% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Heim:874608,
author = {Heim, Stefan and McMillan, C. T. and Olm, C and Grossmann,
M.},
title = {{S}o many are "few", but so few are also "few" –
{R}educed semantic flexibility in bv{FTD} patients},
journal = {Frontiers in psychology},
volume = {11},
issn = {1664-1078},
address = {Lausanne},
publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
reportid = {FZJ-2020-01536},
pages = {582},
year = {2020},
abstract = {The processing of quantifier words such as “many” or
“few” is a complex operation supported by a plastic
fronto-parietal network predominantly in the left
hemisphere. The internal reference criterion defining a
quantifier (e.g., $≥50\%$ for “many”) can be modified
in a learning paradigm. Most interestingly, changing the
criterion for one quantifier also leads to a change in the
criterion for the untrained quantifier, i.e., a semantic
restructuring effect, which is supported by Broca’s region
in the left inferior frontal cortex. Here, we applied this
paradigm to patients with the behavioral variant of
fronto-temporal dementia (bvFTD) because they suffer from
loss of cognitive flexibility, reduced ability to process
quantities and their values, impaired reinforcement
learning, and language comprehension deficits. The question
was whether the patients would be able to perform the task,
show direct learning of the new quantifier meanings, and
exhibit cognitive flexibility in terms of semantic
restructuring. Eleven bvFTD patients took part in two
behavioral experiments. In Experiment 1, in a first baseline
block, each individual’s criterion for “many” and
“few” was assessed. In block 2, subjects received
feedback about their decisions. Contrary to their initial
notion, a proportion of $40\%$ yellow circles was reinforced
as “many.” In block 3, the effect of this training on
their judgments of “many” and “few” was re-assessed.
The group of bvFTD patients showed a learning effect for the
new criterion trained for the quantifier “many,” but
failed to generalize this criterion shift to the other
quantifier “few.” Experiment 2 was similar to Experiment
1, but the patients were trained in Block 2 to judge $60\%$
of circles as “few,” with no training for “many.”
Again, there was an average learning effect for the trained
quantifier “few” over the entire group, but no
generalization to “many.” Since the patients were still
able to perform the task and showed learning of “many”
to direct feedback, the data suggest that the generalization
process, rather than initial learning, is more vulnerable to
fronto-temporal degeneration.},
cin = {INM-1},
ddc = {150},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-1-20090406},
pnm = {571 - Connectivity and Activity (POF3-571)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-571},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:32308637},
UT = {WOS:000528745200001},
doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00582},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/874608},
}