Problems in the Anatomical Understanding of the Aphasias

Geschwind, Norman

doi:10.1007/978-94-010-2093-0_20

Cited by 43 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Traditionally it has been assumed that written language skills and knowledge are entirely dependent upon spoken language knowledge and processes. This assumption is found both in work with individuals with acquired neurological deficits (Brown, 1972;Geschwind, 1969;Grashey, 1885;Head, 1926;Hecaen & Angelergues, 1965;Lichtheim, 1885;Luria, 1966;Wernicke, 1886) as well as in the study of normal subjects (in the context of writing see Frith, 1979;Hotopf, 1980; and for discussions of the issue with respect to reading see Perfetti & Bell, 1991;Van Orden, Johnston, & Hale, 1988). However, there are a number of lines of evidence from impaired performance indicating that phonological mediation is not required either in written comprehension or in written production (Ellis, 1982;Lhermitte & Déro uesné, 1974;Patterson & Marcel, 1977).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

The Autonomy of Lexical Orthography

Rapp¹,

Benzing

Caramazza

1997

Cognitive Neuropsychology

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do we need to access the spoken form of a word in order to retrieve the word's spelling or in order to understand the meaning of its written form? In this paper we focus on the relationship between lexical phonology and orthography specifically in production and we present the case of a neurologically impaired individual who is often unable to provide the correct spoken name of an object although he may be able to write its name correctly. We argue that this evidence is seriously problematic for the hypothesis of obligatory phonological mediation and conclude that orthographic lexical forms can indeed be independently accessed for production without the mediating role of phonology.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

The Autonomy of Lexical Orthography

Rapp¹,

Benzing

Caramazza

1997

Cognitive Neuropsychology

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Traditionally, writing has been viewed as fully dependent on phonological processing, both in the neurological literature (e.g., Geschwind, 1969;Head, 1926;Luria, 1966;Wernicke, 1886Wernicke, /1989 and in the cognitive literature (e.g., Frith, 1980;Hotopf, 1980). The cognitive lit-LEXICAL AND SEMANTIC DEFICITS 17 erature has also typically supported a role of phonology in reading comprehension (e.g., Perfetti & Bell, 1991;Van Orden, Johnston, & Hale, 1988), although for present purposes we will concentrate on the evidence concerning the possible role of phonology in production (but see note 14).…”

Section: The Independence Of Phonological and Orthographic Output Repmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deficits in lexical and semantic processing: Implications for models of normal language

Shelton

Caramazza

1999

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The investigation of language processing following brain damage may be used to constrain models of normal language processing, We review the literature on semantic and lexical processing deficits, focusing on issues of representation of semantic knowledge and the mechanisms of lexical access, The results broadly support a componential organization of lexical knowledge-the semantic component is independent of phonological and orthographic form knowledge, and the latter are independent of each other. Furthermore, the results do not support the hypothesis that word meaning is organized into modality-specific subcomponents. Wealso discuss converging evidence from functional imaging studies in relation to neuropsychological results.The investigation of cognitive deficits in brain-damaged individuals can provide powerful constraints for theories of normal cognition. Brain damage does not lead to an undifferentiated loss of cognitive abilities but to richly structured patterns of impaired and spared performance. Thus, for example, a patient might show severe difficulties in orally producing the names ofpictures but show no comparable difficulties in writing them. Or a patient might show great difficulty in producing nouns but not verbs and adjectives. Furthermore, in most cases impaired performance deviates from normal performance in instructive ways. For example, in a picture naming task a patient might produce phonological distortions of the target response (e.g., chair~"share, chail"), suggesting the possibility that the correct lexical node has been accessed but that subsequent processes are damaged. Or the patient might produce well-formed, semantically related responses (e.g., chair~"table, not that but close, something you sit on"), suggesting that motor programming and articulatory processes are intact but that lexical selection mechanisms are malfunctioning. The analysis of the dissociation and association of symptoms and their related error patterns severely constrains possible interpretations of the locus of functional impairment in the normal language production system. The logic of inferences from impaired performance to normal cognition is straightforward: We prefer a theory of normal cognition over alternative theories if that theory can explain both normal performance and the various ways in which a system breaks down in conditions ofbrain damage. One area 5 that has benefited greatly from neuropsychological investigations is lexical processing.A basic assumption shared by almost all current theories of the lexicon is that it is composed of several distinct components. This assumption supports the expectation that brain damage could result in the selective disruption of each of the components that constitutes the lexical system. The ways in which a cognitive system can be damaged depends on how it is organized in the brain. Functionally independent lexical components can be damaged selectively only if they are neuroanatomically separable.' But, within the constraints imposed by the neuroanatomical organ...

show abstract

“…One of the important questions addressed in these latter studies is the relationship between the phonological and the orthographic output lexicons: is there an interaction between the retrieval of phonological and orthographic lexical representations during oral and written production? In answer to this question, some early studies proposed that during the production of written output, the message to be produced is first phonologically encoded and then converted to orthography by means of phonology to orthography conversion procedures (Geschwind, 1969;Grashey, 1885;Head, 1926;Hecaen & Angelergues, 1965;Lichtheim, 1885;Luria, 1966). That is to say, the production of orthography would entirely depend on the previous retrieval of phonological information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of phonological and orthographic information in lexical selection

Alario¹,

Schiller²,

Domoto‐Reilly³

et al. 2003

Brain and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report the performance of two patients with lexico-semantic deficits following left MCA CVA. Both patients produce similar numbers of semantic paraphasias in naming tasks, but presented one crucial difference: grapheme-to-phoneme and phoneme-to-grapheme conversion procedures were available only to one of them. We investigated the impact of this availability on the process of lexical selection during word production. The patient for whom conversion procedures were not operational produced semantic errors in transcoding tasks such as reading and writing to dictation; furthermore, when asked to name a given picture in multiple output modalities-e.g., to say the name of a picture and immediately after to write it down-he produced lexically inconsistent responses. By contrast, the patient for whom conversion procedures were available did not produce semantic errors in transcoding tasks and did not produce lexically inconsistent responses in multiple picture-naming tasks. These observations are interpreted in the context of the summation hypothesis (Hillis & Caramazza, 1991), according to which the activation of lexical entries for production would be made on the basis of semantic information and, when available, on the basis of form-specific information. The implementation of this hypothesis in models of lexical access is discussed in detail.

show abstract

Problems in the Anatomical Understanding of the Aphasias

Cited by 43 publications

References 11 publications

The Autonomy of Lexical Orthography

The Autonomy of Lexical Orthography

Deficits in lexical and semantic processing: Implications for models of normal language

The role of phonological and orthographic information in lexical selection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About