Ender, person, or quantity for any of his suitable names. Having said that, per TLC response, H.M. violated reliably far more gender, particular person, and quantity CCs than the controls for the popular noun antecedents of pronouns and for the referents of pronouns and typical nouns, and he omitted reliably far more typical nouns, determiners, and modifiers than the controls when forming typical noun NPs. These results indicate that H.M. can conjoin referents with appropriate names in the acceptable individual, quantity, and gender without the need of difficulty, but he produces encoding errors when conjoining referents and prevalent noun antecedents with pronouns of the suitable individual, quantity, and gender, and when conjoining referents with prevalent nouns of the suitable person and gender. This contrast amongst H.M.’s encoding of right names versus pronouns and widespread nouns comports with all the working hypothesis outlined earlier: Under this hypothesis, H.M. overused proper names relative to memory-normal controls when referring to men and women in MacKay et al. [2] due to the fact (a) his mechanisms are intact for conjoining the gender, quantity, and individual of an unfamiliar individual (or their picture) with correct names, in contrast to his corresponding mechanisms for pronouns, popular nouns, and NPs with frequent noun heads, and (b) H.M. used his impaired encoding mechanisms for appropriate names to compensate for his impaired encoding mechanisms for the only other techniques of referring to men and women: pronouns, frequent nouns, and popular noun NPs. H.M. also omitted reliably a lot more determiners when forming NPs with common noun heads, but these troubles have been not limited to determiners: H.M. also omitted reliably extra modifiers and nouns in NPs with prevalent noun heads. Present outcomes thus point to a basic difficulty in encoding NPs, constant with all the hypothesis that H.M. overused his spared encoding mechanisms for correct names to compensate for his impaired encoding mechanisms for forming common noun NPs. five. Study 2B: How General are H.M.’s PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338877 CC Violations To summarize, in Study 1, H.M. created reliably far more word- and phrase-level totally free associations than the controls, ostensibly in an effort to compensate for his difficulties in forming phrases which are KDM5A-IN-1 supplier coherent, novel, precise, and grammatical. Then relative to controls referring to men and women in Study 2A,Brain Sci. 2013,H.M. violated reliably far more gender, number, and particular person CCs when working with pronouns, typical nouns, and widespread noun NPs, but not when using correct names. Following up on these results, Study 2B tested the Study 1 assumption that forming novel phrases which are coherent, correct, and grammatical is normally difficult for H.M. This being the case, we expected reliably far more encoding errors for H.M. than memory-normal controls in Study 2B across a wide selection of CCs not examined in Study 2A, e.g., verb-modifier CCs (e.g., copular verbs can not take adverb modifiers, as in Be happily), verb-complement CCs (e.g., verb complements like for her to come property are required to complete VPs like asked for her to come home), auxiliary-main verb CCs (e.g., the previous participle got can not conjoin together with the auxiliary verb do as in He does not got it), verb-object CCs (e.g., intransitive verbs can not take direct objects, as within the earthquake occurred the boy), modifier CCs (e.g., in non-metaphoric utilizes, adjectives cannot modify an inappropriate noun class, as in He has thorough hair), subject-verb CCs (e.g., in American utilizes, subjects and verbs can’t disagree in quantity, as in Walmart sell i.