is reasonable to assert that the temporal lobe has something very important to do in dealing with conceptual and semantic reasoning, which is all this article says.

We do have strong evidence to conclude that all of the areas of the mind that involve concepts, memory, reasoning, and sensory inputs - all of the mental processes that constitute cognition and access - can be explained by a functional state of the brain. Exactly which functional states humans indeed have still to discover. The physical theories we need to explain these processes are still incomplete, but that doesn't mean that we need to assert the existence of a soul or God. While it may be desirable to do so, there is still a lot more to discover about the brain and mind before we adopt a non-materialist theory of the brain. In fact with every new discovery scientists make about the brain, the dualistic theory of the mind holds less water, and seems more and more to be a myth that people invented to explain the mystery of consciousness and subjectivity.

We do not know the exact mechanism by which the physical, syntax-processing parts of the brain "computer" translate into semantics. Some have suggested that this is impossible if we look at the brain as simply a computer. But this doesn't refute physicalism.

It is true that we can definitely not explain is how the experience of these concepts, memories, reasonings, and sensory perceptions arises - that is, what is responsible for the phenomenal aspect of consciousness, that thing that allows us to know "what is it like to be me?" and makes my experience unique to my person. We cannot account for this possibility yet using pure physical theories.

Therefore, this may very well be a non-physical process. I am reluctant to take a side one way or the other - there are compelling arguments for both dualism and monism.

But there is enoughdata to support the idea that at least the great majority of cognitive functioning takes place somewhere in the brain and is a physical process, not a spiritual one.

Printer Friendly

[neonprimetime]

cause i can

Much better choices available.

[ScentCone]

Symantec Dementia isn't nearly as good as McAfee Attention Deficit Disorder or Trend Micro's Cognitive Dissonance.

Re:Much better choices available.

[Rude Turnip]

All of which are trumped by Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field.

Narf

[neonprimetime]

Pinky: Gee, Brain, what are we going to do tonight?
Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky: try to take over the world!

Classic

Let's hear it for lesions!

[wonkavader]

We learn so much from damage. In this case it's not so much about cutting as decay, ok, but it's the same concept. You know, of course, that we learned a huge amount about brain modularity and function during the Russo-Japanese war (you know, the hundred-somethingth Japanese invasion of Korea) because bullets were getting smaller and starting to go through heads without killing people.

Re:Let's hear it for lesions!

[FleaPlus]

Speaking of lesions, let's not forget the story of Phineas Gage, a classic case study in neuroscience:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

On September 13, 1848, Phineas Gage was working outside the small town of Cavendish, Vermont on the construction of a railroad track where he was employed as a foreman. One of his duties was to set explosive charges in holes drilled into large pieces of rock so they could be broken up and removed. This involved filling the hole with gunpowder, adding a fuse, and then packing in sand with the aid of a large tamping iron. Gage was momentarily distracted and forgot to pour the sand into one hole. Thus, when he went to tamp the sand down, the tamping iron sparked against the rock and ignited the gunpowder, causing the iron to be blown through Gage's head with such force that it landed almost thirty yards (27 meters) behind him.

The three foot (1 m) long tamping iron with a diameter of 1.25 inches (3.2 cm) weighing thirteen and a half pounds (6.12 kg) entered his skull below his left cheek bone and exited after passing through the anterior frontal cortex and white matter.

Re:yes, but

[neonprimetime]

Well, it does have a pretty decent up-time. About 70 years on average?

understanding the brain

[gordona]

If the brain were simple enough to be understood, it would be too simple to understand itself.

Re:understanding the brain

[Tab is on Slashdot]

This is one of those things that sounds insightful and seems to make sense at first glance, but falls apart under scrutiny. The reality is that the brain as an external, observable object made up of neurons is completely different from the internal, mental representation made up of mental constructs. There's no reason to believe that we cannot form a complete and accurate map of the brain in human terms. Just because the brain is complex in physical structure, that does not mean that it is impossible to understand semantically. I *think*.

...therapies to counteract Semantic Dementia

[mok000]

So there's hope for G.W. after all....

In related news, fruits and vegetable juice help

[WillAffleckUW]

in terms of those suffering from Alzheimer's Disease.

A lot of the people we used to think were suffering from dementia actually are suffering side effects from drug interactions.

And the tests used to determine words vary - some are as simple as the Letter S (tell me all the words you can that start with the letter S), some involve giving you three words to remember, having you do a puzzle (like saying the letters of the word WORLD backwards), and then seeing how many of those words you correctly recall.

There's also a test, the Boston Naming Test, which involves recognizing pictures and giving the word for the picture - however, it's culturally biased towards Boston, and doesn't work so well with other populations.

Something wrong with this...

[__aaclcg7560]

Why do I have so much trying to put a name to a face if I haven't talked to the person in a long time?

seems to be...

[sottitron]

Breakthrough discovery in Washington

By Alan Smithee, General Cool Guy

Washington - Man *thinks* he identified the answer to life, the universe, and everything. It *seems* to be somewhere between 38 and 45.

Please promptly place this discovery and Mr. Smithee's amazing journalism covering my scientific feat on Slashdot's main page.

that is so...

[corbettw]

The article presents a lot of ... information.

Shoot, what's that word? Not insightful, not useful... something that makes you more concerned/aware about something than you were before.

It's right on the tip of my tongue...

Match this:

[jafac]

Can they figure out how to map the word "Correlation" to "Causation"?

This is actually a press-problem. Neuroscientists doing this kind of work know the difference, and the field is actually called "Neural correlates". But the popular press seems to always conflate correlation with causation. Bad press!

Nice try, St. Anselm

[Sunburnt]

"Why should any part of my brain deal with abstract objects unless they actually exist?"

(I'm assuming here that the poster would personally agree with the stronger statement: 'My brain deals with abstract objects because they actually exist.')

That's begging the question here in the same manner as Plantinga's ontological argument. (The question is, "Does my brain deal with 'abstract objects,' or is this just metaphor for a process that reacts to similarities in experience?")

Not to mention the false dichotomies this implies: "Either my brain does not deal with abstract objects, or they exist" and "Either my brain deals with abstract objects, or they do not exist." There is no logical implication of the truth of either side of the proposition on the basis of the other side; we are not necessitated to accept either.

Of course, one can believe that the brain manipulates abstract objects or that abstract objects have some transcendant form of existence. That's different, however, from asserting the logical necessity of their existence, which is a bit presumptuous with regards to the cause/effect relationship of language and reality.

One needn't posit unnecessary entities, however. And it's great that these scientists are learning more about process that can be shown repeatedly to have a direct causal effect on cognition.

Some light reading for anyone interested in the philosophy surrounding these sort of ontological arguments: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-argu ments/

sometimes tragic, sometimes funny

[sammy baby]

My wife used to work with a lady whose husband suffered a severe stroke. His ability to match words to objects suffered somewhat, which led to the following conversation between the two of them.

(Scene - Mister and Missus are walking through the back yard, when Mister notices something on the ground.)

Mister: Oh, hey. Take a look at these tracks.

Missus: Oh, yeah. What do you think made those tracks?

Mister: (looks hesitant) A Benfucker.

(pause)

Missus: A what?

Mister: You know. (Look of frustration.) A Benfucker!

Try as he might, he couldn't come up with any word for the animal he was thinking of other than "Benfucker."

Never did find out what kind of tracks they were.