Wernicke's aphasia and normal language processing: A case study in cognitive neuropsychology

Ellis, Andrew W.; Miller, Diane Helene; Sin, Gillian

doi:10.1016/0010-0277(83)90036-7

Cited by 164 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We have reported the case of a patient with Wernicke's aphasia who suffered from severe neologistic jargon (for reviews and related cases, see Butterworth, 1979Butterworth, , 1992Ellis, Miller, & Sin, 1983;Lecours, 1982). The neologisms, although generally close to the target in terms of overall syllabic structure, were marred by pervasive phoneme substitutions.…”

Section: General Discussion Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Neologistic Jargon Sparing Numbers: A Category-specific Phonological Impairment

Dehaene¹

1997

Cognitive Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: General Discussion Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Neologistic Jargon Sparing Numbers: A Category-specific Phonological Impairment

Dehaene¹

1997

Cognitive Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The evidence we review shows that writing is not dependent on phonological processes.'! One type of evidence that has been cited in support of the autonomy of writing processes from phonology is the dissociation of writing and speaking impairments (e.g., Assai, Buttet, & Jolivet, 1981;Blanken, de Langen, Dittmann, & Wallesch, 1989;Bub & Kertesz, 1982;Caramazza, Berndt, & Basili, 1983;Ellis, Miller, & Sin, 1983;Hier & Mohr, 1977;Kremin, 1987;Patterson & Shewell, 1987). However, these reports did not explore the deficits in enough detail to resolve issues concerning the influence of both sublexical and lexical phonological processing on writing.…”

Section: The Independence Of Phonological and Orthographic Output Repmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deficits in lexical and semantic processing: Implications for models of normal language

Shelton

Caramazza

1999

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The investigation of language processing following brain damage may be used to constrain models of normal language processing, We review the literature on semantic and lexical processing deficits, focusing on issues of representation of semantic knowledge and the mechanisms of lexical access, The results broadly support a componential organization of lexical knowledge-the semantic component is independent of phonological and orthographic form knowledge, and the latter are independent of each other. Furthermore, the results do not support the hypothesis that word meaning is organized into modality-specific subcomponents. Wealso discuss converging evidence from functional imaging studies in relation to neuropsychological results.The investigation of cognitive deficits in brain-damaged individuals can provide powerful constraints for theories of normal cognition. Brain damage does not lead to an undifferentiated loss of cognitive abilities but to richly structured patterns of impaired and spared performance. Thus, for example, a patient might show severe difficulties in orally producing the names ofpictures but show no comparable difficulties in writing them. Or a patient might show great difficulty in producing nouns but not verbs and adjectives. Furthermore, in most cases impaired performance deviates from normal performance in instructive ways. For example, in a picture naming task a patient might produce phonological distortions of the target response (e.g., chair~"share, chail"), suggesting the possibility that the correct lexical node has been accessed but that subsequent processes are damaged. Or the patient might produce well-formed, semantically related responses (e.g., chair~"table, not that but close, something you sit on"), suggesting that motor programming and articulatory processes are intact but that lexical selection mechanisms are malfunctioning. The analysis of the dissociation and association of symptoms and their related error patterns severely constrains possible interpretations of the locus of functional impairment in the normal language production system. The logic of inferences from impaired performance to normal cognition is straightforward: We prefer a theory of normal cognition over alternative theories if that theory can explain both normal performance and the various ways in which a system breaks down in conditions ofbrain damage. One area 5 that has benefited greatly from neuropsychological investigations is lexical processing.A basic assumption shared by almost all current theories of the lexicon is that it is composed of several distinct components. This assumption supports the expectation that brain damage could result in the selective disruption of each of the components that constitutes the lexical system. The ways in which a cognitive system can be damaged depends on how it is organized in the brain. Functionally independent lexical components can be damaged selectively only if they are neuroanatomically separable.' But, within the constraints imposed by the neuroanatomical organ...

show abstract

“…For example, cases in which difficulties in oral responding result from motor difficulties affecting the articulators would be irrelevant. Anumber of cases exhibiting superior written vs. spoken naming with intact articulatory abilities have, in fact, been reported across a number of languages (Assal, Buttet, & Jolivet, 1981;Basso et al, 1978;Bub & Kertesz, 1982;Caramazza, Berndt, & Basili, 1983;Caramazza & Hillis, 1990;Coslett, Gonzalez-Rothi, & Heilman, 1984;Ellis, Miller, & Sin, 1983; Friederici, Schoenle, & Goodglass, 1981; Grashey, 1885;Hier & Mohr, 1977;Lecours & Rouillon, 1976;Leischner, 1969;Levine, Calvanio, & Popovics, 1982;Lhermitte & Dér ouesné, 1974;Lichtheim, 1885;Mohr, Sidman, Stoddart, Leicester, & Morton, 1980;Mohr, Pessin, Finkelstein, Funkenstein, Duncan, &Davis, 1978;Nickels, 1992;Patterson & Shewell, 1987;Rapp & Caramazza, 1997;Semenza, Cipolotti, & Denes, 1992). However, although it is obviously necessary to rule out a peripheral articulatory source of the spoken errors, the finding of intact articulation is also insufficient.…”

Section: Establishing the Locus Of Impairment: Lexical Vs Post-lexicalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are anumberof individuals whoexhibit fluent, well-articulated speech characterised by neologisms and phonemic errors in the context of relatively spared written performance (Assal et al, 1981;Caramazza et al, 1983;Coslett et al, 1984;Ellis et al, 1983;Lhermitte & Dér ouesné, 1974;Patterson & Shewell, 1987;Rapp & Caramazza, in press;Semenza et al, 1992). For example, one of the individuals described by Lhermitte and Déro uesné (1974) was 74% correct in written production but only 8% correct in oral production.…”

Section: Phonemic Errors and Spoken Neologisms + Relatively Good Writmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the considerable uncertainty regarding the functional origin of these nonarticulatory spoken errors (see Buckingham & Kertesz, 1976;Butterworth, 1992;Ellis et al, 1983) makes it difficult to establish unambiguously a specifically lexical locus of impairment in these cases. Thus, one could argue that in spite of thetypically intact articulatory abilities of these individuals, their spoken errors arise from a deficit before the level at which the articulators are engaged and yet beyond the stage at which lexical phonological representations are retrieved.…”

Section: Phonemic Errors and Spoken Neologisms + Relatively Good Writmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Autonomy of Lexical Orthography

Rapp¹,

Benzing

Caramazza

1997

Cognitive Neuropsychology

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do we need to access the spoken form of a word in order to retrieve the word's spelling or in order to understand the meaning of its written form? In this paper we focus on the relationship between lexical phonology and orthography specifically in production and we present the case of a neurologically impaired individual who is often unable to provide the correct spoken name of an object although he may be able to write its name correctly. We argue that this evidence is seriously problematic for the hypothesis of obligatory phonological mediation and conclude that orthographic lexical forms can indeed be independently accessed for production without the mediating role of phonology.

show abstract

Wernicke's aphasia and normal language processing: A case study in cognitive neuropsychology

Cited by 164 publications

References 27 publications

Neologistic Jargon Sparing Numbers: A Category-specific Phonological Impairment

Neologistic Jargon Sparing Numbers: A Category-specific Phonological Impairment

Deficits in lexical and semantic processing: Implications for models of normal language

The Autonomy of Lexical Orthography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About