Ender, individual, or quantity for any of his correct names. Nonetheless, per TLC response, H.M. violated reliably extra gender, individual, and quantity CCs than the controls for the widespread noun antecedents of pronouns and for the referents of pronouns and prevalent nouns, and he omitted reliably much more prevalent nouns, determiners, and modifiers than the controls when forming popular noun NPs. These benefits indicate that H.M. can conjoin referents with proper names of the proper particular person, number, and gender with out difficulty, but he produces encoding errors when conjoining referents and typical noun antecedents with pronouns in the acceptable person, number, and gender, and when conjoining referents with typical nouns in the acceptable particular person and gender. This contrast in between H.M.’s encoding of correct names versus pronouns and popular nouns comports using the operating hypothesis outlined earlier: Below this hypothesis, H.M. overused appropriate names relative to memory-normal controls when referring to people in MacKay et al. [2] simply because (a) his mechanisms are intact for conjoining the gender, number, and person of an unfamiliar person (or their image) with right names, as opposed to his corresponding mechanisms for pronouns, widespread nouns, and NPs with prevalent noun heads, and (b) H.M. applied his impaired encoding mechanisms for proper names to compensate for his impaired encoding mechanisms for the only other ways of referring to individuals: pronouns, common nouns, and widespread noun NPs. H.M. also omitted reliably extra determiners when forming NPs with prevalent noun heads, but these issues were not limited to determiners: H.M. also omitted reliably far more modifiers and nouns in NPs with common noun heads. Present results as a result point to a common difficulty in encoding NPs, consistent using the hypothesis that H.M. overused his spared encoding mechanisms for suitable names to compensate for his impaired encoding mechanisms for forming prevalent noun NPs. 5. Study 2B: How Common are H.M.’s PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338877 CC Violations To summarize, in Study 1, H.M. made reliably much more word- and phrase-level cost-free associations than the controls, ostensibly to be able to compensate for his troubles in forming phrases that are coherent, novel, correct, and grammatical. Then relative to controls referring to people in Study 2A,Brain Sci. 2013,H.M. violated reliably much more gender, number, and individual CCs when using pronouns, widespread nouns, and typical noun NPs, but not when making use of appropriate names. Following up on these final results, Study 2B tested the Study 1 assumption that forming novel phrases which might be coherent, accurate, and grammatical is generally hard for H.M. This becoming the case, we anticipated reliably much more encoding errors for H.M. than memory-normal controls in Study 2B across a wide range of CCs not examined in Study 2A, e.g., verb-modifier CCs (e.g., copular verbs can’t take adverb modifiers, as in Be happily), verb-complement CCs (e.g., verb complements for instance for her to come house are necessary to finish VPs which include asked for her to come household), auxiliary-main verb CCs (e.g., the past AZD0156 web participle got cannot conjoin using the auxiliary verb do as in He doesn’t got it), verb-object CCs (e.g., intransitive verbs cannot take direct objects, as in the earthquake happened the boy), modifier CCs (e.g., in non-metaphoric uses, adjectives can’t modify an inappropriate noun class, as in He has thorough hair), subject-verb CCs (e.g., in American uses, subjects and verbs cannot disagree in number, as in Walmart sell i.