Lexical Ambiguity Processing in Persian-speaking Patients With Broca and Wernicke Aphasia
Introduction: Wernicke and Broca are two essential types of aphasia in which patients’ productive and comprehensive abilities are affected, respectively. Although the lexico-semantic knowledge, as the heart of language comprehension, has been investigated in many research studies, there are still some controversies regarding the nature of probable lexical deficits in these patients. This study tried to delve into this issue and provide a plausible explanation in the Persian setting.
Materials and Methods: In doing so, 6 patients with Broca Aphasia (BA), 6 patients with Wernicke Aphasia (WA), and 12 healthy age- and education-matched monolingual controls were selected. Conducting a lexical decision task, each patient was required to decide whether the third word of an auditory presented triplet was meaningful or not. The first and last words of the triplet were related or unrelated to the ambiguous middle word.
Results: The results showed the similarity of the performance of WA patients to that of healthy control. That is, the context shaped by the first word facilitated the activation of the third word. Thus, they exhibited selected access to different meanings of ambiguous words as the healthy controls did. In contrast, semantic facilitation was not observed in BA patients.
Conclusion: Our results supported the previous findings asserting the intactness of semantic representation in WA patients.
Imaezue GC, Salako IA. Aphasia rehabilitation of auditory word comprehension-impaired stroke patients. Journal of Neurology & Translational Neuroscience. 2017; 5(1):1077. https://www.jscimedcentral.com/Neuroscience/neuroscience-5-1077.pdf
Thompson HE, Robson H, Lambon Ralph MA, Jefferies E. Varieties of semantic ‘access’ deficit in Wernicke’s aphasia and semantic aphasia. Brain. 2015; 138(12):3776-92. [DOI:10.1093/brain/awv281] [PMID] [PMCID]
Goodglass H, Baker E. Semantic field, naming, and auditory comprehension in aphasia. Brain and Language. 1976; 3(3):359-74. [DOI:10.1016/0093-934X(76)90032-8]
Grober E, Perecman E, Kellar L, Brown J. Lexical knowledge in anterior and posterior aphasics. Brain and Language. 1980; 10(2):318-30. [DOI:10.1016/0093-934X(80)90059-0]
Andersen TS, Starrfelt R. Audiovisual integration of speech in a patient with Broca’s aphasia. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015; 6:435. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00435]
Ardila A. A proposed reinterpretation and reclassification of aphasic syndromes. Aphasiology. 2010; 24(3):363-94. [DOI:10.1080/02687030802553704]
Swaab TY, Brown C, Hagoort P. Delayed integration of lexical ambiguities in Broca’s aphasics: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and Language. 1995; 51(1):159-61. https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/15982
Nakano H, Blumstein SE. Deficits in thematic integration processes in Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia. Brain and Language. 2004; 88(1):96-107. [DOI:10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00280-3]
Neely JH. Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 1977; 106(3):226-54. [DOI:10.1037/0096-34220.127.116.11]
Shiffrin RM, Schneider W. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review. 1977; 84(2):127-90. [DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127]
Prather P, Shapiro L, Zurif E, Swinney D. Real-time examinations of lexical processing in aphasics. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1991; 20(3):271-81. [DOI:10.1007/BF01067219] [PMID]
Blumstei SE, Milberg WP. Language deficits in Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia: A singular impairment. In: Grodzinsky Y, Shapiro LP, Swinney D, editors. Language and the Brain, Representation and Processing, A volume in Foundations of Neuropsychology. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2000. p. 167-83. [DOI:10.1016/B978-012304260-6/50011-6]
Chater N, Manning CD. Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2006; 10(7):335-44. [DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2006.05.006] [PMID]
Lively SE, Pisoni DB, Goldinger SD. Spoken word recognition: Research and theory. In: Gernsbacher MA, editor. Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 1994. p. 265-96. https://books.google.com/books?id=8slhAAAAMAAJ&dq
Mirman D, Yee E, Blumstein SE, Magnuson JS. Theories of spoken word recognition deficits in aphasia: Evidence from eye-tracking and computational modeling. Brain and Language 2011; 117(2):53-68. [DOI:10.1016/j.bandl.2011.01.004] [PMID] [PMCID]
Luce PA, McLennan CT. Spoken word recognition: The challenge of variation. In: Pisoni D, Remez R, editors. The Handbook of Speech Perception. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 2005. p. 591-610. https://books.google.com/books?id=EwY15naRiFgC&dq
Vitevitch MS, Luce PA. When words compete: Levels of processing in perception of spoken words. Psychological Science. 1998; 9(4):325-9. [DOI:10.1111/1467-9280.00064]
Yadegari F, Razavi MR, Azimian M. Frame aphasia due to Broca’s area impairment: A Persian case report. Aphasiology. 2015; 29(4):457-65. [DOI:10.1080/02687038.2014.971221]
Borod JC, Goodglass H, Kaplan E. Normative data on the Boston diagnostic aphasia examination, parietal lobe battery, and the Boston naming test. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology. 1980; 2(3):209-15. [DOI:10.1080/01688638008403793]
Schvaneveldt RW, Meyer DE, Becker CA. Lexical ambiguity, semantic context, and visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1976; 2(2):243-56. [DOI:10.1037/0096-1518.104.22.168]
Copland DA, Chenery HJ, Murdoch BE. Processing lexical ambiguities in word triplets: Evidence of lexical-semantic deficits following dominant nonthalamic subcortical lesions. Neuropsychology. 2000; 14(3):379-90. [DOI:10.1037/0894-422.214.171.1249] [PMID]
Swinney D, Prather P, Love T. The time-course of lexical access and the role of context: Converging evidence from normal and aphasic processing. In: Grodzinsky Y, Shapiro LP, Swinney D, editors. Language and the Brain, Representation and Processing, A volume in Foundations of Neuropsychology. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2000. p. 273-92. [DOI:10.1016/B978-012304260-6/50016-5]
Newman SD, Just MA, Keller TA, Roth J, Carpenter PA. Differential effects of syntactic and semantic processing on the subregions of Broca’s area. Cognitive Brain Research. 2003; 16(2):297-307. [DOI:10.1016/S0926-6410(02)00285-9]
Friederici AD. Syntactic and semantic processes in aphasic deficits: The availability of prepositions. Brain and Language. 1982; 15(2):249-58. [DOI:10.1016/0093-934X(82)90059-1]
Luria AR, Tsvetkova LS. The mechanism of ‘dynamic aphasia’. Foundations of Language. 1968; 4(3):296-307. https://philpapers.org/rec/LURTMO
Katz WF, Baum SR. Compensatory articulation in Broca’s aphasia: The facts aren’t in yet: A reply to Sussman et al. Brain and Language. 1987; 30(2):367-73. [DOI:10.1016/0093-934X(87)90110-6]
Burkhardt P, Piñango MM, Wong K. The role of the anterior left hemisphere in real-time sentence comprehension: Evidence from split intransitivity. Brain and Language. 2003; 86(1):9-22. [DOI:10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00526-6]
Giora R. Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics. 1997; 8(3):183-206. [DOI:10.1515/cogl.19126.96.36.199]
Giora R. On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics. 1999; 31(7):919-29. [DOI:10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00100-3]
Giora R, Fein O. Irony comprehension: The graded salience hypothesis. Humor. 1999; 12(4):425-36. [DOI:10.1515/humr.19188.8.131.525]
Hillert D, Swinney D. The processing of fixed expressions during sentence comprehension. In: Cienki AJ, Luka BJ, Smith MB, editors. Conceptual and Discourse Factors in Linguistic Structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications; 2001. p. 107-21. https://books.google.com/books?id=pwthQgAACAAJ&dq
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.