2004
DOI: 10.1080/02643290342000339
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evidence for the involvement of a nonlexical route in the repetition of familiar words: A comparison of single and dual route models of auditory repetition

Abstract: In this paper, we attempt to simulate the picture naming and auditory repetition performance of two patients reported by Hanley, Kay, and Edwards (2002), who were matched for picture naming score but who differed significantly in their ability to repeat familiar words. In Experiment 1, we demonstrate that the model of naming and repetition put forward by Foygel and Dell (2000) is better able to accommodate this pattern of performance than the model put forward by Dell, Schwartz, Martin, Saffran, and Gagnon (19… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
24
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In Foygel and Dell (2000), the single-route SP model was used to simulate repetition, without explicitly modeling the auditory input, by assuming that perfect auditory recognition delivers a boost directly to lexical units, essentially just the second step of naming. Later, to account for patients with poor naming but spared repetition abilities, a direct input-to-output phonology route was added to the model (Hanley, Dell, Kay, & Baron, 2004). This dual-route model grafts the “nonlexical” route on to SP, leaving the architecture and simulations of naming unchanged; the two routes are used only during repetition.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Foygel and Dell (2000), the single-route SP model was used to simulate repetition, without explicitly modeling the auditory input, by assuming that perfect auditory recognition delivers a boost directly to lexical units, essentially just the second step of naming. Later, to account for patients with poor naming but spared repetition abilities, a direct input-to-output phonology route was added to the model (Hanley, Dell, Kay, & Baron, 2004). This dual-route model grafts the “nonlexical” route on to SP, leaving the architecture and simulations of naming unchanged; the two routes are used only during repetition.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These patients were more accurately fit by the summation dual-route model. However, for the majority of patients, the summation dual-route model predicted higher accuracy than was actually observed (see also [24]). …”
Section: The Interactive Two-step Account Of Word Repetitionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…Dell and co-workers [24,30,64] carried out a series of computational studies of repetition in which they modified the basic naming model to instantiate different accounts of the relationship between naming and repetition, and then fit the alternative models to word repetition data from individual subjects or case series data. As a general feature, the implemented models included separate units and connections for phonological input and output processing ( [65]; see [66] for a different approach), and the input processes were assumed to be intact, both in the model and in the patients whose data were simulated.…”
Section: The Interactive Two-step Account Of Word Repetitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In addition, many models allow a further repetition route via a semantic pathway (McCarthy and Warrington, 1984; Hillis and Caramazza, 1991; Hanley and Kay, 1997; Hanley et al, 2004; Dell et al, 2007; Nozari et al, 2010). Word repetition is commonly impaired in aphasia, and has classically been used as a diagnostic screening test (Kaplan, 1983).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%