The effect of typicality on online category verification of inanimate category exemplars in aphasia

Kıran, Swathi; Ntourou, Katerina; Eubank, Megan

doi:10.1080/02687030600743564

Cited by 26 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A potential influence of word frequency can be ruled out because the stimuli were controlled for this variable. These results entirely replicate the effects of earlier studies separately examining TYP and AOA effects in visual semantic tasks (Brysbaert et al, 2000;Johnston and Barry, 2006;Kiran et al, 2007;Larochelle et al, 2000;Morrison and Gibbons, 2006). Beyond that, the presence of statistically significant main effects for both variables along with the absence of an interaction within the same experiment provide further evidence that the two variables affect semantic processing independently from each other.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…This so called typicality effect has repeatedly been demonstrated in written category-member-verification tasks where a semantic relation, including a superordinate and a subordinate item, is visually presented in form of a sentence (e.g., "A SPARROW is a BIRD"; Mervis and Rosch, 1981;Smith et al, 1974) or as a word pair (e.g., "BIRD -SPARROW"; Hampton, 1997;Kiran et al, 2007;Larochelle and Pineau, 1994). In addition, TYP effects have been found in semantic tasks involving category-based induction and deduction (e.g., Lei et al, 2010;Rein et al, 2010), visual living/non-livingdecisions (Morrison and Gibbons, 2006), category naming (Casey, 1992;Hampton, 1995), and in tasks involving both lexical and semantic processes like picture naming (Dell'Acqua et al, 2000;Holmes and Ellis, 2006), reading (Garrod and Sanford, 1977), sentence production (Kelly et al, 1986) or category-member-generation (e.g., Hernández-Muñoz et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On the influence of typicality and age of acquisition on semantic processing: Diverging evidence from behavioural and ERP responses

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

On the influence of typicality and age of acquisition on semantic processing: Diverging evidence from behavioural and ERP responses

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The semantic tasks were consistent with other examinations of semantic processing abilities in PWA such as category generation, category sorting, category superordinate verification, and semantic feature verification (Casey, 1992; Fujihara, Nageishi, Koyama, & Nakajima, 1998; Grober, Perecman, Kellar, & Brown, 1980; Hampton, 1979; Kiran, Ntourou, & Eubanks, 2007; Kiran & Thompson, 2003; Rips, Shoben, & Smith, 1973). Similarly, the phonological tasks were similar to tasks utilized in previous studies examining phonological processing deficits in PWA, including phonological judgment and manipulation involving rhyme judgments, segmentation, and minimal pairs (Howard & Nickels, 2005; Jefferies & Lambon Ralph, 2006).…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 82%

Understanding semantic and phonological processing deficits in adults with aphasia: effects of category and typicality

Meier

Kıran

2015

Aphasiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Semantic and phonological processing deficits are often present in aphasia. The degree of interdependence between the deficits has been widely studied with variable findings. Semantic variables such as category and typicality have been found to influence semantic processing in healthy individuals and persons with aphasia but their influence on phonological processing is unknown. Aims This study examined the nature of semantic and phonological access in aphasia by comparing adults with aphasia to healthy control participants. Semantic and phonological tasks were used to assess the difference in processing requirements between and within each group as well as examine the effects of category and typicality on different stages of semantic and phonological processing. Methods & Procedures Thirty-two persons with aphasia and ten neurologically healthy adults were administered nine tasks: Category Superordinate, Category Coordinate, Semantic Feature, Rhyme Judgment (No-Name), Syllable Judgment (No-Name), Phoneme Verification (No-Name), Rhyme Judgment (Name-Provided), Syllable Judgment (Name-Provided), and Phoneme Verification (Name-Provided). Accuracy and reaction time data were collected for each of these tasks and between-group and within-group differences were analyzed via MANOVA/MANCOVA and hierarchical clustering analyses. Outcomes & Results Persons with aphasia performed with significantly lower accuracy than controls on phonological tasks but performed comparably on semantic tasks. Participants with aphasia were significantly slower than controls on all semantic and phonological tasks. Clustering of the nine tasks by accuracy revealed different processing requirements in the participants with aphasia compared to the control group while clustering by reaction time revealed similar trends in both groups in that phonological (no-name) items required the most processing time. Significant effects of category and typicality were noted in the semantic tasks but not in any of the phonological tasks. Conclusions Individuals with aphasia demonstrated overall impaired phonological processing with relatively preserved semantic processing as compared to controls. Per accuracy and reaction time measures, distinct trends in processing load for semantic tasks versus phonological tasks were seen in the individuals with aphasia whereas only speed of processing and not accuracy was impacted by phonological processing load in the control group. The results align most closely with discrete serial processing models of lexical processing as category and typicality effects were robust in the semantic tasks but not in any of the phonological tasks. Alternative explanations for these results also are discussed.

show abstract

“…Studies examining verification times for category membership (Hampton, 1979;McCloskey & Glucksberg, 1979;Kiran & Thompson, 2003b;Larochelle & Pineu, 1994;Rips, Shoben, & Smith, 1973;Smith, Shoben, & Rips, 1974;Storms, De Boek, & Ruts, 2000) and category naming frequency (Casey, 1992;Hampton, 1995), as well as data detailing the order in which category items are learned (Posner & Keele, 1968;Rosch, 1973;Rosch & Mervis, 1975) indicate the advantage of typical examples over atypical examples within a category. For instance, during online category verification of animate categories (e.g., birds, vegetables; Kiran & Thompson, 2003b) and inanimate categories (e.g., clothing, furniture; Kiran, Ntourou, & Eubank, 2005a), typical examples were responded to faster than atypical examples. Also, during online feature verification tasks, where participants are required to judge whether a specific feature (e.g., does this bird live in the wild) matches a corresponding picture (e.g., vulture), features for typical examples were verified faster than features for atypical examples (Kiran & Allison, 2005).…”

Section: Semantic Categories and Typicalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Complexity in the Treatment of Naming Deficits

Kıran

2007

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-This paper discusses a novel approach for treatment of lexical retrieval deficits in aphasia in which treatment begins with complex, rather than simple, lexical stimuli. This treatment considers the semantic complexity of items within semantic categories, with a focus on their featural detail.Methods and Results-Previous work on training items within animate categories (Kiran & Thompson, 2003a) and preliminary work aimed at items within inanimate categories are discussed in this paper. Both these studies indicate that training atypical category items that entail features inherent in the category prototype as well as distinctive features that are not characteristic of the category prototype results in generalization to untrained typical examples which entail only features consistent with the category prototype. Conversely, training typical examples does not result in generalization to untrained atypical examples. In this paper, it is argued that atypical items are more complex than typical items within a category and a theoretical framework for this dimension of semantic complexity is discussed. Then, evidence from treatment studies that support this complexity hierarchy is presented. Potential patient-and stimulus-specific factors that may influence the success of this treatment approach are also discussed.Conclusions-The applications of semantic complexity to treatment of additional semantic categories and functional applications of this approach are proposed.

show abstract

The effect of typicality on online category verification of inanimate category exemplars in aphasia

Cited by 26 publications

References 31 publications

On the influence of typicality and age of acquisition on semantic processing: Diverging evidence from behavioural and ERP responses

On the influence of typicality and age of acquisition on semantic processing: Diverging evidence from behavioural and ERP responses

Understanding semantic and phonological processing deficits in adults with aphasia: effects of category and typicality

Complexity in the Treatment of Naming Deficits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About