Linking Vision, Brain and Language
Jinyong Lee
Computer Science
Department
University of Southern
California
4/13/2015
Part I: Hearing Gazes – eye movements and visual scene
recognition
An unexpected visitor (I.E. Repin, 1884-1888)
[2]
SemRep (Semantic Representation) is a hierarchically
organized graph-like representation for encoding semantics and
concepts that are possibly anchored on a visual scene.
WOMAN
HITTING
ACTION
MAN
edges to specify relations
between nodes
objects or actions as
nodes
BLUE
CLOTHE
Original image from:
“Invisible Man Jangsu Choi”, Korean Broadcasting System (KBS)
Another whole SemRep
structure embedded in
WOMAN node
[3]
SemRep is proposed as a ‘bridge’ between the vision and the
language system.
“A woman in blue hits a man”
“A woman hits a man and
she wears a blue dress”
“A man is hit by a woman
who wears a blue dress”
“A pretty woman is hitting a man”
Language System
Vision System
•Dynamically changing
(even for static scenes)
•Cognitively important
entities encoded only
(different case by case)
SemRep
•Temporally stored in WM
[4]
What’s happening?
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/funny-pictures-fashion-sense-cat-springs-into-action.jpg
[5]
A single structure of SemRep usually encodes a cognitive event
that corresponds to a ‘minimal subscene (Itti & Arbib, 2006)’,
which can later be extended into an ‘anchored subscene’.
1. Firstly the man’s face
captures attention (human
faces are cognitively
salient); minimal subscene
3
4
2. Then the high contrast
of the cat’s paw captures
attention  action
recognition is performed
and it biases the attention
system onto the agent
(cat)
2
1
3. The cat on the roof
found as the agent of the
paw action; incremental
building
4. It completes a bigger
subscene  building the
Agent-Action-Patient
propositional structure;
anchored subscene
[6]
The entities encoded in SemRep are NOT logical but
perceptually grounded symbolic representations.
Theories and findings on conceptual deficits (Damasio, 1989; Warrington & Shallice 1984;
Caramazza & Shelton, 1998; Tyler & Moss, 2001) suggest modality-specific
representations distributed categorically over the brain
Perceptual Symbol System (PSS) (Barsalou, 1999): stimulus inputs are captured in the
modality-specific feature maps, then integrated in an association area
re-enactment
(simulation)
of the learned
concept CAR
Figure 2. Barsalou et al., 2003
learning (encoding)
the concept CAR
representing the
encoded concepts
as perceptual
symbols (SemRep)
[7]
The schematic structure (relations, hierarchies, etc.) of
SemRep can be viewed as a cross-modal association between
very high level sensori-motor integration areas in the brain.
Conceptual Topography Theory (CTT) (Simmons & Barsalou, 2003): hierarchically
organized convergence zones  the higher, the more symbolic and amodal
X
Figure 3. Simmons & Barsalou, 2003
[8]
Since SemRep is still in its hypothetical stage, an eye-tracking study
(but it only captures ‘overt’ attention) has been designed and
conducted to evaluate its validity.
Microphone
Capturing human eye movements and verbal description simultaneously while showing images/videos
 To investigate the temporal relationship between eye-movements and the verbal description
[9]
Mainly four hypotheses are proposed and two types of tasks are
suggested in order to verify each hypothesis.
Hypothesis I – Mental Preparation
Hypothesis II – Structural Message
Hypothesis III – Dynamic Interaction
Task I – “describe what you are
seeing as quickly as possible”
Task II – “describe what you have
seen during the scene display”
Hypothesis IV – Spatial Anchor
Table 1. Possible experiment configurations between hypotheses and tasks/visual scenes
[10]
‘Task I’ is to investigate the eye movements for estimating
possible SemRep structures built and their connection to the
spoken description.
Instruction
“Describe what you are seeing as quickly as possible”
Real-time description (with speech recording) during the visual scene display
Expectations
1) There would be rich dynamic interaction with the eye movements
and the utterance
2) Having the subjects speak as quickly as possible would reveal the
structure of the internal structure that they are using for speaking
NOTE: Experiments for only this with static images were conducted
[11]
‘Task II’ is to investigate the eye movements after the scene
display for evaluating the validity of the spatial component of
SemRep.
Instruction
“Describe what you have seen during the previous scene display”
Post-event description (with speech recording) after the visual scene display
Expectations
1) The eye movements will sincerely reflect the remembered object
locations being described
2) The sentence structure of the description would be more wellformed, and the order of description and the order of fixations would be less
congruent
[12]
The Mental Preparation Hypothesis (Hypothesis I) asserts that gazes
are not merely meaningless gestures but they actually reflect
attention and mental effort in verbal description production.
1) Speakers plan (building an internal representation) what to say while
gazing, and only after it is relatively complete they begin speaking
(Griffin, 2005)
2) There is a tight correlation between gazing and description  usually
gazing comes 100ms ~ 300ms earlier than the actual description (Griffin,
2001)
An overlapping
utterance pattern
for two
consecutive
nouns A and B
Figure 2. Griffin, 2001
[13]
The experiment result suggests that there is a very strong correlation
between the eye movements and the verbal description such that
gazes come before the utterances, indicating what to be spoken next.
Eye gazes ‘right before’ verbal descriptions
01_soldiers [fairman]
4.08~5.2::“one soldier smiles at him”  gaze on a soldier’s face
7.33~8.79::“he’s got sandals and shoes on”  gaze on person’s shoes
05_basketball [fairman]
2.82 ~ 3.52:: “he has the ball”  gaze on ball
06_conversation [fairman]
4.08~5.01:: “reading books”  gazes on books
14.86~16.62:: “the woman on the right wears boots”  gazes on boots and a woman
…and a lot more!!!
Others
1)The delay between gazes and descriptions seem to be a bit longer than
suggested by Griffin (2005; 2001) – about 500ms ~ 1,500ms  this might be
due to the fact that Griffin’s case is in the word level but ours is in the
sentential/clausal level
2)There seems to be a parallelism between the vision system (gaze) and the
language system (description) since subjects already moved their gazes to some
other locations during speaking about an object/event
[14]
The Structural Message Hypothesis (Hypothesis II) asserts that the
internal representation for speakers is an organized structure that can
be directly translated into a proposition or clause.
1) van der Meulen (2003): speakers outline messages (some semantic
representation similar to SemRep, used for producing utterances)
approximately one proposition or clause at a time
2) Itti & Arbib (2006): for whatever reason, an agent, action or object may
attract the viewer’s attention then attention would be directed to seek to
place this ‘anchor’ in context within the scene, completing the ‘minimal
subscene’ in an incremental manner; a minimal subscene can be
extended by adding details to elements, resulting in ‘anchored subscene’
 each subscene corresponds to a propositional structure that in turn
corresponds to a clause (or sentence)
3) There must be a difference between the eye movement patterns for “a
woman hits a man and she wears a hat” and “a woman wearing a hat
hits a man” although the used lexicons are about the same
[15]
The experiment result indicates that a relatively complex eye
movements are followed by utterances either with more complex
sentence structures or with more thematic information involved.
Eye gazes of a complex movement pattern
03_athletic [fairman]
2.81~3.93::“one team just lost”  after inspecting at the both groups
3.93~5.52::“they are looking at the team that won”  this involves inspecting the both of the
groups (whereas [karl] “they’re really skinny… got a baton”  only focuses on the left group)
11_pool [fairman]
6.26~7.57:: “sort of talking to some girls…”  after inspecting the guy and the girls at the
bar
7.57~9.62:: “but he's actually watching these two guys play pool..”  but right after
switched the gaze between the guy and the pool table (hole)
06_converstaion [fairman]
9.26~11.07:: “...looks like he's wondering what they shared”  looking at both sides of the
groups
and the guy’s face (probably for figuring out the eye-gaze direction) and body
Eye gazes of a simple pattern
Conversely, eye movements involving with simple sentence structures (e.g.
“there is a man...”, “He’s wearing sandals…”, “…got something”, etc.) are quite
simple and they are more like a serial movement from one item to another
whereas complex ones involve visiting several locations
[16]
The Dynamic Interaction Hypothesis (Hypothesis III) asserts that the
vision and language system are constantly interacting so that not only
the visual attention guides the verbal expression but also does the
other way.
1) Fixations followed by producing complex nouns are longer than those
followed by simple nouns (Myer, 2005)
2)
Both the elemental (low-level elemental
attention attraction) and structural (more
high-level/top-down structure)
considerations are done for producing
sentences on the given scene (Bock et al.,
2005) Passive sentence
 simple causal
schemas might have
been involved
a relatively complex structure
lengthens the fixation duration
Active sentence
 occur more frequently
and easier to produce
Figure 1. Myer, 2005
Figure 1. Bock et al., 2005
[17]
The tendency of longer fixation for complex expressions was
found from the result; also, there were several cases where the
description being produced seems to bias the gaze.
Construction requiring more information
01_soldiers [fairman]
5.21~5.72  5.72~7.33:: “His hat…”  “he’s wearing a military hat…”
10.18~11.45  11.45~12.70:: “…and he’s got a bag”  “it’s like a crumpled up bag”
 longer gazes that follow right after short gazes; probably the subjects thought the
construction is too simple or missing crucial information to be produced as a sentence
More dynamic interaction between gaze and utterance
08_disabled [fairman]
4.5~5.68  5.68~7.42:: “...someone who just fell...”  “..black
woman just
fell...number seven”  probably the construction
required more detailed
information to fill in instead of just ‘someone’
05_basketball [fairman]
10.35~12.28  13.41~14.39:: “...being guarded by another guy in the black
who...”  firstly produced sentence seemed to require more information (more than the
gender and the color of uniform) on the guy who blocks the player  “...looks kinda out of
it...”  later it turned out to be irrelevant
[18]
The Spatial Anchor Hypothesis (Hypothesis IV) asserts that the
attentional focus serves the function of associating spatial pointers
with elements perceived; accessing them in working memory (WM)
later requires covert/overt attention shifts.
1) SemRep (Arbib & Lee, 2008): an
internal structure that encodes
semantic information associated
with the elements of the scene by
coarsely coded spatial coordinates
2) Hollywood Squares experiment
(Richardson & Spivey, 2000)
3) The tropical fish experiment (Laeng
& Teodorescu, 2002)
More likely to see here!
Figure 2. Richardson & Spivey, 2000
NOTE: This experiment is not
conducted yet
[19]
The current study can be extended by including: (1) account for
gist (covert attention), and (2) more thorough account for the
language bias on the attentional shifts.
1) For almost all experiment results, ‘gist’ (without particular gazes
involves) plays a role at least at the initial phase of the scene recognition
 the current study focuses only on the overt-type attention, but the
covert-type would be important as well
05_basketball [fairman]
1.04~1.79:: “basket ball”  after a short gaze only on a player
06_converstation [fairman]
1.48~2.53:: “Home situation”  there is no specific gaze found
This is usually at the beginning of the scene display  later description goes on to more
specific objects/events in the scene
2) van der Meulen et al.(2001): even if an object is repeatedly mentioned,
the subjects still looks back at the object although less frequently  a
good example of the influence of the language system on the vision
system (the Dynamic Interaction Hypothesis)
Firstly mentioned: 82%, Secondly: 67% (with noun) / 50% (with pronoun)
 It needs to devise a more thorough way on accounting for the hypothesis
[20]
Part II: A New Approach – Construction Grammar and Template
Construction Grammar (TCG)
Sidney Harris’s Science Cartoons (S. Harris, 2003)
[21]
Constructions are basically ‘form-meaning pairings’ that serve
as basic building blocks for grammatical structure, thus blurring
the distinction between semantic and syntax.
Goldberg (2003): Constructions are stored pairings of form and function,
including morphemes, words, idioms, partially lexically filled and fully general
linguistic patterns
Table 1. Examples of constructions, varying in size and complexity; form and function are specified if not
readily transparent (Goldberg, 2003)
They are not grammatical
components and might be
different among individuals
[22]
Seriously, there is virtually NO difference between semantic and
grammatical components – semantic constraints and
grammatical constraints are interchangable.
Examples where the distinction between semantic and syntactic constraints
blurs out
(a) Bill hit Bob’s arm.
(b) Bill broke Bob’s arm.
(a) John sent the package to Jane.
(b) John sent Jane the package.
(a) Bill hit Bob on the arm.
(b) *Bill broke Bob on the arm.
(a) John sent the package to the dormitory.
(b) *John sent the dormitory the package.
[X V Y on Z]  V has to be a ‘contact
verb (e.g. caress, kiss, lick, pat,
stroke)’ not ‘break verb (e.g. break,
rip, smash, spliter, tear)’ (Kemmerer,
2005)
[X transfer-verb Y Z]  X and (especially) Y
have to be ‘animate’ objects
The semantic of the verb, not the syntactic category, is what decides the
syntactic category of the sentence
[23]
Construction grammar paradigm is also supported (1) from the
neurophysiological perspective and (2) by the ontogenetic
account.
1) Bergen & Wheeler (2005): not only the content words but also (or even
more) the function words contribute to the context of a sentence
(a) John is closing the drawer.  motor activation (strong ACE found)
(b) John has closed the drawer.  visual activation (less or no ACE found)
ACE: Action-sentence Compatibility Effect
 Although the same content words are used, the mental interpretations vary
2) Vocabulary among each individual expands/shrinks through time 
grammatical categories are at theoretical, not necessarily cognitive,
convenience
“want milk”
(holophrase)
“I’m-sorry”
(holophrase)
“want X”
(general construction) (Hill, 1983)
“I[NP] am[VP] sorry[ADJ]”
(general construction)
[24]
Constructions defined in Template Construction Grammar
(TCG) represent the ‘form-meaning’ pairings as ‘templates’.
construction
name
class defines syntactic
hierarchy level as well as
the ‘competition and
cooperation’ style
Template  SemRep as the semantic meaning and
a lexical sequence (with slots) as the syntactic form
[25]
There are broadly two types of constructions; one encodes
rather simple lexical information while the other encodes a more
abstract syntactic structure.
Complex one encodes a higher level
abstract structure  slots define
syntactic connections while red lines
indicate the expression order
Simple one only encodes
lexical information  it
corresponds to a word
[26]
In the production mode of TCG, constructions are trying to
‘cover’ the SemRep generated by the vision system, and the
matching is done based on similarity.
more than one
construction is
attached at this
moment  it
will be sorted
out later
[27]
Constructions interact each other under the ‘competition and
cooperation’ paradigm; they compete when there are spatial
conflicts (among the same classes).
COMPETITION
COMPETITION
[28]
Constructions interact each other under the ‘competition and
cooperation’ paradigm; they cooperate (conjoin) when a
grammatical connection is possible.
Conjoined
constructions form a
hierarchical structure
that resembles a parse
tree
COOPERATION
(all over the place)
[29]
The proposed system basically consists of three main parts, the
vision system, language system and visuo-linguistic working
memory, with attention on top of them.
building
SemRep from
visual scenes
Three parts
communicate
via attention
SemRep
TCG works
here
[30]
Concurrency is the virtue of the system; the system is designed
as a real-time multi-schema network, and it allows the system a
great deal of flexibility.
The vision system
provides parts of
SemRep produced as
the interpretation of the
scene
VLWM holds SemRep
(with constructions
attached) changing
dynamically
The language system
attaches constructions
and reads off the
(partially) complete
sentence at the moment
1)The result of eye experiment strongly implicate parallelism
2)Constructions are basically schemas that run parallel (the C&C paradigm)
X
[31]
Attention is proposed as a computational resource, rather than
a procedural unit, which affects all over the system – thus it can
act as a communication medium.
There is an attentional map that covers over
the regions of the visual input via SemRep
 this affects the operation of the vision
system and VLWM
Attention
requesting more details
on a certain part of
SemRep by biasing
attention distribution
Vision
System
More attention is
required to retrieve more
concrete details  it
corresponds to the PSS
(Barsalou, 1999)
account
VLWM
There is a forgetting effect which discards SemRep
components or constructions
 a certain amount of computational resource for a
certain time duration required
Language
System
total computational
= attention at each time unit X time duration
resource required
Zoom Lens model of attention (Eriksen & Yeh, 1985): attention is a kind of multi-resolution focus
whose magnification is inversely proportional to the level of detail
Low resolution  used for large region, encompassing more objects, fewer details; perceiving groups of entities as
a coherent whole
High resolution  used for small region, fewer objects, more details; perceiving individual entities
[32]
Constructions are distributed, being centered around the
perisylvian regions which include classical Broca’s (BA 45/44),
Wernicke’s (BA 22) and the left superior temporal lobe areas.
a ‘functional web’ for linking
phonological information
related to the articulatory and
acoustic pattern of a word
form is developed
(Pullvermuler, 2001)
Kaan & Swaab 2002; Just et al. 1996;
Keller et al. 2001; Stowe et al. 2002
a phonological rehearsal device as
well as a working memory circuit for
complex syntactic verbal processes
(Aboitiz & Garcia, 1997)
[33]
Concrete words, or the lexicon constructions are
topographically distributed across brain areas associated with
the process of corresponding categorical properties.
concepts of tools or
actions correlated to
the motor and
parietal areas
 action and tool
use
It is also supported by the category-specific deficit accounts
(Warrington & McCarthy 1987; Warrington & Shallice 1984;
Caramazza & Shelton 1998; Tyler & Moss 2001).
concepts of animals
mostly associated with
the temporal  visual
properties
[34]
The higher-level constructions that encode grammatical
information might be distributed across the areas stretched from
the inferior to medial part of the left temporal cortex.
the left-inferior-temporal and fusiform gyri are
activated during processing of pragmatic,
semantic and syntactic linguistic information
(Kuperberg et al., 2000)
The perirhinal cortex is involved in object identification and its representation
formation by integrating multi-modal attributes (Murray & Richmond 2001)
[35]
The syntacti manipulation of constructions (competition and
cooperation) mainly happens in Broca’s area, which is believed
to be activated when handling complex symbolic structure.
Broca’s area is activated more when handling sentences of complex syntactic
structure than of simple structure (Stromwold et al., 1996)
for handling the
arrangement of
lexical items
for retrieving semantic
or linguistic
components during
the matching and
ordering process
BA 45 is activated by both speech and signing during the production of language narratives
done by bilingual subjects whereas BA 44 is activated by the generation of complex
articulatory movements of oral/laryngeal or limb musculature (Horwitz et al., 2003)
[36]
VLWM is built around the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
(DLPFC; BA 9/46) stretched to the left posterior parietal cortex
(BA40).
the executive component for
processing of the contents of
working memory (Smith et al., 1998)
the storage buffer for verbal
working memory circuit
(Smith et al., 1998)
The monkey prefrontal cortex is found to involve in sustaining
memory for object identity and location (Rainer et al., 1998)
[37]
References
Aboitiz, F; Garcia, R (1997) The evolutionary origin of the language areas in the human brain. A
neuroanatomical perspective, BRAIN RESEARCH REVIEWS 25 (3):381-396
Arbib, MA; Lee, J (2008) Describing visual scenes: towards a neurolinguistics based on Construction
Grammar, BRAIN RESEARCH 1225:146-162
Barsalou, LW (1999) Perceptual symbol systems, BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES 22 (4):577-+
Price, C; Thierry, G; Griffiths, T (2005) Speech-specific auditory processing: where is it?, TRENDS IN
COGNITIVE SCIENCES 9 (6):271-276
Barsalou, LW; Simmons, WK; Barbey, AK; Wilson, CD (2003) Grounding conceptual knowledge in modalityspecific systems, TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES 7 (2):84-91
Bergen, BK; Wheeler, KB (2005) Sentence understanding engages motor processes, PROCEEDINGS OF
THE TWENTY-SEVENTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE COGNITIVE SCIENCE SOCIETY
Bock, JK; Irwin, DE; Davidson, DJ (2005) Putting first things first, The Interface of Language, Vision, and
Action (Henderson, JM; Ferreira F ed), Psychology Press:249-278 (Chapter 8)
Caramazza, A; Shelton, JR (1998) Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate-inanimate
distinction, JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE 10 (1):1-34
[38]
References
Damasio, AR (1989) Time-locked multiregional retroactivation - A systems-level proposal for the neural
substrates of recall and recognition, COGNITION 33 (1-2):25-62
Eriksen, CW; Yeh, YY (1985) Allocation of attention in the visual-field, JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL
PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE 11 (5):583-597
Goldberg, AE (2003) Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language, TRENDS IN COGNITIVE
SCIENCES 7 (5):219-224
Griffin, ZM (2001) Gaze durations during speech reflect word selection and phonological encoding,
COGNITION 82 (1):B1-B14
Griffin, ZM (2005) Why look? Reasons for eye movements related to language production, The Interface of
Language, Vision, and Action (Henderson, JM; Ferreira F ed), Psychology Press:213-248 (Chapter 7)
Horowitz, TS; Wolfe, JM (1998) Visual search has no memory, NATURE 394 (6):575-577
Itti, L; Arbib, MA (2006) Attention and the minimal subscene, Action to Language: via the Mirror Neuron
System (Arbib, MA ed), Cambridge University Press:289-346 (Chapter 9)
Just, MA; Carpenter, PA; Keller, TA; Eddy, WF; Thulborn, KR (1996) Brain activation modulated by sentence
comprehension, SCIENCE 274 (5284):114-116
[39]
References
Kaan, E; Swaab, TY (2002) The brain circuitry of syntactic comprehension, TRENDS IN COGNITIVE
SCIENCES 6 (8):350-356
Keller, TA; Carpenter, PA; Just, MA (2001) The neural bases of sentence comprehension: a fMRI examination
of syntactic and lexical processing, CEREBRAL CORTEX 11 (3):223-237
Kuperberg, GR; McGuire, PK; Bullmore, ET; Brammer, MJ; Rabe-Hesketh, S; Wright, IC; Lythgoe, DJ;
Williams, SCR; David, AS (2000) Common and distinct neural substrates for pragmatic, semantic, and
syntactic processing of spoken sentences: an fMRI study, JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE 12
(2):321-341
Laeng, B; Teodorescu, D (2002) Eye scanpaths during visual imagery reenact those of perception of the same
visual scene, COGNITIVE SCIENCE 26 (2):207-231
Meyer, AS (2005) The use of eye tracking in studies of sentence generation, The Interface of Language,
Vision, and Action (Henderson, JM; Ferreira F ed), Psychology Press:191-211 (Chapter 6)
Murray, EA; Richmond, BJ (2001) Role of perirhinal cortex in object perception, memory, and associations,
CURRENT OPINION IN NEUROBIOLOGY 11 (2):188-193
Pulvermuller, F (2001) Brain reflections of words and their meaning, TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES 5
(12):517-5242001
[40]
References
Rainer, G; Asaad, WF; Miller, EK (1998) Memory fields of neurons in the primate prefrontal cortex,
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 95
(25):15008-15013
Richardson, DC; Spivey, MJ (2000) Representation, space and Hollywood Squares: looking at things that
aren’t there anymore, COGNITION 76 (3):269-295
Simmons, WK; Barsalou, LW (2003) The similarity-in-topography principle: Reconciling theories of conceptual
deficits, COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY 20 (3-6):451-486
Smith, EE; Jonides, J; Marshuetz, C; Koeppe, RA (1998) Components of verbal working memory: Evidence
from neuroimaging, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA 95 (3):876-882
Stowe, L; Withaar, R; Wijers, A; Broere, C; Paans, A (2002) Encoding and storage in working memory during
sentence comprehension. Sentence Processing and the Lexicon: Formal, Computational and Experimental
Perspectives (Merlo, P; Stevenson, S eds), John Benjamins Publishing Company:181-206
Stromswold, K; Caplan, D; Alpert, N; Rauch, S (1996) Localization of syntactic comprehension by positron
emission tomography, BRAIN AND LANGUAGE 52 (3):452-473
Tyler, LK; Moss, HE (2001) Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge, TRENDS IN COGNITIVE
SCIENCES (6):244-252
[41]
References
van der Meulen, FF; Meyer, AS; Levelt, WJ (2001) Eye movements during the production of nouns and
pronouns, MEMORY AND COGNITION 29 (3):512-521
van der Meulen, FF (2003) Coordination of eye gaze and speech in sentence production, Mediating
Warrington, EK; Shallice, T (1984) Category specific semantic impairments, BRAIN 107 (SEP):829-854
Warrington, EK; McCarthy, RA (1987) Categories of knowledge: Further fractionations and an attempted
integration, BRAIN 110 (5):1273-1296
[42]