Testing single‐ and dual‐route computational models of auditory repetition with new data from six aphasic patients

Baron, Rachel; Hanley, J. Richard; Dell, Gary S.; Kay, Janice

doi:10.1080/02687030600927092

Cited by 12 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, an attentional deficit also provides a possible explanation of why some aphasic patients do not appear to use the non-lexical route during real word repetition despite performing reasonably well at nonword repetition (e.g. Baron et al 2008;Dell et al 2007). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…This conclusion is also consistent with the finding that some aphasic individuals perform much better at repetition than Foygel and Dell's lexical-route model would predict (Abel et al 2009;Foygel and Dell 2000;Hanley et al 2002;Hanley et al 2004). Nevertheless, the repetition performance of several aphasics is over-predicted by the dual-route model for whom the lexical-route model provides a more accurate simulation (Baron et al 2008;Dell et al 2007). As Nozari et al (2010) pointed out, it appears from this body of research that most aphasic individuals seem to use both lexical and nonlexical routes in summation during the repetition of words.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evidence for a Non-Lexical Influence on Children’s Auditory Repetition of Familiar Words

Budd

Hanley

Nozari

2011

J Psycholinguist Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines evidence for a nonlexical influence on children's repetition of real words. We investigate the extent to which two computational models of auditory repetition can simulate the performance of 68 children aged between 5 and 11 years-old when they are attempting to repeat familiar words. Both computational accounts were derived from Foygel and Dell's (J Mem Lang 43:182-216, 2000) semantic-phonological model of picture-naming. Results showed that a dual-route model in which a lexical and a nonlexical route work together to repeat familiar words (Hanley et al. in Cogn Neuropsychol 21:147-158, 2004) provided an accurate simulation of children's repetition, whereas Foygel and Dell (J Mem Lang 43:182-216, 2000) single lexical-route model under-predicted performance. The only exception was the repetition performance of 5 year-old children, which was over-predicted by the dual-route model. It is argued that at 5 years of age, some children have available both a lexical and a nonlexical repetition route but the output of the two routes does not summate when real words are being repeated. Some young children may lack the attentional skills that would enable them to co-ordinate the activity of the lexical and nonlexical repetition routes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Evidence for a Non-Lexical Influence on Children’s Auditory Repetition of Familiar Words

Budd

Hanley

Nozari

2011

J Psycholinguist Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We noted in the introduction that Baron et al (2008) suggested that individuals may differ in whether they combine lexical and non-lexical information. An extension of the modelling approach introduced here could allow this to be explored more fully.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Subsequently, Baron, Hanley, Dell, and Kay (2008) found that a model with lexical and non-lexical routes to word repetition overpredicted success for a series of other patients who had relatively good nonword repetition. In other words, a non-lexical contribution boosted word repetition success above the level that was actually observed.…”

Section: Lexical and Non-lexical Contributions To Reading And Repetitionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…We will return to this in the General Discussion. The analyses carried out by and Baron et al (2008) were based on the percentage of correct responses. Here we will test the predictions of a dual route/summation account based on a different and, possibly, more sensitive measure: target/error overlap.…”

Section: Lexical and Non-lexical Contributions To Reading And Repetitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Target/error overlap in jargonaphasia: The case for a one-source model, lexical and non-lexical summation, and the special status of correct responses

Olson

Halloran

Romani

2015

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present three jargonaphasic patients who made phonological errors in naming, repetition and reading. We analyse target/response overlap using statistical models to answer three questions: 1) Is there a single phonological source for errors or two sources, one for target-related errors and a separate source for abstruse errors? 2) Can correct responses be predicted by the same distribution used to predict errors or do they show a completion boost (CB)? 3) Is non-lexical and lexical information summed during reading and repetition? The answers were clear. 1) Abstruse errors did not require a separate distribution created by failure to access word forms. Abstruse and target-related errors were the endpoints of a single overlap distribution. 2) Correct responses required a special factor, e.g., a CB or lexical/phonological feedback, to preserve their integrity. 3) Reading and repetition required separate lexical and non-lexical contributions that were combined at output.

show abstract

How damaged brains repeat words: A computational approach

Nozari

Dell

2013

Brain and Language

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two routes have been proposed for auditory repetition: a lexical route which activates a lexical item and retrieves its phonology, and a nonlexical route which maps input phonology directly onto output phonology. But when is the nonlexical route recruited? In a sample of 103 aphasic patients, we use computational models to select patients who do and do not recruit the nonlexical route, and compare them in light of three hypotheses: 1-Lexical-phonological hypothesis: when the lexical route is weak, the nonlexical route is recruited. 2-Nonlexical hypothesis: when the nonlexical route is weak, it is abandoned. 3-Semantic-access hypothesis: when access to meaning fails, the nonlexical route is recruited. In neurocognitive terms, hypotheses 1 and 2 identify different aspects of the intactness of the dorsal stream, while the third hypothesis focuses on the ventral stream. Our findings (and a subsequent meta-analysis of four studies) support hypotheses 2 and 3. Ultimately, we claim that the choice about whether to recruit the nonlexical route is guided, not by assessment of production abilities that support repetition, but instead by relying on accessible cues, namely whether the speaker understands the word, or can remember its sequence of phonemes.

show abstract

Testing single‐ and dual‐route computational models of auditory repetition with new data from six aphasic patients

Cited by 12 publications

References 9 publications

Evidence for a Non-Lexical Influence on Children’s Auditory Repetition of Familiar Words

Evidence for a Non-Lexical Influence on Children’s Auditory Repetition of Familiar Words

Target/error overlap in jargonaphasia: The case for a one-source model, lexical and non-lexical summation, and the special status of correct responses

How damaged brains repeat words: A computational approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About