Target/error overlap in jargonaphasia

the case for a one-source model, lexical and non-lexical summation, and the special status of correct responses

Andrew Olson, Elizabeth Halloran, Cristina Romani

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

We present three jargonaphasic patients who made phonological errors in naming, repetition and reading. We analyse target/response overlap using statistical models to answer three questions: 1) Is there a single phonological source for errors or two sources, one for target-related errors and a separate source for abstruse errors? 2) Can correct responses be predicted by the same distribution used to predict errors or do they show a completion boost (CB)? 3) Is non-lexical and lexical information summed during reading and repetition? The answers were clear. 1) Abstruse errors did not require a separate distribution created by failure to access word forms. Abstruse and target-related errors were the endpoints of a single overlap distribution. 2) Correct responses required a special factor, e.g., a CB or lexical/phonological feedback, to preserve their integrity. 3) Reading and repetition required separate lexical and non-lexical contributions that were combined at output.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)158-179
Number of pages22
JournalCortex
Volume73
Early online date26 Jul 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2015

Fingerprint

Reading
Research Design
Statistical Models
Overlap
Completion

Keywords

  • aphasia
  • computational models
  • jargonaphasia
  • speech production
  • summation hypothesis

Cite this

@article{522c1c37f69a49138addc1120cc85c15,
title = "Target/error overlap in jargonaphasia: the case for a one-source model, lexical and non-lexical summation, and the special status of correct responses",
abstract = "We present three jargonaphasic patients who made phonological errors in naming, repetition and reading. We analyse target/response overlap using statistical models to answer three questions: 1) Is there a single phonological source for errors or two sources, one for target-related errors and a separate source for abstruse errors? 2) Can correct responses be predicted by the same distribution used to predict errors or do they show a completion boost (CB)? 3) Is non-lexical and lexical information summed during reading and repetition? The answers were clear. 1) Abstruse errors did not require a separate distribution created by failure to access word forms. Abstruse and target-related errors were the endpoints of a single overlap distribution. 2) Correct responses required a special factor, e.g., a CB or lexical/phonological feedback, to preserve their integrity. 3) Reading and repetition required separate lexical and non-lexical contributions that were combined at output.",
keywords = "aphasia, computational models, jargonaphasia, speech production, summation hypothesis",
author = "Andrew Olson and Elizabeth Halloran and Cristina Romani",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.cortex.2015.06.028",
language = "English",
volume = "73",
pages = "158--179",
journal = "Cortex",
issn = "0010-9452",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Target/error overlap in jargonaphasia : the case for a one-source model, lexical and non-lexical summation, and the special status of correct responses. / Olson, Andrew; Halloran, Elizabeth; Romani, Cristina.

In: Cortex, Vol. 73, 12.2015, p. 158-179.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Target/error overlap in jargonaphasia

T2 - the case for a one-source model, lexical and non-lexical summation, and the special status of correct responses

AU - Olson, Andrew

AU - Halloran, Elizabeth

AU - Romani, Cristina

PY - 2015/12

Y1 - 2015/12

N2 - We present three jargonaphasic patients who made phonological errors in naming, repetition and reading. We analyse target/response overlap using statistical models to answer three questions: 1) Is there a single phonological source for errors or two sources, one for target-related errors and a separate source for abstruse errors? 2) Can correct responses be predicted by the same distribution used to predict errors or do they show a completion boost (CB)? 3) Is non-lexical and lexical information summed during reading and repetition? The answers were clear. 1) Abstruse errors did not require a separate distribution created by failure to access word forms. Abstruse and target-related errors were the endpoints of a single overlap distribution. 2) Correct responses required a special factor, e.g., a CB or lexical/phonological feedback, to preserve their integrity. 3) Reading and repetition required separate lexical and non-lexical contributions that were combined at output.

AB - We present three jargonaphasic patients who made phonological errors in naming, repetition and reading. We analyse target/response overlap using statistical models to answer three questions: 1) Is there a single phonological source for errors or two sources, one for target-related errors and a separate source for abstruse errors? 2) Can correct responses be predicted by the same distribution used to predict errors or do they show a completion boost (CB)? 3) Is non-lexical and lexical information summed during reading and repetition? The answers were clear. 1) Abstruse errors did not require a separate distribution created by failure to access word forms. Abstruse and target-related errors were the endpoints of a single overlap distribution. 2) Correct responses required a special factor, e.g., a CB or lexical/phonological feedback, to preserve their integrity. 3) Reading and repetition required separate lexical and non-lexical contributions that were combined at output.

KW - aphasia

KW - computational models

KW - jargonaphasia

KW - speech production

KW - summation hypothesis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84943235302&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.06.028

DO - 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.06.028

M3 - Article

VL - 73

SP - 158

EP - 179

JO - Cortex

JF - Cortex

SN - 0010-9452

ER -