Mechanisms underlying perseveration in aphasia: evidence from a single case study

Gotts, Stephen J.; Rocchetta, Antonio Incisa della; Cipolotti, Lisa

doi:10.1016/s0028-3932(02)00067-2

Cited by 38 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 72 publications

(143 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cohen & Dehaene, 1998;Martin, Roach, Brecher, & Lowery, 1998;Plaut & Shallice, 1993). In line with this account, Gotts, Incisa della Rocchetta, and Cipolotti (2002) found that factors that weaken or slow the processing of a current stimulus, such as low-lexical frequency, give rise to more perseverations. However, given this balance between 'new' and 'old' activations, it seems more appropriate, for Wernicke's patients at least, to stress the abnormally high persisting activation because of deWcient activation suppression.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Lexical competition effects in aphasia: Deactivation of lexical candidates in spoken word processing

Janse

2006

Brain and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research has shown that Broca's and Wernicke's aphasic patients show diVerent impairments in auditory lexical processing. The results of an experiment with form-overlapping primes showed an inhibitory eVect of form-overlap for control adults and a weak inhibition trend for Broca's aphasic patients, but a facilitatory eVect of form-overlap was found for Wernicke's aphasic participants. This suggests that Wernicke's aphasic patients are mainly impaired in suppression of once-activated word candidates and selection of one winning candidate, which may be related to their problems in auditory language comprehension.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Lexical competition effects in aphasia: Deactivation of lexical candidates in spoken word processing

Janse

2006

Brain and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consequently, any factor that weakens the intended linguistic unit, or contributes to that of a prior unit promotes the probability of a perseveration. For example, a low-frequency word target should be vulnerable to perseverations of high-frequency words that were recently spoken, and data indicate that this is the case (Gotts, della Rocchetta, & Cipolotti, 2002;Hirsh, 1998). Moreover, the probability of a perseveration should be further enhanced if the two share semantic or phonological features, and again the data are supportive (Martin et al, 1998).…”

Section: Common Mechanisms In Substitutionsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…However, several studies have demonstrated a systematic time-lag relationship between a target word and the most recent occurrence of a word that displaces that target (Cohen & Dehane, 1998;Gotts et al, 2002). This systematic relationship between the temporal window separating target and potential perseverate and the probability of that perseveration occurring is more easily reconciled with a systematic decaying function of activation potential than momentary failure of inhibition.…”

Section: Common Mechanisms In Substitutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Common mechanisms underlying perseverative and non‐perseverative sound and word substitutions

Martin

Dell

2007

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Perseverations of sounds and words are common errors in aphasia. Understanding their mechanisms is of considerable interest to theories of word retrieval and also to treatment of anomia. Here, we explore the hypothesis that perseveration errors are generated by the same mechanisms as non-perseverative errors: weak activation of the intended word in the context of a competition from other activated words. Aims: In analyses of perseverative and non-perseverative naming errors of 94 individuals with aphasia, we aimed to show that the only difference between the two kinds of errors is that perseverated words and sounds have an increased probability of being retrieved instead of the target word because of their residual activation potential from their prior activation. Methods and Procedures: Correlational analyses were conducted to test (1) an interactive activation model's (Schwartz, Dell, Martin, Sobel, & Gahl, 2006) account of the occurrence of sound and whole-word perseverations, (2) distributions of perseverative and non-perseverative across error categories, and (3) the relationship between weakened connection strength between semantic and lexical representations and the occurrence of ''no response'' errors. Outcomes and Results: Our analyses indicate that whole-word perseverative and nonperseverative errors are associated with weak spreading of activation between semantics and the target word form, and that sound perseverations and non-perseverations are associated with weak spreading of activation between the target word form and its corresponding sounds. Additionally, distributions of perseverative and non-perseverative errors across error categories are strongly associated. Finally, the occurrence of ''no response'' type errors is associated with weak semantic activation and the occurrence of whole-word perseverations. Conclusions: The data from this study support a model of word and sound perseverations in which their occurrence is attributed to the same mechanisms as non-perseverative errors: weakened activation of the intended word in the context of a

show abstract

“…While these two studies suggest selective vulnerability to the blocking effect in patients with anterior forms of aphasia, the handful of other patient studies that utilized blocked naming have mostly produced negative effects for aphasics of both anterior and posterior types (Gotts, della Rocchetta, & Cipolotti, 2002;Hodgson et al, 2003;negative in one of two patients tested, Lambon Ralph, Sage, & Roberts, 2000;Schwartz & Hodgson, 2002;Williams & Wright, 1985). Thus, the literature raises questions about the generality of the findings from patients FAS and BM and the significance of the fact that their aphasias were of the anterior type (i.e., featuring nonfluent propositional speech with or without agrammatism).…”

Section: Semantic Blocking In Speakers With Aphasiamentioning

confidence: 98%

Semantic interference during blocked-cyclic naming: Evidence from aphasia☆

Schnur

Schwartz

Brecher

et al. 2006

Journal of Memory and Language

263

349

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mechanisms underlying perseveration in aphasia: evidence from a single case study

Cited by 38 publications

References 72 publications

Lexical competition effects in aphasia: Deactivation of lexical candidates in spoken word processing

Lexical competition effects in aphasia: Deactivation of lexical candidates in spoken word processing

Common mechanisms underlying perseverative and non‐perseverative sound and word substitutions

Semantic interference during blocked-cyclic naming: Evidence from aphasia☆

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About