Psycholinguistic effects, types of impairments and processing levels in word production: Can we reduce confusions?: A commentary to Mailend, Maas, Beeson, Story & Forster (2021)

This commentary highlights three common difficulties faced by the literature that aims to specify models of speech production based on the performance of aphasic speakers, taking as a springboard a recent study by Mailend et al. These include: (1) difficulties with theoretical assumptions which linki psycholinguistic effects unequivocally to one processing level; (2) difficulties using clinical classifications to localize experimental effects; (3) difficulties making theoretical inferences given the controversial nature of the representations that characterize different processing levels. We argue that these three types of difficulties could be ameliorated by studies in which: (1) the level of psycholinguistic effects is demonstrated with converging analyses; (2) clinical classification is not taken as a starting point in studies investigating the nature of an impairment, but, instead, associations between clusters of symptoms are carefully analysed; (3) The nature of processing levels associated with deficits is made clear and results are not over-interpreted as supporting models whose characteristics go beyond an explanation of the results.