Do DAT patients show category-specific deficits in object identification, and do they arise from semantic or visual damage? Participants decided whether line drawings of living and nonliving objects matched names at superordinate, basic, or subordinate levels. Patients were most impaired with superordinate decisions. Controls had most difficulty with subordinate decisions. No category-specific deficit was found with patients. Impaired superordinate decisions by the patients support semantic damage. If category-specific deficits arise from damaged semantics, they should have been found. Since they were not, and since patients performed subordinate decisions the best, a visual basis to category specificity is supported. Finally, a living advantage was found with normal observers which cannot be spurious due to differences in concept familiarity since living and nonliving objects were matched for this variable.