{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02588686481303931, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.141176470588236, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Not All Triads Are Created Equal: Further Support for the Importance of Visual and Semantic Proximity in Object Identification

Identification deficits were investigated in ELM, a temporal lobe stroke patient with category-specific deficits. We replicated previous work done on FS, a patient with category specific deficits as a result of herpes viral encephalitis. ELM was tested using novel, computer generated shapes that were paired with artifact labels. We paired semantically close or disparate labels to shapes and ELM attempted to learn these pairings. Overall, ELM's shape-label confusions were most detrimentally affected when we used labels that referred to objects that were visually and semantically close. However, as with FS, ELM had as many errors when shapes were paired with the labels "donut," "tire," and "washer" as he did when they were paired with visually and semantically close artifact labels. Two explanations are put forth to account for the anomalous performance by both patients on the triad of donut-tire-washer.