Is recurrent perseveration a product of deafferented functional systems with otherwise normal post-activation decay rates?

Abstract

Recent work in neuropsychology, clinical aphasiology and neuropharmacology have presented evidence that the causative substrates of recurrent perseveration in adults with aphasia are more recondite and subject to distinct interpretations than originally thought. This article will discuss and evaluate how various proposals from theory, from the clinic and from drug therapy interact and compete in the search for a cause or causes of recurrent perseveration.

Perseveration in barrier crossing.

“…Based on her historical analysis, Stark goes on to formalize and define perseveration as "a phenomenon whereby the subject unintentionally produces or gets stuck on an information unit, a particular linguistic form or action unit, which he or she has previously produced or at some level has heard, that is, auditorily processed, or seen that is, visually processed" (p. 932). Over the years, this notion of perseveration has generally remained consistent, with researchers examining the occurrence of perseveration across a wide array of speech and verbal (Buckingham, 2007;Buckingham & Buckingham, 2011;Cohen & Dehaene, 1998;Martin & Dell, 2004Sandson & Albert, 1984, 1987Stark, 2007, for reviews) and attention (Goldberg, 1986;Kim et al, 2009;Kurshid, Longin, Crucian, & Barrett, 2009;Na et al, 1999Na et al, , 2000Sandson & Albert, 1987) domains. Such work has generally focused on the repetitive behavior of patient populations who have suffered some form of injury to the cerebral cortex (see Buckingham, 2007, for a review).…”

Sources of Phoneme Errors in Repetition: Perseverative, Neologistic, and Lesion Patterns in Jargon Aphasia

“…Therefore, perseveration errors are proposed to share a source with other non-word jargon errors (Martin and Dell, 2007; Buckingham and Buckingham, 2011). In the current study, 25 individuals with Jargon aphasia had suitable data for IPP perseveration analysis.…”

“…There has been considerable research into the underlying causes of non-word and perseverative errors in repetition and other production modalities. Much evidence points to a single impairment source for paraphasias, neologisms and perseverative errors, with different error types reflecting a range of severity (Dell et al, 1997; Schwartz et al, 2004; Martin and Dell, 2007; Olson et al, 2007, 2015; Buckingham and Buckingham, 2011). The predominant hypothesis indicates a disruption in lexical and phonological processes, during which weak and aberrantly spreading activation can result in non-target phonology being selected for production.…”

“…The predominant hypothesis states that weak target activation or phonological encoding allows recently used and, therefore, the most active representations, to override the current target (Hirsh, 1998; Ackerman and Ellis, 2007; Moses et al, 2007a; Eaton et al, 2010; Buckingham and Buckingham, 2011). As such, perseverative, paraphasic and neologistic errors are hypothesized to have a common source.…”

Disentangling the Psycholinguistic Loci of Anomia with Cognitive Psychometric Models

“…2,9,16,17 The basic assumption is that different types of processing errors reliably lead to different types of observed responses. Theories have been developed to explain the cognitive processes behind semantic errors, [18][19][20] formal errors, [21][22][23] mixed errors, 5,24,25 perseveration errors, 26,27 nonword errors, [28][29][30][31] distortion errors, [32][33][34] and omission errors, [35][36][37] among others. A drawback of analyzing individual error types is that they rarely occur in isolation, and they do not always have a unique cognitive source.…”