Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:43:47.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distinctions between two phonological output deficits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Susan E. Kohn  and
Katherine L. Smith
Susan E. Kohn*
Affiliation:
Boston University School of Medicine
Katherine L. Smith
Affiliation:
Boston University School of Medicine
*
Susan Kohn, Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, 1200 West Tabor Road, Philadelphia, PA 19141
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two aphasics with a similar level of phonological production difficulty are compared to distinguish the properties of disruption to two stages in the phonological system for producing single words: activation of stored lexical-phonological representations versus construction of phonemic representations. A set of distinguishing behavioral features for breakdown at each stage is generated on the basis of a model of single word production. Important variables for analyzing output include: (a) the unit of phonological encoding (morpheme versus syllable), (b) the phonemic relationship between targets and responses, (c) the effects of target consonant-vowel (CV) structure, and (d) the level of pseudoword production. On a set of production tests, the expected behavioral pattern for impaired lexical-phonological activation was displayed by LW, while the expected behavioral pattern for impaired phonemic planning was displayed by CM.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , January 1994 , pp. 75 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Beland, R., Caplan, D. & Nespoulous, J.-L. (1990). The role of abstract phonological representations in word production: Evidence from phonemic paraphasias. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 5, 125–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1987). Co-ordinating words and syntax in speech plans. In Ellis, A. W. (Ed.), Progress in the psychology language (Vol. 3, pp. 337–390). London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Buckingham, H. W. (1989). Phonological paraphasia. In Code, C. (Ed.), The characteristics of aphasia (pp. 89–110). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Buckingham, H. W. (1990). Abstruse neologisms, retrieval deficits and the random generator. Journal of Neurolinguistics. 5, 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterworth, B. (1989). Lexical access in speech production. In Marslen-Wilson, W. (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 108–135). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterworth, B. (1992). Disorders of phonological encoding. Cognition, 42, 261–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caramazza, A., Miceli, G. & Villa, G. (1986). The role of the (output) phonological buffer in reading, writing, and repetition. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 3, 37–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R. (1984). Composite predicates in English: Vol. 17. Syntax and semantics. North Ryde, NSW: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, G. S. (1988). The retrieval of phonological forms in production: Tests of predictions from a connectionist model. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 124–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De, Renzi E. & Vignolo, A. (1962). The Token Test: A sensitive test to detect disturbances in aphasics. Brain, 85, 665–678.Google Scholar
Dubois, J., Hecaen, H., Angelergues, R., de, Maufras de Chatelier A. & Marcie, P. (1964). Etude neurolinguistique de l'aphasie de conduction. Neuropsychologia, 2, 9–44. (Translated in Goodglass, H. & Blumstein, S. E. [Eds.], Psycholinguistics and aphasia. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973.)Google Scholar
Ellis, A. E., Miller, D. & Sin, G. (1983). Wernicke's aphasia and normal language processing: A case study in cognitive neuropsychology. Cognition, 15, 111–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Francis, W. & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Friedman, R. B., & Kohn, S. E. (1990). Impaired activation of the phonological lexicon: Effects upon oral reading. Brain and Language, 38, 278–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrett, M. F. (1984). The organization of processing structure for language production: Applications to aphasic speech. In Caplan, D., Lecours, A. R. & Smith, A. (Eds.), Biological perspectives on language (pp. 172–193). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Glosser, G. & Friedman, R. B. (1990). The continuum of deep/phonological alexia. Cortex, 26, 343–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodglass, H., & Kaplan, E. (1983). The assessment of aphasia and related disorders. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
Howard, D., & Franklin, S. (1988). Missing the meaning. A cognitive neuropsychological study of the processing of words by an aphasic patient. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Humphreys, G. W., & Evett, L. J. (1985). Are there independent lexical and non-lexical routes in word processing? An evaluation of the dual-route theory of reading. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8, 689–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1983). Boston Naming Tests. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
Kay, J., & Marcel, A. (1981). One process, not two, in reading aloud: Lexical analogies do the work of non-lexical rules. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 397–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kertesz, A. (1982). Western aphasia battery. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Kohn, S. E. (1984). The nature of the phonological disorder in conduction aphasia. Brain and Language. 23, 97–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kohn, S. E. (1985). Phonological breakdown in aphasia. Ph.D. dissertation, Tufts University, Department of Psychology, Medford, MA.Google Scholar
Kohn, S. E. (1989). The nature of the phonemic string deficit in conduction aphasia. Aphasiology. 3, 209–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohn, S. E. (in press). Segmental disorders in aphasia. In Blanken, G., Dittmann, J., Grimm, H., Marshall, J. C. & Wallesch, C.-W. (Eds.), Linguistic disorders and pathologies: An international handbook. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kohn, S. E., & Smith, K. L. (1990). Between-word speech errors in conduction aphasia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 7, 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohn, S. E., & Smith, K. L. (1992). On the notion of “aphasia syndrome.” In Kohn, S. E. (Ed.), Conduction aphasia (pp. 1–21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kohn, S. E., & Smith, K. L. (1993). Lexical-phonological processing of functors: Evidence from fluent aphasia. Cortex, 29, 23–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kohn, S. E., Smith, K. L., & Alexander, M. P. (1992). A longitudinal comparison of the oral reading and repetition of nouns in acute fluent aphasics. Aphasiology, 6, 397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohn, S. E., Smith, K. L., & Arsenault, J. K. (1990). The remediation of conduction aphasia via sentence repetition: A case study. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 25, 45–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1992). Accessing words in speech production: Stages, processes and representations. Cognition, 42, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, D., & Ellis, A. W. (1987). Speech and writing errors in “neologistic jargonaphasia”: A lexical activation hypothesis. In Coltheart, M., Sartori, G. & Job, R. (Eds.), The cognitive neuropsychology of language (pp. 253–269). London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Morton, J. (1970). A functional model of memory. In Norman, D. A. (Ed.), Models of human memory. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Nespoulous, J. -L., Joanette, Y., Ska, B., Caplan, D., & Lecours, A. R. (1987). Production deficits in Broca's and conduction aphasia: Repetition vs. reading. In Keller, E. & Gopnik, M. (Eds.), Motor and sensory processes in language (pp. 53–79). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Patterson, K. (1988). Acquired disorders of spelling. In Denes, G., Semenza, C. & Bisiacchi, P. (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive neuropsychology (pp. 213–229). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sandson, J., & Albert, M. L. (1984). Varieties of perseveration. Neuropsychologia, 22, 715–732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1979). Speech errors as evidence for a serial-ordering mechanism in sentence production. In Cooper, W. E. & Walker, E. C. T. (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 295–342). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1982). Three kinds of speech error evidence for the role of grammatical elements in processing. In Obler, L. K. & Menn, L. (Eds.), Exceptional language and linguistics (pp. 133–142). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1987). The role of word-onset consonants in speech production planning: New evidence from speech error patterns. In Keller, E. & Gopnik, M. (Eds.), Motor and sensory processes of language (pp. 17–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Valdois, S., Joanette, Y., & Nespoulous, J. -L. (1989). Intrinsic organization of sequences of phonemic approximations: A preliminary study. Aphasiology, 3, 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar