Chance in agrammatic sentence comprehension: What does it really mean? Evidence from eye movements of German agrammatic aphasic patients

Hanne, Sandra; Sekerina, Irina A.; Vasishth, Shravan; Burchert, Frank; Bleser, Ria De

doi:10.1080/02687038.2010.489256

Cited by 68 publications

(136 citation statements)

References 41 publications

(69 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mack et al (2013) showed that eye movements of IWAs indicate delayed lexical access during sentence comprehension compared to age-matched healthy adults. Previous studies found that when IWAs interpreted non-canonical sentence structures correctly, eye movement patterns were similar to those of NBDs (passives: Dickey and Thompson, 2009; object-verbsubject sentences: Hanne et al, 2011), although competition with incorrect referents of a clause was sometimes increased towards the end of the sentences (object wh-questions: Dickey et al, 2007;object relatives: Dickey and Thompson, 2009;pronominal reference: Choy and Thompson, 2010). In a study by Meyer et al (2012), 5 eye movement data demonstrated that compared to NBDs, IWAs are delayed in processing active and passive sentences even when their offline response (in a sentence-picture matching task) was correct.…”

Section: Aphasiological Eye-tracking Studiesmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…Recently it has been shown that eye-tracking studies applying the visual-world paradigm (Allopenna et al, 1998;Cooper, 1974; for a review of visual world studies see Huettig et al (2011)) can provide insights into language processing in non-brain-damaged speakers, as well as in the online and behavioral performance of aphasic individuals (Dickey et al, 2007;Dickey and Thompson, 2009;Hanne et al, 2014Hanne et al, , 2011Meyer et al, 2012;Mack et al, 2013;Thompson and Choy, 2009; for a review on aphasiological visual-world studies see Burchert et al (2013)). This technique can clarify what occurs when time reference is interpreted incorrectly in agrammatic aphasia, and whether processing mechanisms differ per time frame.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Losing track of time? Processing of time reference inflection in agrammatic and healthy speakers of German

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Aphasiological Eye-tracking Studiesmentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Losing track of time? Processing of time reference inflection in agrammatic and healthy speakers of German

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Theme arguments appear to be inherently salient and show a strong advantage in anaphora resolution tasks (Stevenson, Crawley, & Kleinman, 1994), and the theme immediately precedes the preposition, which may confer a recency advantage. Regardless of which of these explanations of the theme preference for PWA is ultimately correct, this pattern is another example of PWA choosing a salient but grammatically impermissible interpretation when sentence comprehension fails (Dickey & Thompson, 2009;Hanne, Sekerina, Vasishth, Burchert, & De Bleser, 2011). Because participants tended to inhibit attention to this tempting distractor more in the argument condition than they did in the adjunct condition and because that tendency was numerically related to both verb-comprehension performance and conceptual-semantic knowledge regarding actions, individuals with aphasia may use verb-related information in some capacity during processing, but doing so does not aid them in identifying the desired target.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Looking for a Location: Dissociated Effects of Event-Related Plausibility and Verb–Argument Information on Predictive Processing in Aphasia

Hayes

Dickey

Warren

2016

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a Purpose: This study examined the influence of verbargument information and event-related plausibility on prediction of upcoming event locations in people with aphasia, as well as older and younger, neurotypical adults. It investigated how these types of information interact during anticipatory processing and how the ability to take advantage of the different types of information is affected by aphasia. Method: This study used a modified visual-world task to examine eye movements and offline photo selection. Twelve adults with aphasia (aged 54-82 years) as well as 44 young adults (aged 18-31 years) and 18 older adults (aged 50-71 years) participated.Results: Neurotypical adults used verb argument status and plausibility information to guide both eye gaze (a measure of anticipatory processing) and image selection (a measure of ultimate interpretation). Argument status did not affect the behavior of people with aphasia in either measure. There was only limited evidence of interaction between these 2 factors in eye gaze data. Conclusions: Both event-related plausibility and verb-based argument status contributed to anticipatory processing of upcoming event locations among younger and older neurotypical adults. However, event-related likelihood had a much larger role in the performance of people with aphasia than did verb-based knowledge regarding argument structure.

show abstract

“…Accessing all of the critical words prior to establishing these types of relationships provides semantic cues to support the effort of interpreting the sentence. This alternate reading strategy could be used to compensate for slowed lexical access (e.g., Thompson & Choy, 2009) or slowed or inefficient syntactic processing (e.g., Hanne, Sekerina, Vasishth, Burchert, & De Bleser, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online Sentence Reading in People With Aphasia: Evidence From Eye Tracking

Knilans

DeDe

2015

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: There is a lot of evidence that people with aphasia have more difficulty understanding structurally complex sentences (e.g., object clefts) than simpler sentences (subject clefts). However, subject clefts also occur more frequently in English than object clefts. Thus, it is possible that both structural complexity and frequency affect how people with aphasia understand these structures. Method: Nine people with aphasia and 8 age-matched controls participated in the study. The stimuli consisted of 24 object cleft and 24 subject cleft sentences. The task was eye tracking during reading, which permits a more fine-grained analysis of reading performance than measures such as self-paced reading.Results: As expected, controls had longer reading times for critical regions in object cleft sentences compared with subject cleft sentences. People with aphasia showed the predicted effects of structural frequency. Effects of structural complexity in people with aphasia did not emerge on their first pass through the sentence but were observed when they were rereading critical regions of complex sentences. Conclusions: People with aphasia are sensitive to both structural complexity and structural frequency when reading. However, people with aphasia may use different reading strategies than controls when confronted with relatively infrequent and complex sentence structures. P eople with aphasia often have difficulty understanding complex sentences, especially sentences that do not follow the canonical, or typical, word order for their language (e.g., Dick et al., 2001). In English, sentences typically follow subject-verb-object word order. Sentences with noncanonical word order are both more syntactically complex and less common than sentences with canonical word order (e.g., Roland, Dick, & Elman, 2007). Studies of sentence comprehension impairments in people with aphasia have focused on the contributions of structural complexity (e.g., Caplan, Waters, DeDe, Michaud, & Reddy, 2007;Dick et al., 2001;Grodzinsky, 2000;Thompson & Choy, 2009). However, research from adults without brain damage suggests that the relative frequency of syntactic structures also influences processing difficulty (e.g., Levy, 2008;Staub, 2010). Thus, it is possible that people with aphasia have trouble understanding sentences with noncanonical word order at least in part because such sentences occur relatively infrequently compared with sentences with canonical word order. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether sentence comprehension impairments in people with aphasia reflect sensitivity to the frequency of the structure as well as structural complexity.A lot of evidence regarding effects of structural complexity comes from studies investigating how people with aphasia process sentences with object and subject relative clauses, such as the object and subject clefts in examples 1 and 2: Sentences 1 and 2 both convey the idea "the boy hugged the girl," but object clefts such as in sentence 1 are more difficult to process than su...

show abstract

Chance in agrammatic sentence comprehension: What does it really mean? Evidence from eye movements of German agrammatic aphasic patients

Cited by 68 publications

References 41 publications

Losing track of time? Processing of time reference inflection in agrammatic and healthy speakers of German

Losing track of time? Processing of time reference inflection in agrammatic and healthy speakers of German

Looking for a Location: Dissociated Effects of Event-Related Plausibility and Verb–Argument Information on Predictive Processing in Aphasia

Online Sentence Reading in People With Aphasia: Evidence From Eye Tracking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About