Omissions and semantic errors in aphasic naming: Is there a link?

Bormann, Tobias; Kulke, Florian; Wallesch, Claus‐W.; Blanken, Gerhard

doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2007.02.004

Cited by 31 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is inconsistent with the account put forward by Newton and Barry, because dense semantic neighborhoods containing many semantic competitors should elicit fewer rather than more omissions (Bormann et al, 2008;Dell et al, 2004). Second, when participants were provided with cues as to the number of letters in a word, the number of correct retrievals increased significantly, and the probability of failure at Step 1 was significantly reduced.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 55%

“…The simulation showed that an additional semantic competitor made the model produce more semantic errors and fewer omissions. Such an outcome is consistent with evidence from aphasic picture naming (Bormann, Kulke, Wallesch, & Blanken, 2008) that dense semantic neighborhoods elicit more semantic alternates but fewer omissions. So, contrary to Hanley et al (2004), it follows from Newton and Barry's account that more semantic errors but not more omissions should arise during attempts to produce abstract words from dictionary definitions.…”

supporting

confidence: 75%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Concreteness and word production

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments are reported that investigated the effect of concreteness on the ability to generate words to fit sentence contexts. When participants attempted to retrieve words from dictionary definitions in Experiment 1, abstract words were associated with more omissions and more alternates than were concrete words. These findings are consistent with the view that the semantic-lexical weights in the word production system are weaker for abstract than for concrete words. We found no evidence that greater competition from semantic neighbors was an additional reason why abstract words were harder to produce. Participants also reported more positive tip-of-the-tongue states (TOTs) when attempting to produce abstract words from their definitions, consistent with more phonological retrieval problems for abstract than for concrete words. In Experiment 2, participants attempted to generate words to fit into a sentence that described a specific event. The difference between the numbers of abstract and concrete words recalled was significantly smaller in the event condition than in the definition condition, and evidence no longer emerged of greater phonological retrieval failure for abstract words. Overall, the results are consistent with the view that the semantic-lexical weights, but not the lexicalphonological weights, are weaker for abstract than for concrete words in the word production system. Keywords Concreteness effect . Word production . Tip-of-the-tongue statesIn this study, we investigated the way in which rated concreteness influences the processes that are involved in word production. Experiments examining the effects on word production of variables such as frequency and age of acquisition have often employed tests of picture naming (e.g., Johnston, Dent, Humphreys, & Barry, 2010). Because it is not feasible to present abstract words in pictorial form, a few studies have instead used definition tasks to compare concrete and abstract word retrieval (Allen & Hulme, 2006;Hanley & Kay, 1997;Newton & Barry, 1997). Participants are presented with dictionary definitions of concrete and abstract words, and they attempt to recall the word that fits each definition. Allen and Hulme reported significantly better concrete than abstract word production on this task, even though their sets of concrete and abstract words were matched for frequency, morphemic complexity, age of acquisition, familiarity, neighborhood size, and word length.As Allen and Hulme (2006) pointed out, generating words from dictionary definitions involves several distinct processes. It first requires access to a target word's semantic representation in memory. In terms of a model of word production such as that put forward by Foygel and Dell (2000), activation of the word's lexical representation can then take place from its semantic representation, followed by activation of the word's phonological features. Gollan and Brown (2006) argued that the kinds of errors that participants make during word production make it possible to distinguis...

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 55%

supporting

confidence: 75%

Concreteness and word production

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This result introduces the importance of semantic neighborhood size, an under-researched variable particularly for studies investigating verb retrieval that may influence the occurrence of semantic errors. That is, the number of semantic errors tends to rise when many semantic competitors are available as opposed to errors of omission which are more frequent when there are few competitors (see Bormann, Kulke, Wallesch, & Blanken, 2008, for evidence from aphasia). This variable may play a role in the design of future studies investigating word production in children with language impairments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Does verb type affect action naming in specific language impairment (SLI)? Evidence from instrumentality and name relation

Kambanaros

2013

Journal of Neurolinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Lexical-semantic neighborhood size has recently been identified as a critical variable in the naming performance of anomic subjects by Blanken and colleagues (Blanken et al, 2002; Bormann et al, 2008). In a single case study, Blanken et al (2002) demonstrated that for items from broad semantic categories with many competitors (e.g., “lion,” “hammer”; “high competition target items”) their anomic subject MW exhibited semantic errors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Lexical-Semantic Neighborhood in Object Naming: Implications for Models of Lexical Access

Bormann¹

2011

Front. Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of lexical-semantic neighborhood is relevant to models of lexical access. Recently it has been claimed that the size of the cohort of activated competitors affects ease of lexical selection in word production as well as the effect of semantically related distractors in picture–word interference tasks. Three experiments are reported in which subjects had to name pictures from large and small semantic categories (cf. “lion,” “hammer” versus “funnel,” “cage”). In Experiment 1, naming-impaired subjects exhibited semantic errors for targets from large categories. No semantic but many omission errors occurred for targets from small categories suggesting that few competitors were available for these “low competition targets.” In contrast in two experiments with unimpaired subjects, targets were named equally fast. These experiments were sensitive enough to yield a highly significant repetition effect in Experiment 2. Contrary to the explicit predictions of a recent proposal, semantically related distractors caused interference for both groups of words in Experiment 3. The results suggest no role of neighborhood size in the naming of unimpaired individuals. Implications for models of lexical selection are discussed.

show abstract

Omissions and semantic errors in aphasic naming: Is there a link?

Cited by 31 publications

References 23 publications

Concreteness and word production

Concreteness and word production

Does verb type affect action naming in specific language impairment (SLI)? Evidence from instrumentality and name relation

The Role of Lexical-Semantic Neighborhood in Object Naming: Implications for Models of Lexical Access

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About