Fractionating the Articulatory Loop: Dissociations and Associations in Phonological Recoding in Aphasia

Deterioration of the phonological processing skills in adults with an acquired severe hearing loss

“…In order to perform a rhyme task, the individual is required to have access to the phonological representations of words stored in the mental lexicon and to compare and analyse these phonological representations (Besner, 1987 Leybaert & Charlier, 1996;Lyxell et al, 1996;Nickels, Howard, & Best, 1997;Richardson, 1987). In the present study, two rhyme tasks were employed to allow for a specific examination of the quality of the phonological representations (see A in Figure 1) and the ability to perform phonological operations (i.e., analyse and compare) on the phonological representations.…”

Phonological Deterioration in Adults with an Acquired Severe Hearing Impairment

“…In contrast, the severely hearingimpaired performed on a par with the normal-hearing group on the phonological lexical access task and the semantic decision-making task. The difference between the three tasks in terms of phonological processing is that in a rhyme judgement task the individual is required to analyse and compare the phonological structures of word-pairs (Besner et al, 1981;Besner, 1987;Campbell, 1992;Johnston & McDermott, 1986;Nickels et al, 1997;Richardson, 1987), which requires a durable phonological code and involvement of a rehearsal process (Besner, 1987;Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993;Nickels et al, 1997). In a phonological lexical access task it is necessary to recode letters (graphemes) into sounds (phonemes), resulting in a phonological representation that can be matched with an existing lexical representation (Ellis & Young, 1988).…”

“…In a phonological lexical access task it is necessary to recode letters (graphemes) into sounds (phonemes), resulting in a phonological representation that can be matched with an existing lexical representation (Ellis & Young, 1988). This process also involves a rehearsal process (Besner et al, 1981;Nickels et al, 1997). The role of phonological processing in semantic decision-making is less critical compared to the other two tasks, as phonological processing is only one of several cognitive sub-processes (e.g., lexical activation and semantic analysis) necessary for solving the task.…”

“…Despite the prominence of phonological processing in the rhyme judgement and the phonological lexical access tasks, there is a difference between them in terms of the demands they place on phonological processing. As the rhyme judgement task involves more processes of phonological analysis (e.g., phonological segmentation and phonological comparison) compared to the phonological lexical access task, the rhyme judgement task also requires a more durable phonological code and more rehearsal processes than the phonological lexical access task (Besner et al, 1981;Nickels et al, 1997). Thus, the present results indicate that the severely hearingimpaired individuals will suffer on tasks where the demands upon rehearsal processes and the durability of the phonological code are high, and particularly in those cases where no visual information can support the phonological decision.…”

The use of the picture–word interference paradigm to examine naming abilities in aphasic individuals

“…Individuals whose phonological naming errors are due to a breakdown of the post-lexical phonological processing level or phonological output buffer level also demonstrate a range of auditory/reading comprehension abilities, fluent but paraphasic output characterised by phonemic paraphasias and neologisms, as well as comparable production of nonwords and real words, and deficits across single word production tasks (oral reading, repetition, naming). Naming errors most strongly associated with this level tend to have a high proportion of the target word's phonemes or consist of minor distortions, and reflect word length effects (Bub, Black, & Howell, 1987; Caramazza, Miceli, & Villa, 1986; Goldrick & Rapp, 2007; Howard & Franklin, 1987, 1993; Nickels, 1995; Nickels, Howard, & Best, 1997; Shallice, Rumiati, & Zadini, 2000; Wilshire, 2002; Wilshire & McCarthy, 1996; Wilshire & Saffran, 2005). …”