“L” is for tiger: Effects of phonological (mis)cueing on picture naming in semantic aphasia

Soni, Maya; Ralph, Matthew A. Lambon; Noonan, Krist A.; Ehsan, Sheeba; Hodgson, Catherine; Woollams, Anna M.

doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2009.06.002

Cited by 27 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…IRQ [33]; AZ [32]; 9/10 pre-and 7/8 postsurgery glioma patients [24] c spoken-to-written word matching AZ [18,25,26,32,35]; MED [16]; IRQ [33]; FBI, NBC [36] naming pairs of pictures 2/2 semantic short-term memory deficit patients [37]; JHM [38] miscueing effects in picture naming 3/3 aphasic patients [39]; 5/6 SA patients [40] a ; seven SA patients [41,42] a,e matching non-verbal sounds to pictures or words AZ, BBB [30] selecting an object to complete a common task In addition to generally inconsistent performance, individuals with access deficits exhibit declining performance over repeated presentations of a stimulus, typically called a negative serial position effect (where 'serial position' refers to repetition of the same item, unlike in serial order recall tasks where it refers to position of different items). In the simplest studies, trials were presented in a ( pseudo-)random order and repeated multiple times.…”

Section: (C) Performance Inconsistencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Misleading phonemic cues (e.g. the initial phoneme of a semantically related item, also called a 'miscue'), which presumably strengthen activation of semantic competitors, also lead to significantly poorer picture-naming performance in access deficit patients [39][40][41][42]. These effects have also been found in non-verbal matching tasks: non-verbal sound-to-picture (and sound-to-word) matching [30], selecting an object to complete a common task (e.g.…”

Section: (C) Performance Inconsistencymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What we talk about when we talk about access deficits

Mirman

Britt

2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Semantic impairments have been divided into storage deficits, in which the semantic representations themselves are damaged, and access deficits, in which the representations are intact but access to them is impaired. The behavioural phenomena that have been associated with access deficits include sensitivity to cueing, sensitivity to presentation rate, performance inconsistency, negative serial position effects, sensitivity to number and strength of competitors, semantic blocking effects, disordered selection between strong and weak competitors, correlation between semantic deficits and executive function deficits and reduced word frequency effects. Four general accounts have been proposed for different subsets of these phenomena: abnormal refractoriness, too much activation, impaired competitive selection and deficits of semantic control. A combination of abnormal refractoriness and impaired competitive selection can account for most of the behavioural phenomena, but there remain several open questions. In particular, it remains unclear whether access deficits represent a single syndrome, a syndrome with multiple subtypes or a variable collection of phenomena, whether the underlying deficit is domain-general or domain-specific, whether it is owing to disorders of inhibition, activation or selection, and the nature of the connection (if any) between access phenomena in aphasia and in neurologically intact controls. Computational models offer a promising approach to answering these questions.

show abstract

Section: (C) Performance Inconsistencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (C) Performance Inconsistencymentioning

confidence: 99%

What we talk about when we talk about access deficits

Mirman

Britt

2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(2) They are highly sensitive to manipulations of the executive demands of semantic tasks-both when making judgments about word meaning (Noonan et al, 2010) and in the highly nonverbal domain of object use Corbett, Jefferies, Ehsan, et al, 2009). (3) They show strong effects of cues and task constraints that reduce the requirement for internally generated semantic control (Corbett et al, 2011;Noonan et al, 2010;Soni et al, 2009). When naming pictures, SA performance is substantially improved by phonological cues, although SD patients only show a modest benefit ( Jefferies, Patterson, & Lambon Ralph, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When naming pictures, SA performance is substantially improved by phonological cues, although SD patients only show a modest benefit ( Jefferies, Patterson, & Lambon Ralph, 2008). SA patients are also sensitive to semantic miscues (e.g., /d/ when attempting to name "cat"; Noonan et al, 2010;Soni et al, 2009). Moreover, they show parallel effects of task constraints in object use .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Differential Contributions of pFC and Temporo-parietal Cortex to Multimodal Semantic Control: Exploring Refractory Effects in Semantic Aphasia

Gardner

Ralph

Dodds

et al. 2012

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract■ Aphasic patients with multimodal semantic impairment following pFC or temporo-parietal (TP) cortex damage (semantic aphasia [SA]) have deficits characterized by poor control of semantic activation/retrieval, as opposed to loss of semantic knowledge per se. In line with this, SA patients show "refractory effects"; that is, declining accuracy in cyclical word-picture matching tasks when semantically related sets are presented rapidly and repeatedly. This is argued to follow a build-up of competition between targets and distractors. However, the link between poor semantic control and refractory effects is still controversial for two reasons.(1) Some theories propose that refractory effects are specific to verbal or auditory tasks, yet SA patients show poor control over semantic processing in both word and picture semantic tasks. (2) SA can result from lesions to either the left pFC or TP cortex, yet previous work suggests that refractory effects are specifically linked to the left inferior frontal cortex. For the first time, verbal, visual, and nonverbal auditory refractory effects were explored in nine SA patients who had pFC (pFC+) or TP cortex (TP-only) lesions. In all modalities, patient accuracy declined significantly over repetitions. This refractory effect at the group level was driven by pFC+ patients and was not shown by individuals with TP-only lesions. These findings support the theory that SA patients have reduced control over multimodal semantic retrieval and, additionally, suggest there may be functional specialization within the posterior versus pFC elements of the semantic control network. ■

show abstract

“…Previous research (Noonan et al, 2010;Soni et al, 2009) has shown that category co-ordinate cues interfere with SA patients' naming. In Soni et al (2009), a significant overall cueing effect on accuracy was seen between co-ordinate miscues and correct cues and the negative cueing effect between miscues and neutral cues was marginally significant. This cueing effect was driven by differences in semantic error rates, showing that the cues were acting at the level of semantics in these patients; as in accuracy, the overall cueing effect on semantic errors was significant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%