Implicit and Explicit Learning in Individuals with Agrammatic Aphasia

Schuchard, Julia; Thompson, Cynthia K.

doi:10.1007/s10936-013-9248-4

Cited by 36 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results conflict with the idea that agrammatic aphasia is associated with damage to domain-general mechanisms that subserve both sequence learning and syntactic processing (Christiansen et al, 2010). Although previous studies have shown impairments in implicit sequence learning co-occurring with syntactic impairments after brain injury (Christiansen et al, 2010; Zimmerer et al, 2014), the present results suggest otherwise and support previous studies showing implicit sequence learning ability in people with agrammatic aphasia (Goschke et al, 2001; Schuchard & Thompson, 2014; Schuchard & Thompson, in preparation). Future studies should be designed to examine factors such as lesion site that may contribute to the variability in implicit learning abilities in this population, which will further the understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying learning and language.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…People with agrammatic aphasia have shown implicit learning of sequences in serial reaction time tasks (Goschke, Friederici, Kotz, & van Kampen, 2001; Schuchard & Thompson, 2014), but have also exhibited impairments in learning certain types of sequences (Goschke et al, 2001) and in learning the abstract underlying structures of sequences (Dominey, Hoen, Blanc, & Lelekov-Boissard, 2003). Additionally, a study that used a visual artificial grammar showed implicit learning deficits associated with agrammatic aphasia (Christiansen, Kelly, Shillcock, & Greenfield, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implicit learning and implicit treatment outcomes in individuals with aphasia

Schuchard¹,

Nerantzini

Thompson

2016

Aphasiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Implicit learning is a process of learning that occurs outside of conscious awareness and may be involved in implicit, exposure-based language training. However, research shows that implicit learning abilities are variable among individuals with aphasia, and it remains unknown whether individuals who show basic implicit learning abilities also benefit from implicit language training. Aims The aims of this series of experiments were to test implicit learning in individuals with agrammatic aphasia, examine the effects of a novel implicit language treatment, and investigate whether individuals with aphasia who show implicit learning ability also benefit from implicit treatment focused on passive sentence comprehension. Methods & Procedures Nine participants with chronic agrammatic aphasia and 21 neurologically intact participants completed a visuomotor serial reaction time test of implicit learning (Experiment 1). The participants with aphasia also completed a short-term novel implicit sentence comprehension treatment (Experiment 2) that consisted of five sessions of repeated exposure to grammatically correct passive sentences and matching photographs. Sentence comprehension was tested in multiple baseline sessions and on each day of training using a sentence-picture matching task. The relation between participants’ learning patterns across experiments was also examined. Outcomes & Results Individuals with agrammatic aphasia as well as neurologically intact adults demonstrated significant implicit sequence learning in the serial reaction time task. However, the participants with aphasia did not show concomitant improvement in sentence comprehension as a result of the implicit treatment protocol. Conclusions This study suggests that individuals with agrammatic aphasia demonstrate implicit learning ability; however, this ability does not necessarily promote successful outcomes in treatment that is based solely on implicit training methods.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implicit learning and implicit treatment outcomes in individuals with aphasia

Schuchard¹,

Nerantzini

Thompson

2016

Aphasiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Goschke et al (2001) found sequential learning deficits specific to the linguistic domain (i.e. when learning phoneme sequences as opposed to visuomotor sequences), whereas Schuchard and Thompson (2014) found normal patterns of verbal sequence learning in people with agrammatic aphasia, possibly as a result of the larger sample size in the latter study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…However, studies examining sequential learning in people with agrammatic aphasia have shown mixed results. Several studies using serial reaction time (SRT) tasks, in which participants respond to a repeating sequence of stimuli, have shown evidence of sequential learning (Dominey et al, 2003; Goschke, Friederici, Kotz, & van Kampen, 2001; Schuchard, Nerantzini, & Thompson, 2017; Schuchard & Thompson, 2014). In contrast, artificial grammar learning studies, in which participants make judgments after exposure to multiple sequences of stimuli that follow an underlying rule structure, have shown abnormal learning ability in agrammatic aphasia (Christiansen et al, 2010; Zimmerer, Cowell, & Varley, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sequential learning in individuals with agrammatic aphasia: evidence from artificial grammar learning

Schuchard

Thompson

2017

Journal of Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined sequential learning in individuals with agrammatic aphasia (n = 12) and healthy age-matched participants (n = 12) using an artificial grammar. Artificial grammar acquisition, 24-hour retention, and the potential benefits of additional training were examined by administering an artificial grammar judgment test (1) immediately following auditory exposure-based training, (2) one day after training, and (3) after a second training session on the second day. An untrained control group (n = 12 healthy age-matched participants) completed the tests on the same time schedule. The trained healthy and aphasic groups showed greater sensitivity to the detection of grammatical items than the control group. No significant correlations between sequential learning and language abilities were observed among the aphasic participants. The results suggest that individuals with agrammatic aphasia show sequential learning, but the underlying processes involved in this learning may be different than for healthy adults.

show abstract

“…It is unclear whether this sort of adaptation occurs among aphasic participants, though some recent evidence consistent with preserved implicit learning in PWA would suggest that it might. Schuchard and Thompson (2014) show evidence of implicit learning in PWA on an artificial grammar learning task, and there is evidence that PWA may show surprisingly large structural priming effects, even for sentence types for which they show significant impairments (e.g., Hartsuiker & Kolk, 1998; Saffran & Martin, 1997). …”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Structural prediction in aphasia: Evidence from either

Warren

Dickey

Lei

2016

Journal of Neurolinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Young neurotypical adults engage in prediction during language comprehension (e.g., Altmann & Kamide, 1999; Staub & Clifton, 2006; Yoshida, Dickey & Sturt, 2013). The role of prediction in aphasic comprehension is less clear. Some evidence suggests that lexical prediction may be spared in aphasia (Dickey et al., 2014; Love & Webb, 1977; cf. Mack et al, 2013), and there is even indication that structural prediction may be spared in some people with aphasia (PWA; e.g. Hanne, Burchert, De Bleser, & Vashishth, 2015). The current self-paced reading experiment manipulated the presence of either to examine structural prediction among PWA and a set of similar-aged neurotypical control participants. Consistent with intact structural prediction for both groups of participants, when either preceded a disjunction, reading times were faster on the or and second disjunct (cf. Staub & Clifton, 2006). For neurotypical controls, this effect of the presence vs. absence of either shrank reliably as more experimental items were encountered, whereas for PWA there was a non-significant trend for it to grow as more experimental items were encountered. These findings indicate that PWA and older neurotypical individuals can use a lexical cue to predict the structural form of upcoming material during comprehension, but that on-line adaptation to patterns in the local context may be different for the two groups.

show abstract

Implicit and Explicit Learning in Individuals with Agrammatic Aphasia

Cited by 36 publications

References 47 publications

Implicit learning and implicit treatment outcomes in individuals with aphasia

Implicit learning and implicit treatment outcomes in individuals with aphasia

Sequential learning in individuals with agrammatic aphasia: evidence from artificial grammar learning

Structural prediction in aphasia: Evidence from either

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About