tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048879464910781933.post3209723400994397570..comments2023-10-12T00:25:24.119-07:00Comments on Talking Brains: Language and the Motor SystemGreg Hickokhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16656473495682901613noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048879464910781933.post-71285002614456276192012-11-26T23:43:02.689-08:002012-11-26T23:43:02.689-08:00I am very much looking forward what you think of t...I am very much looking forward what you think of the lesion study by Kemmerer et al. In my view it is a classical case of biased study planning. They have no proper control task. So they found impairment in the action concept tasks because they used only action concept tasks! We now learn that the IFG is important for action concept retrieval. I think the IFG is important for any concept retrieval, or even any memory retrieval. Maybe the IFG is important for doing any task? I don't know what have happened if they also tested a math task... So my conclusion is that the title implies a specific role for action concept retrieval, whereas specificity has not been tested. I was also not so happy with their hypothesis: "we predicted that the lesion maps associated with the different tasks would not be identical, but would instead be at least somewhat heterogeneous in terms of the extent and/or degree of involvement of not only the main regions of interest". what do you think? The funny thing is that they do not come back to this issue in the discussion at all.Martimnoreply@blogger.com