Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain

Key Points

  • Semantic memory corresponds to people's general conceptual knowledge about objects and events, including knowledge about their characteristic properties and behaviours, as well as knowledge about the words we use to name and describe objects and events in speech.

  • Whereas episodic memory encompasses memory for specific episodes or situations in one's life, semantic memory encompasses factual knowledge divorced from any specific situational context: “a scallop is an edible sea creature” (semantic) as opposed to “I ate scallops for supper last night” (episodic).

  • Essentially all theories agree that a widely distributed brain network is responsible for our semantic knowledge of modality-specific features (for example, what a scallop looks or tastes like); but the theories differ on whether this network is sufficient for all of the functions of semantic memory.

  • The theory highlighted in this review proposes that conceptual knowledge requires an amodal hub, which itself contains no semantic features but rather represents the semantic similarity among concepts — for example, the semantic similarity between scallops and prawns, despite their differences in virtually every modality-specific attribute.

  • This theory predicts that a lesion of the specific brain region supporting the amodal hub should disrupt all abilities requiring central conceptual knowledge, independent of the modality of input (such as objects, words or sounds) or output (such as speaking, drawing or using objects) and independent of the type of concept (living things, man-made objects and abstract ideas, for example).

  • Patients with semantic dementia, a neurodegenerative syndrome resulting from focal atrophy of the anterior temporal lobes (ATL) bilaterally, show precisely this pattern of semantic degradation across all modalities and all types of conceptual knowledge; therefore, semantic dementia suggests that the ATL supports an amodal hub.

  • Functional neuroimaging studies of semantic processing only sometimes reveal activation in the ATL. The likelihood of activation in this region, however, can be predicted by a combination of the specific imaging techniques employed and the specificity of semantic processing required by the imaging task.

  • Simulations of semantic memory in connectionist models suggest one reason why the semantic network might require a hub: without such an architecture, it is not clear how the system can learn representations that capture semantic similarity relations.


Mr M, a patient with semantic dementia — a neurodegenerative disease that is characterized by the gradual deterioration of semantic memory — was being driven through the countryside to visit a friend and was able to remind his wife where to turn along the not-recently-travelled route. Then, pointing at the sheep in the field, he asked her “What are those things?” Prior to the onset of symptoms in his late 40s, this man had normal semantic memory. What has gone wrong in his brain to produce this dramatic and selective erosion of conceptual knowledge?

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Two theoretical positions regarding the neuroanatomical distribution of the cortical semantic network and schematic models based on these views.
Figure 2: Examples of impaired performance on semantic tasks in patients with semantic dementia.
Figure 3: Differences between semantic dementia and Alzheimer's disease in measures of brain function and semantic memory.
Figure 4: ATL activation in functional imaging studies of semantic processing.


  1. 1

    Tulving, E. in Organisation of Memory (eds Tulving, E. & Donaldson, W.) 381–403 (Academic, New York, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Fodor, J. A. The Modularity of Mind (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Thompson-Schill, S. L. Neuroimaging studies of semantic memory: inferring “how” from “where”. Neuropsychologia 41, 280–292 (2003). This review of neuropsychological and functional imaging studies offers a succinct overview of the modality-specific components of the cortical semantic network and addresses the role of prefrontal regions in control or selection of semantic information.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Allport, D. A. in Current Perspectives in Dysphasia (eds Newman, S. K. & Epstein, R.) 32–60 (Churchill Livingston, Edinburgh, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Martin, A. The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58, 25–45 (2007). This is an elegant review of evidence for a distributed network of semantic features linked to the sensory and motor systems that analyse such features as input. It also argues for categorical organization of semantic memory.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Saffran, E. M. & Schwartz, M. F. in Attention and Performance XV (eds Umilta, C. & Moscovitch, M.) 507–535 (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Riddoch, M. J., Humphreys, G. W., Coltheart, M. & Funnell, E. Semantic systems or system? Neuropsychological evidence re-examined. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 5, 3–25 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Caramazza, A., Hillis, A. E., Rapp, B. C. & Romani, C. The multiple semantic hypothesis: multiple confusions? Cogn. Neuropsychol. 7, 161–189 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Damasio, A. R. The brain binds entities and events by multiregional activation from convergence zones. Neural Comput. 1, 123–132 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Damasio, A. R. & Damasio, H. in Large-Scale Neuronal Theories of the Brain (ed. Koch, C.) 61–74 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Damasio, H., Grabowski, T. J., Tranel, D., Hichwa, R. D. & Damasio, A. R. A neural basis for lexical retrieval. Nature 380, 499–505 (1996). This landmark paper combined lesion analysis in a large group of patients and PET imaging in normal individuals to identify brain regions crucial to retrieval of names for entities in different semantic categories (famous people, animals and tools).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Tranel, D., Damasio, H. & Damasio, A. R. A neural basis for the retrieval of conceptual knowledge. Neuropsychologia 35, 1319–11327 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Damasio, H., Tranel, D., Grabowski, T., Adolphs, R. & Damasio, A. R. Neural systems behind word and concept retrieval. Cognition 92, 179–229 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Beauchamp, M. S., Argall, B. D., Bodurka, J., Duyn, J. H. & Martin, A. Unravelling multisensory integration: patchy organization within human STS multisensory cortex. Nature Neurosci. 7, 1190–1192 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Snowden, J. S., Neary, D. & Mann, D. M. A. Fronto-Temporal Lobar Degeneration: Fronto-Temporal Dementia, Progressive Aphasia, Semantic Dementia (Churchill Livingstone, New York, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Davies, R. R. et al. The pathological basis of semantic dementia. Brain 128, 1962–1963 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Warrington, E. K. The selective impairment of semantic memory. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 27, 635–657 (1975). This article represents one of the first, and still one of the very best and most creative, neuropsychological investigations of semantic dementia.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Schwartz, M. F., Martin, O. S. M. & Saffran, E. M. Dissociations of language function in dementia: a case study. Brain Lang. 7, 277–306 (1979).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Snowden, J. S., Goulding, P. J. & Neary, D. Semantic dementia: a form of circumscribed cerebral atrophy. Behav. Neurol. 2, 111–138 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Delacourte, A. et al. The biochemical pathway of neurofibrillary degeneration in aging and Alzheimer's disease. Neurology 52, 1158–1165 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Nestor, P. J., Fryer, T. D., Smielewski, P. & Hodges, J. R. Limbic hypometabolism in Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment. Ann. Neurol. 54, 343–351 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Giffard, B. et al. The nature of semantic memory deficits in Alzheimer's disease. Brain 124, 1522–1532 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Grossman, M. et al. Neural basis for semantic memory difficulty in Alzheimer's disease: an fMRI study. Brain 126, 292–311 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Galton, C. J., Patterson, K., Xuereb, J. H. & Hodges, J. R. Atypical and typical presentations of Alzheimer's disease: a clinical, neuropsychological, neuroimaging and pathological study of 13 cases. Brain 123, 484–498 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Lambon Ralph, M. A., Lowe, C. & Rogers, T. T. Neural basis of category-specific deficits for living things: evidence from semantic dementia, HSVE and a neural network model. Brain 130, 1127–1137 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Noppeney, U. et al. Temporal lobe lesions and semantic impairment: a comparison of herpes simplex virus encephalitis and semantic dementia. Brain 130, 1138–1147 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Caramazza, A. & Shelton, J. R. Domain specific knowledge systems in the brain: the animate-inanimate distinction. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 10, 1–34 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Farah, M. J. & McClelland, J. L. A computational model of semantic memory impairment: modality specificity and emergent category specificity. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 120, 339–357 (1991).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Warrington, E. K. & Shallice, T. Category-specific semantic impairment. Brain 107, 829–854 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Shallice, T. From Neuropsychology to Mental Structure (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Jefferies, E. & Lambon Ralph, M. A. Semantic impairment in stroke aphasia versus semantic dementia: a case-series comparison. Brain 129, 2132–2147 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Jefferies, E., Patterson, K. & Lambon Ralph, M. A. Deficits of knowledge vs. executive control in semantic cognition: insights from cued naming. Neuropsychologia 18 Sep 2004 (doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.09.007).

  33. 33

    Graham K., Patterson, K. & Hodges, J. R. Progressive pure anomia: insufficient activation of phonology by meaning. Neurocase 1, 25–38 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Berthier, M. Transcortical Aphasias (Psychology, Hove East Sussex, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    Badre, D., Poldrack, R., Paré-Blagoev E., Insler R. & Wagner, A. Dissociable controlled retrieval and generalized selection mechanisms in ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. Neuron 47, 907–918 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Gold, B. T. et al. Dissociation of automatic and strategic lexical-semantics: functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence for differing roles of multiple frontotemporal regions. J. Neurosci. 26, 6523–6532 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37

    Diehl, B. et al. Cerebral metabolic patterns at early stages of frontotemporal dementia and semantic dementia. A PET study. Neurobiol. Aging 25, 1051–1056 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38

    Desgranges, B. et al. Anatomical and functional alterations in semantic dementia: a voxel-based MRI and PET study. Neurobiol. Aging 28, 1904–1913.

  39. 39

    Nestor, P. J., Fryer T. D. & Hodges J. R. Declarative memory impairments in Alzheimer's disease and semantic dementia. Neuroimage 30, 1010–1020 (2006). This study highlighted that the lesions (defined by FDG-PET metabolism) associated with the semantic deficit in semantic dementia are restricted to the anterior temporal lobes, whereas posterior temporal hypometabolism was evident in an Alzheimer group with absent or very mild semantic deficits.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Chan, D. et al. Patterns of temporal lobe atrophy in semantic dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Ann. Neurol. 49, 433–442 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. 41

    Davies, R. R., Graham, K. S., Xuereb, J. H., Williams, G. B. & Hodges, J. R. The human perirhinal cortex and semantic memory. Eur. J. Neurosci. 20, 2441–2446 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42

    Mummery, C. J. et al. A voxel-based morphometry study of semantic dementia: relationship between temporal lobe atrophy and semantic memory. Ann. Neurol. 47, 36–45 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43

    Seeley, W. W. et al. The natural history of temporal variant frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 64, 1384–1390 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 44

    Chao, L. L., Haxby, J. V. & Martin, A. Attribute-based neural substrates in temporal cortex for perceiving and knowing about objects. Nature Neurosci. 2, 913–919 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45

    Goldberg, R. F., Perfetti, C. A. & Schneider, W. Perceptual knowledge retrieval activates sensory brain regions. J. Neurosci. 26, 4917–4921 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 46

    Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I. & Pulvermuller, F. Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron 41, 301–307 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. 47

    James, T. W. & Gauthier, I. Auditory and action semantic features activate sensory-specific perceptual brain regions. Curr. Biol. 13, 1792–1796 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48

    Kellenbach, M. L., Brett, M. & Patterson, K. Large, colourful or noisy? Attribute- and modality-specific activations during retrieval of perceptual attribute knowledge. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 1, 207–221 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49

    Kellenbach, M. L., Brett, M. & Patterson, K. Actions speak louder than functions: the importance of manipulability and action in tool representations. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 15, 20–46.

  50. 50

    Joseph, J. E. Functional neuroimaging studies of category specificity in object recognition: a critical review and meta-analysis. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 1, 119–136.

  51. 51

    Moore, C. J. & Price, C. J. Three distinct ventral occipitotemporal regions for reading and object naming. Neuroimage 10, 181–192 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52

    Devlin, J. T. et al. Susceptibility-induced loss of signal: comparing PET and fMRI on a semantic task. Neuroimage 11, 589–600 (2000). These experiments highlighted an important methodological issue for fMRI. Using a semantic categorization paradigm and a comparison of imaging methods, the authors established that the significant anterior temporal lobe activation evident with H 2150-PET was largely absent with fMRI — a consequence of MRI susceptibility artefact.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53

    Mummery, C. J., Patterson, K., Hodges, J. R. & Wise, R. J. S. Generating 'tiger' as an animal name or a word beginning with T: differences in brain activation. Proc. Biol. Sci. 263, 989–995 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54

    Price, C. J., Devlin, J. T., Moore, C. J., Morton, C. & Laird, A. R. Meta-analyses of object naming: effect of baseline. Hum. Brain Mapp. 25, 70–82 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55

    Rogers, T. T. et al. Anterior temporal cortex and semantic memory: reconciling findings from neuropsychology and functional imaging. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 6, 201–213 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56

    Bright, P., Moss, H. & Tyler, L. K. Unitary vs multiple semantics: PET studies of word and picture processing. Brain Lang. 89, 417–432 (2004). This publication is significant because its conjunction analysis of four PET studies, using different kinds of semantic tasks and stimuli, revealed common activation in the anterior temporal lobe, and because it highlights the impact of specificity of semantic processing.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57

    Crinion, J. T., Lambon-Ralph, M. A., Warburton, E. A., Howard, D. & Wise, R. J. S. Temporal lobe regions engaged in normal speech comprehension. Brain 126, 1193–1201 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58

    Scott, S. K., Blank, C. C., Rosen, S. & Wise, R. J. S. Identification of a pathway for intelligible speech in the left temporal lobe. Brain 123, 2400–2406 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. 59

    Lindenberg, R. & Scheef, L. Supramodal language comprehension: role of the left temporal lobe for listening and reading. Neuropsychologia 45, 2407–2415 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 60

    Marinkovic K. et al. Spatiotemporal dynamics of modality-specific and supramodal word processing. Neuron 28, 487–497 (2003). This paper demonstrated the potential of MEG to map the early temporal sequence of regional activation in a semantic paradigm. Auditory and visual stimuli each initially engaged their respective sensory cortices but ultimately the activation from each converged on the anterior temporal lobes.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61

    Grabowski, T. J. et al. A role for left temporal pole in the retrieval of words for unique entities. Hum. Brain Mapp. 13, 199–212 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. 62

    Gorno-Tempini, M. L. & Price, C. J. Identification of famous faces and buildings: a functional neuroimaging study of semantically unique items. Brain 124, 2087–2097 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. 63

    Nakamura, K. et al. Functional delineation of the human occipito-temporal areas related to face and scene processing: a PET study. Brain 123, 1903–1912 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. 64

    Gorno-Tempini, M. L. et al. The neural systems sustaining face and proper-name processing. Brain 121, 2103–2118 (1998).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 65

    Tsukiura, T., Mochizuki-Kawai, H. & Fujii, T. Dissociable roles of the bilateral anterior temporal lobe in face-name associations: an event-related fMRI study. Neuroimage 30, 617–626 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 66

    Nakamura, K., et al. Neural substrates for recognition for familiar voices: a PET study. Neuropsychologia 39, 1047–1054 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. 67

    Snowden, J. S., Thompson, J. C. & Neary D. Knowledge of famous faces and names in semantic dementia. Brain 4, 860–872 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68

    Hodges, J. R., Graham, N. & Patterson, K. Charting the progression in semantic dementia: implications for the organisation of semantic memory. Memory 3, 463–495 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. 69

    Hodges, J. R., Patterson, K. & Tyler, L. K. Loss of semantic memory: implications for the modularity of mind. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 11, 505–542 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70

    Rogers, T. T., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Hodges, J. R. & Patterson, K. Natural selection: the impact of semantic impairment on lexical and object decision. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 21, 331–352 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 71

    Patterson, K. & Erzinçlioglu, S. in Drawing and Non-Verbal Intelligence (eds Lange-Kuettner, C. & Vinter, A.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, in the press).

  72. 72

    Rogers, T. T. & Patterson, K. Object categorization: reversals and explanations of the basic-level advantage. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen., 136, 451–469 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. 73

    Gorno-Tempini, M. L., Cipolotti, L. & Price, C. J. Category differences in brain activation studies: where do they come from? Proc. Biol. Sci. 267, 1253–1258 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. 74

    Gauthier, I., Anderson, A. W., Tarr, M. J., Skudlarski, P. & Gore, J. C. Levels of categorization in visual recognition studied using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Curr. Biol. 7, 645–651 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. 75

    Tyler, L. K. et al. Processing objects at different levels of specificity. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 16, 351–362 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 76

    Buxbaum, L. J. & Saffran, E. M. Knowledge of object manipulation and object function: dissociations in apraxic and nonapraxic subjects. Brain Lang. 82, 179–199 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. 77

    Chao, L. L. & Martin, A. Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. Neuroimage 12, 478–484 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. 78

    Hodges, J. R., Bozeat, S., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Patterson, K. & Spatt, J. The role of conceptual knowledge in object use: evidence from semantic dementia. Brain 123, 1913–1925 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. 79

    Bozeat, S., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Patterson, K. & Hodges, J. R. When objects lose their meaning: what happens to their use? Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 2, 236–251 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. 80

    Adlam, A. L. et al. Semantic dementia and fluent primary progressive aphasia: two sides of the same coin? Brain 129, 3066–80 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. 81

    Rogers, T. T., Patterson, K. & Graham, K. S. Colour knowledge in semantic dementia: it's not all black and white. Neuropsychologia (in the press).

  82. 82

    Rogers, T. T. & McClelland, J. L. Semantic Cognition: A Parallel Distributed Processing Approach (MIT press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 2004). The general theory of human semantic abilities described in this book explains how we come to know which properties are important for representing which concepts, and why this ability may critically depend upon neuroanatomical convergence within the cortical semantic network.

    Google Scholar 

  83. 83

    Plaut, D. C. Graded modality-specific specialization in semantics: a computational account of optic aphasia. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 19, 603–639 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 84

    Macario, J. F. Young children's use of color in classification: foods and canonically colored objects. Cogn. Dev. 6, 17–46 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 85

    Gelman, R. & Williams, E. M. in Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. II: Cognition, Perception and Development (eds Kuhn, D. & Siegler, R.) 575–530 (Wiley, New York, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86

    Keil, F. C. Concepts, Kinds and Cognitive Development (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  87. 87

    Murphy, G. L. & Medin, D. L. The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychol. Rev. 92, 289–316 (1985).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. 88

    Rogers, T. T. et al. Structure and deterioration of semantic memory: a neuropsychological and computational investigation. Psychol. Rev. 111, 205–235 (2004). This paper describes a model implementation of the distributed-plus-hub theory and uses the model to explain many different aspects of the semantic impairment observed in semantic dementia.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 89

    Garrard, P., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Hodges, J. R. & Patterson, K. Prototypicality, distinctiveness and intercorrelation: analyses of the semantic attributes of living and nonliving items. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 18, 125–174 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. 90

    Patterson, K. The reign of typicality in semantic memory. philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 362, 813–821 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. 91

    Hodges, J. R., Patterson, K., Oxbury, S. & Funnell, E. Semantic dementia: progressive fluent aphasia with temporal lobe atrophy. Brain 115, 1783–1806 (1992).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. 92

    Patterson, K. et al. 'Pre-semantic' cognition in semantic dementia: six deficits in search of an explanation. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 18, 169–183 (2006). This paper demonstrates that the amodal semantic deficit in semantic dementia produces the same pattern of impaired performance across a range of tasks differing in modality of input and output.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. 93

    Gloor, P. The Temporal Lobe and Limbic System (OUP, New York, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  94. 94

    Hickok, G. & Poeppel, D. The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 8, 393–402 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. 95

    Adolphs, R. & Spezio, M. Role of the amygdala in processing social stimuli. Prog. Brain Res. 156, 363–378 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. 96

    Martin, A. & Chao, L. L. Semantic memory and the brain: structure and processes. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 11, 194–201 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. 97

    Snodgrass, J. G. & Vanderwart, M. A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. J. Exp. Psychol. 6, 174–215 (1980).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. 98

    Howard, D. & Patterson, K. Pyramids and Palm Trees: A Test of Semantic Access from Pictures and Words. (Thames Valley test Co., Bury St Edmunds, UK, 1992)

    Google Scholar 

  99. 99

    Binder, J. R. et al. Human temporal lobe activation by speech and nonspeech sounds. Cereb. Cortex 10, 512–528 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. 100

    Davis, M. H. & Johnsrude, I. S. Hierarchical processing in spoken language comprehension. J. Neurosci. 23, 3423–3431 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. 101

    Scott, S. K., Rosen, S., Lang, H. & Wise, R. J. Neural correlates of intelligibility in speech investigated with noise vocoded-speech—-a positron emission tomography study. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120, 1075–1083 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. 102

    Ferstl, E. C., Rinck, M. & von Cramon, D. Y. Emotional and temporal aspects of situation model processing during text comprehension: an event-related fMRI study. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 17, 724–739 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. 103

    Noppeney, U., Price, C. J., Duncan, J. S. & Koepp, M. J. Reading skills after left anterior temporal lobe resection: an fMRI study. Brain 128, 1377–1385 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. 104

    Devlin, J. T. et al. Is there an anatomical basis for category-specificity? Semantic memory studies in PET and fMRI. Neuropsychologia 40, 54–75 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. 105

    Noppeney, U. & Price, C. J. Retrieval of visual, auditory, and abstract semantics. Neuroimage 15, 917–926 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. 106

    Papathanassiou, D. et al. A common language network for comprehension and production: a contribution to the definition of language epicentres with PET. Neuroimage 11, 347–357 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. 107

    Tranel, D., Grabowski, T. J., Lyon, J. & Damasio, H. Naming the same entities from visual or from auditory stimulation engages similar regions of left inferotemporal cortices. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 17, 1293–1305 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. 108

    Binder, J. R., Westbury, C. F., McKiernan, K. A., Possing, E. T. & Medler, D. A. Distinct brain systems for processing concrete and abstract concepts. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 17, 905–917 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. 109

    Mummery, C. J., Shallice, T. & Price, C. J. Dual-process model in semantic priming: a functional imaging perspective. Neuroimage 9, 516–525 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. 110

    Small, D. M., Jones-Gotman, M., Zatorre, R. J., Petrides, M. & Evans A. C. A role for the right anterior temporal lobe in taste quality recognition. J. Neurosci. 17, 5136–5142 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. 111

    Simons, J. S., Koutstaal, W., Prince, S., Wagner, A. & Schacter, D. Neural mechanisms of visual object priming: evidence for perceptual and semantic distinctions in fusiform cortex. Neuroimage 19, 613–626 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. 112

    Vuilleumier, P., Henson, R. N., Driver, J. & Dolan, R. J. Multiple levels of visual object constancy revealed by event-related fMRI of repetition priming. Nature Neurosci. 5, 491–499 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. 113

    Phillips, J. A., Humphreys, G. W., Noppeney, U. & Price, C. J. The neural substrates of action retrieval: an examination of semantic and visual routes to action. Vis. Cogn. 9, 662–684 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. 114

    Brett, M. The MNI brain and the Talairach atlas. MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit [online] (2002).

    Google Scholar 

Download references


We gratefully acknowledge help from E. Copper-Pye in preparation of the manuscript.

Author information



Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Karalyn Patterson or Timothy T. Rogers.


Expressive vocabulary

The set of words that an individual knows and can retrieve for referring to objects and other concepts in speech or writing.

Receptive vocabulary

The set of words that an individual can comprehend when hearing or reading them.


Impaired language abilities resulting from brain disease or injury.


The term that is applied to representations or processes that operate across different kinds of sensory, motor and linguistic representations. For instance, representations and processes that receive input from and/or direct output to both visual and auditory representations would be considered cross-modal.


The failure to name objects, concepts and people, whether in response to stimulus presentation or in spontaneous speech.

Volumetric MRI

A method that uses finely cut brain slices (usually less than 2 mm thick) to measure the volume of brain structures.

Voxel-by-voxel analysis

A method of whole-brain image analysis in which the brain scans of different individuals are fitted to a standard template (to minimize inter-individual differences in brain shape) so that brain regions can be compared systematically across subjects.

Lesion-overlap study

A method that seeks to define a common area of brain damage relevant to a given behavioural deficit by overlaying the scan-defined lesions of multiple subjects with the behavioural deficit in question.

PET activation paradigm

An experimental paradigm that uses PET to measure changes in cerebral perfusion in response to a stimulus.


(MEG). A method of measuring physiological activity across the cortex by detecting pertubations in the magnetic field that is generated by the electrical activity of neuronal populations.

Voxel-based morphometry

A voxel-by-voxel analysis of structural-image data, most commonly the grey-matter segments extracted from T1-weighted MRI.

Conjunction analysis

A statistical method used in functional brain imaging research for identifying brain regions that are significantly activated in two or more separate experimental conditions.

Connectionist model

A form of computational model used to understand cognitive processes by simulating the flow of activation among simple, neuron-like processing units through weighted, synapse-like connections.

Normative property-listing studies

Studies in which participants are given the name of a category or item (for example, 'bird' or 'robin') and asked to list as many properties as they can think of that characterize it. The proportion of participants that list any particular property serves as an index of the property's importance to the concept.


A non-verbal method of investigating a person's knowledge of objects in which the participant is given a concept name (for example, 'camel') and asked to draw the corresponding object.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Patterson, K., Nestor, P. & Rogers, T. Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain. Nat Rev Neurosci 8, 976–987 (2007).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing