Typicality of inanimate category exemplars in aphasia: Further evidence for the semantic complexity effect

Kıran, Swathi; Ntourou, Katerina; Eubanks, M.; Shamapant, Shilpa

doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2005.07.096

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, training typical examples improved naming of those items whereas naming of untrained atypical examples remained unchanged. Similar findings were observed in a follow up study (Kiran, Ntourou, Eubanks, & Shamapant, 2005), where five patients with fluent and nonfluent aphasia were trained on either typical (e.g. recliner, suit) or atypical (e.g., hammock, apron) from two inanimate categories (e.g., clothing, furniture).…”

supporting

confidence: 63%

“…Training typical examples and their semantic features, however, did not result in generalization to atypical examples. The acquisition and generalization patterns for shapes, however, do not appear to be as robust as the effects observed in our previous studies (Kiran & Thompson, 2003;Kiran et al, 2005) indicating that well defined categories such as shapes may be represented differently than natural language categories such as birds or clothing. The results of the online verification task support the findings of the treatment study.…”

contrasting

confidence: 38%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Typicality within well defined categories in aphasia

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 63%

contrasting

confidence: 38%

Typicality within well defined categories in aphasia

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As another approach, the differential representation of atypical and typical examples within a semantic category has been exploited in a novel treatment of naming deficits in patients with aphasia. [48][49][50] Evidence that typicality determines category exemplar access stems from Rosch's 51 seminal work showing that atypical exemplars (e.g., ostrich) have a different status within a semantic category (e.g., bird) than typical examples that exemplify the central tendency of the category (e.g., robin). For example, healthy control subjects are typically faster to assign the basic-level name DOG when the stimulus is a prototypical dog (e.g., Labrador retriever) relative to an atypical category member (e.g., Basenji).…”

Section: Typicality Treatment Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Semantic-Based Treatment for Naming Deficits in Aphasia: What Works?

Kıran

Bassetto

2008

Semin Speech Lang

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews the basic principles and evidence for the effectiveness of a semantic-based treatment for naming deficits in aphasia. This article focuses on three aspects of semantic-based treatment. First, the theoretical basis for semantic treatment approaches to alleviate naming deficits is explained. Second, the different types of semantic treatment approaches (i.e., substitutive and restitutive treatments) are reviewed. More attention is provided to restitutive treatment approaches, and some ideas regarding why these treatments may be effective are discussed. We argue that strengthening access to impaired semantic and phonologic representations and facilitating generalization to untrained but related targets are two factors determining the success of a restitutive-based semantic treatment. Finally, in the third section of the article, the effect of semantic treatment on the overall communicative effectiveness and suggestions for future research in this field are discussed.

show abstract

“…The order of typicality and category trained was counterbalanced across participants in each experiment. The same procedure was employed in another study recently completed in our laboratory focused on inanimate categories (Kiran et al, 2005b), including clothing and furniture. Five participants, three individuals with fluent aphasia, and two individuals with nonfluent aphasia/ apraxia participated in the experiment.…”

Section: Typicality In Treatment Of Namingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complexity in the Treatment of Naming Deficits

Kıran

2007

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

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

Typicality of inanimate category exemplars in aphasia: Further evidence for the semantic complexity effect

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Typicality within well defined categories in aphasia

Typicality within well defined categories in aphasia

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Semantic-Based Treatment for Naming Deficits in Aphasia: What Works?

Complexity in the Treatment of Naming Deficits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About