Role for memory capacity in sentence comprehension: Evidence from acute stroke

Abstract

Background Previous research has suggested that short-term and working memory resources play a critical role in sentence comprehension, especially when comprehension mechanisms cannot rely on semantics alone. However, few studies have examined this association in participants in acute stroke, before the opportunity for therapy and reorganization of cognitive functions. Aims The present study examined the hypothesis that severity of short-term memory deficit due to acute stroke predicts the severity of impairment in the comprehension of syntactically complex sentences. Furthermore, we examined the association between damage to the short-term and working memory network and impaired sentence comprehension, as an association would be predicted by the previous hypothesis. Methods & Procedures 47 participants with acute stroke and 14 participants with a transient ischemic attack (TIA; the control group) were included in the present study. Participants received a language battery and clinical or research scans within 48 hours of hospital admittance. The present study focused on the behavioral data from the short-term memory and working memory span tasks and a sentence-picture matching comprehension task included in this battery. Using regression analyses, we examined whether short-term and working memory measures explained significant variance in sentence comprehension performance. Outcomes & Results Consistent with prior research, short-term memory explained significant variance in sentence comprehension performance in acute stroke; in contrast, working memory accounted for little variance beyond that which was already explained by short-term memory. Furthermore, ischemia that included the short-term/working memory network was sufficient to cause sentence comprehension impairments for syntactically complex sentences. Conclusions The present study suggests that short-term memory resources are an important source of sentence comprehension impairments.

Verbal short-term memory capacities and executive function in semantic and syntactic interference resolution during sentence comprehension: Evidence from aphasia

“…Most such studies have focused on STM performance as measured by simple span tasks, given that the dual task nature of complex WM tasks presents a considerable challenge for these individuals (but see Miyake, Carpenter, & Just, 1994, 1995, and Sung et al, 2009 for evidence supporting the role of verbal WM in PWA' sentence processing). Here also, evidence has suggested that STM measures tapping primarily phonological retention do not relate to comprehension deficits (Caplan & Waters, 1999Friedmann & Gvion, 2003;Hanten & Martin, 2000;Martin & Romani, 1994), though there is some recent contradictory evidence here as well (Caplan, Michaud, & Hufford, 2013;Pettigrew & Hillis, 2014). On the other hand, STM measures tapping the ability to retain semantic information have been shown to relate to sentence comprehension deficits for particular sentence structures where several words have to be maintained prior to integration.…”

Temporally and spatially distinct theta oscillations dissociate a language-specific from a domain-general processing mechanism across the age trajectory

“…We could relate this age-related RS theta power decrease to variations in general verbal working memory performance, more precisely, to variations in the repetition of non-words of increasing syllable length indicating the capacity of the phonological store. Phonological storage, in turn, has been shown to play a role in working memory-demanding sentence comprehension 43 . Therefore, the age-related decline in RS theta power over bilateral frontal to central midline regions associated with working memory differences possibly contributes to the decline in working memory-intensive sentence comprehension.…”

Functional Neuroanatomy of Second Language Sentence Comprehension: An fMRI Study of Late Learners of American Sign Language

“…This finding coincides with numerous previous neuroimaging studies of L1 spoken languages that report greater Broca's area activation for reading sentences than word lists (Fedorenko et al, 2010 , 2011 , 2012a , b , c ; Fedorenko and Kanwisher, 2011 ; Blank et al, 2016 ), as well as with previous neuroimaging and electrophysiological studies of L1 ASL sentence comprehension (Neville et al, 1997 ; Newman et al, 2002 , 2010a ). The exact nature(s) of the role(s) of Broca's area in sentence comprehension remains highly debated, with prominent hypotheses suggesting syntactic-specific processes (Grodzinsky, 2000 ; Grodzinsky and Santi, 2008 ), verbal working memory (Just et al, 1996 ; Kaan and Swaab, 2002 ; Rogalsky et al, 2008 ; Pettigrew and Hillis, 2014 ), hierarchical structure building (Friederici, 2009 ; Makuuchi et al, 2012 ), and cognitive control (Novick et al, 2005 ) as possible candidates. The present dataset may provide valuable insights into this debate: our ROI plots indicate that the portion of Broca's area engaged in English sentence comprehension (i.e., English sentences >English word lists) also shows preference for ASL sentences compared to word lists.…”

“…Although these regions are frequently identified in studies of sentence comprehension, their respective contributions remain controversial. For example, the role of Broca's area has been attributed to cognitive resources including working memory and cognitive control (Just et al, 1996 ; Kaan and Swaab, 2002 ; Novick et al, 2005 ; Rogalsky et al, 2008 ; Pettigrew and Hillis, 2014 ), hierarchical structure-building (Friederici, 2009 ; Makuuchi et al, 2012 ) and syntax-specific resources (Grodzinsky, 2000 ; Grodzinsky and Santi, 2008 ). Anterior temporal contributions have been attributed to combinatorial semantics (Dapretto and Bookheimer, 1999 ; Vandenberghe et al, 2002 ; Ferstl et al, 2005 ; Pallier et al, 2011 ; Bemis and Pylkkänen, 2013 ), semantic processing more generally (Wong and Gallate, 2012 ; Wilson et al, 2014 ), prosody (Phillips et al, 1998 ; Adolphs et al, 2002 ; Friederici et al, 2003 ; Humphries et al, 2005 ; Johnstone et al, 2006 ), and basic syntactic processing (Humphries et al, 2006 ; Rogalsky et al, 2011 ; Herrmann et al, 2012 ).…”