Verb Finding in Aphasia

Kohn, Susan E.; Lorch, Marjorie Perlman; Pearson, Dawn M.

doi:10.1016/s0010-9452(89)80006-1

Cited by 79 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are numerous reports demonstrating that some aphasic patients produce nouns much better than either main verbs or function words (e.g., Berndt, Mitchum, Haendiges, & Sandson, 1997;A. R. Damasio & Tranel, 1993;Kohn, Lorch, & Pearson, 1989;McCarthy & Warrington, 1985;Miceli, Silveri, Villa, & Cararnazza, 1984;Myerson & Goodglass, 1972). There are also reports of patients who produce verbs better than nouns (e.g., Baxter Berndt et al, 1997;Breedin & Martin, 1996;A.…”

Section: Grammatical Class Effectsmentioning

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

Section: Grammatical Class Effectsmentioning

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

show abstract

“…It has been repeatedly shown that verb production in agrammatic BrocaÕs aphasia is compromized at both the word and the sentence level (see, for example, Bastiaanse Brain and Language 84 (2003) [286][287][288][289][290][291][292][293][294][295][296][297][298][299][300][301][302][303][304][305] www.elsevier.com/locate/b&l & Jonkers, 1998;Berndt, Haendiges, Mitchum, & Sandson, 1997a;Berndt, Mitchum, Haendiges, & Sandson, 1997b;Jonkers, 2000;Kim & Thompson, 2000;Kohn, Lorch, & Pearson, 1989;Miceli, Silveri, Villa, & Caramazza, 1984, 1988Thompson et al, 1994Thompson et al, , 1997. It has been suggested that production of verbs at the sentence level is influenced by both semantic and morphosyntactic variables.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verb and auxiliary movement in agrammatic Broca’s aphasia

Bastiaanse

Thompson

2003

Brain and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Verb production in agrammatic BrocaÕs aphasia has repeatedly been shown to be impaired by a number of investigators. Not only is the number of verbs produced often significantly reduced, but verb inflections and auxiliaries are often omitted as well (e.g., Bastiaanse, Jonkers, & Moltmaker-Osinga, 1996;Saffran, Berndt, & Schwartz, 1989;Thompson, Shapiro, Li, & Schendel, 1994. It has been suggested that these problems are, in part, caused by the fact that finite verbs need to be moved from their base-generated position to inflectional nodes in the syntactic tree (e.g., Bastiaanse & Van Zonneveld, 1998). Others have suggested that production deficits in agrammatism can be predicted based on the position that certain structures take in the syntactic tree (Friedmann & Grodzinsky, 1997;Hagiwara, 1995). If the former theory is correct, several predictions can be made. First of all, the discrepancy between production of finite verbs in the matrix and embedded clause that has been found for Dutch (Bastiaanse & Van Zonneveld, 1998) should not be observed in English, since the word order of the matrix and embedded clause are the same in the latter language. Second, if verb movement (including movement of auxiliaries) is problematic for speakers with agrammatic aphasia, then a hierarchy in the production of auxiliaries in yes/no questions, auxiliaries, and finite verbs in declarative sentences in English would be expected, since the former has been moved and the two latter are in base-generated position. In the present paper, these hypotheses were tested in a cross-linguistic study of Dutch and English. Results showed the position in the syntactic tree does not predict deficit patterns; rather the critical factor appears to relate to whether or not verb or auxiliary movement is required.

show abstract

“…Left-hemisphere frontal cortical lesions have been associated with verb production deficits in patients with a wide variety of neurological disorders, ranging from stroke (Berndt, Mitchum, Haendiges, & Sandson, 1997;Miceli, Silveri, Villa, & Caramazza, 1984) to frontotemporal dementia (Cappa et al, 1998) and neurodegenerative diseases (Bak, O'Donovan, Xuereb, Boniface, & Hodges, 2001;Daniele, Giustolisi, Silveri, Colosimo, & Gainotti, 1994). Although early reports linked impairments in verb production to more general problems with syntax and propositional speech (Luria, 1977;Myerson & Goodglass, 1972), it is not clear whether these deficits are causally related: Some patients with damage to frontal cortical regions present with sentence processing difficulties, but spared verb production (Berndt, Haendiges, & Wozniak, 1997), while other patients with lesions in various areas have difficulty producing verbs despite their fluent and grammatical speech (Berndt, Mitchum, et al, 1997;Caramazza & Hillis, 1991;Kohn, Lorch, & Pearson, 1989). Based on these data, it seems likely that some portion of the left frontal cortex, adjacent to areas involved in sentence processing, is necessary (if not sufficient) for verb retrieval.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grammatical Distinctions in the Left Frontal Cortex

Shapiro

Pascual‐Leone

Mottaghy

et al. 2001

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

157

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract& Selective deficits in producing verbs relative to nouns in speech are well documented in neuropsychology and have been associated with left hemisphere frontal cortical lesions resulting from stroke and other neurological disorders. The basis for these impairments is unresolved: Do they arise because of differences in the way grammatical categories of words are organized in the brain, or because of differences in the neural representation of actions and objects? We used repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to suppress the excitability of a portion of left prefrontal cortex and to assess its role in producing nouns and verbs. In one experiment subjects generated real words; in a second, they produced pseudowords as nouns or verbs. In both experiments, response latencies increased for verbs but were unaffected for nouns following rTMS. These results demonstrate that grammatical categories have a neuroanatomical basis and that the left prefrontal cortex is selectively engaged in processing verbs as grammatical objects. &

show abstract

Verb Finding in Aphasia

Cited by 79 publications

References 7 publications

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

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

Verb and auxiliary movement in agrammatic Broca’s aphasia

Grammatical Distinctions in the Left Frontal Cortex

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About