S on the intended words, phrases, and propositions inside the BPCs. Prepositional phrases were defined as a preposition plus an NP. NPs as a noun plus (optional) determiners, adjectives, modifier, or complements, verb phrases (VPs) as a verb plus an (optional) auxiliary verb, adverb, prepositional phrase, complement or object NP (for transitive verbs only), and propositions as a pronoun, noun, or NP, plus a VP (following [469]). 4. Study 2A: H.M.’s Use of Right Names: One more Compensation Approach The objective of Study 2A was to understand why H.M. overused suitable names relative to memory-normal controls in MacKay et al. [2]. Beneath our operating hypothesis, (a) H.M. produces encoding DEL-22379 site errors involving pronouns (e.g., she), prevalent nouns (e.g., lady), and NPs with common noun heads (e.g., this lady) since his mechanisms for encoding gender, quantity, and individual through these approaches of referring to unfamiliar people are impaired, but (b) H.M. produces correct names without having encoding errors for the reason that his mechanisms for encoding the gender, number, and person of unfamiliar men and women (or their images) through appropriate names are intact, and (c) H.M. makes use of his spared encoding mechanisms to compensate for his impaired ones, causing overuse of correct names for referring to people. This right name compensation hypothesis raised numerous queries addressed in Study 2A. One particular was: Relative to memory-normal controls referring to unfamiliar folks in TLC images, does H.M. make reliably additional encoding errors involving gender (male versus female), number (singular versus plural), and individual (human versus non-human) using pronouns, common nouns, and PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338381 NPs with prevalent noun heads, indicating impairment of his encoding mechanisms for these strategies of referencing people We chose gender, quantity, and particular person encoding errors as our dependent measure in Study 2A for causes related to our operating hypothesis. Initially, conjunction constraints (CCs) governing gender, individual, and quantity apply alike to all 4 strategies of referring to men and women addressed in our functioning hypothesis: pronouns, widespread nouns, popular noun NPs, and right names. Second, encoding errors are uncorrected, ungrammatical errors that violate CCs for conjoining or encoding two or extra related categories of concepts. By way of example, the sentence She (this lady, Mary) hurt himself violates the CC that that reflexive pronouns (right here, himself) will have to agree in gender with their pronoun, common noun, or appropriate noun antecedent (here, she, this lady, or Mary), as in She (this lady, Mary) hurt herself. Our working assumption that H.M.’s mechanisms for encoding unfamiliar people in TLC images are impaired thus predicted reliably much more violations of gender, individual, and number CCs for H.M. than controls with fully intact encoding mechanisms. Third, our operating assumption that H.M.’s mechanisms for encoding suitable names are intact predicted no far more violations of gender, particular person, 
and number CCs for H.M. than controls employing suitable names to refer to unfamiliar people in TLC images.Brain Sci. 2013, three four.1. MethodsThe participants and database had been identical to Study 1. The analytic, scoring, and coding procedures have been as discussed earlier. four.2. Final results Study 2A analyses fell into two categories: general analyses (of major versus minor errors and omission- versus commission-type CC violations) and distinct analyses relevant to appropriate name compensation. four.two.1. Common Analyses of CC Violations four.2.1.1. Big versus Minor CC Violations CC violation.