Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension

Abstract

This target article discusses the verbal working memory system used in sentence comprehension. We review the concept of working memory as a short-duration system in which small amounts of information are simultaneously stored and manipulated in the service of accomplishing a task. We summarize the argument that syntactic processing in sentence comprehension requires such a storage and computational system. We then ask whether the working memory system used in syntactic processing is the same as that used in verbally mediated tasks that involve conscious controlled processing. Evidence is brought to bear from various sources: the relationship between individual differences in working memory and individual differences in the efficiency of syntactic processing; the effect of concurrent verbal memory load on syntactic processing; and syntactic processing in patients with poor short-term memory, patients with poor working memory, and patients with aphasia. Experimental results from these normal subjects and patients with various brain lesions converge on the conclusion that there is a specialization in the verbal working memory system for assigning the syntactic structure of a sentence and using that structure in determining sentence meaning that is separate from the working memory system underlying the use of sentence meaning to accomplish other functions. We present a theory of the divisions of the verbal working memory system and suggestions regarding its neural basis.

Eye-Fixation Patterns of High- and Low-Span Young and Older Adults: Down the Garden Path and Back Again.

“…These results are not fully consistent with either of the two dominate theories of working memory and language processing, the CC model of Just and Carpenter (1992) (also the 3CAPS model of Just & Varma, 2002) or the SLIR model of Waters and Caplan (1996a;Caplan & Waters, 1999). The CC model argues that the capacity of working memory constraints language processing as well as other cognitive abilities.…”

“…High span readers allocated additional fixation time to the Subject NP marked by the ONLY operator in order to assess its discourse function; low span readers did not appear to be sensitive to the discourse function of ONLY. First pass fixations by all readers revealed a garden-path effect for the ambiguous THE sentences; however, high span readers, unlike low span readers, were now able to avoid the garden-path effect for the ONLY sentences because they had allocated extra first pass fixation time to Subject NPs marked by the ONLY operator,.These results are not fully consistent with either of the two dominate theories of working memory and language processing, the CC model of Just and Carpenter (1992) (also the 3CAPS model of Just & Varma, 2002) or the SLIR model of Waters and Caplan (1996a;Caplan & Waters, 1999). The CC model argues that the capacity of working memory constraints language processing as well as other cognitive abilities.…”

“…In contrast, Caplan and Waters in another series of reviews and publications (Caplan & Waters, 1999; Waters & Caplan, 1996 a & b, 2001 have argued that syntactic parsing and other interpretative processes including lexical access, assignment of thematic roles, and the determination of topic, focus, and co-reference, rely on a specialized processing system with a separate sentence-interpretation resource (SSIR), unrelated to traditional span measures of working memory.…”

“…Kemtes and Kemper (1997) suggested that subtle differences between their procedures and those of MacDonald et al (1992) may have contributed to the discrepant findings. In order to resolve this issue and address the criticisms raised by Caplan and Waters (1999), this experiment was repeated using an alternative . Eye fixation patterns of high and low span young and older adults: Down the garden path and back again.…”

Interactions of the hippocampal system and the prefrontal cortex in learning language-like rules

“…A morphological left-over-right asymmetry was found for BA44, but not for BA45 (Amunts et al, 1999). Broca's area was shown to be involved in syntactic processes in a number of neuropsychological studies, in particular in that patients with lesions including Broca's area clearly suffering from syntactic deficits (Grodzinski, 2000;Caplan and Waters, 1999). In addition, some recent brain imaging studies have demonstrated increased hemodynamic activity in Broca's area during the processing of syntactic aspects during language comprehension (Dapretto and Bookheimer, 1999;Embick et al, 2000;Friederici et al, 2000a;Just et al, 1996;Moro et al, 2001;Tettamanti et al, 2002).…”