How damaged brains repeat words: A computational approach

Nazbanou Nozari, Gary S Dell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Two routes have been proposed for auditory repetition: a lexical route which activates a lexical item and retrieves its phonology, and a nonlexical route which maps input phonology directly onto output phonology. But when is the nonlexical route recruited? In a sample of 103 aphasic patients, we use computational models to select patients who do and do not recruit the nonlexical route, and compare them in light of three hypotheses: 1 - Lexical -phonological hypothesis: when the lexical route is weak, the nonlexical route is recruited. 2 - Nonlexical hypothesis: when the nonlexical route is weak, it is abandoned. 3 - Semantic-access hypothesis: when access to meaning fails, the nonlexical route is recruited. In neurocognitive terms, hypotheses 1 and 2 identify different aspects of the intactness of the dorsal stream, while the third hypothesis focuses on the ventral stream. Our findings (and a subsequent meta-analysis of four studies) support hypotheses 2 and 3. Ultimately, we claim that the choice about whether to recruit the nonlexical route is guided, not by assessment of production abilities that support repetition, but instead by relying on accessible cues, namely whether the speaker understands the word, or can remember its sequence of phonemes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)327-337
Number of pages11
JournalBrain and Language
Volume126
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2013

Fingerprint

brain
Aptitude
Brain
Semantics
phonology
Cues
Meta-Analysis
Computational
Brain-damaged
Route
Repeats
semantics
ability
Phonology

Keywords

  • Aphasia
  • Auditory word repetition
  • Computational models of language
  • Dual route
  • Language production
  • Lexical route
  • Ventral and dorsal stream

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Speech and Hearing

Cite this

How damaged brains repeat words : A computational approach. / Nozari, Nazbanou; Dell, Gary S.

In: Brain and Language, Vol. 126, No. 3, 01.09.2013, p. 327-337.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Nozari, Nazbanou ; Dell, Gary S. / How damaged brains repeat words : A computational approach. In: Brain and Language. 2013 ; Vol. 126, No. 3. pp. 327-337.
@article{914a57e4dd564c1c849156aa101e567a,
title = "How damaged brains repeat words: A computational approach",
abstract = "Two routes have been proposed for auditory repetition: a lexical route which activates a lexical item and retrieves its phonology, and a nonlexical route which maps input phonology directly onto output phonology. But when is the nonlexical route recruited? In a sample of 103 aphasic patients, we use computational models to select patients who do and do not recruit the nonlexical route, and compare them in light of three hypotheses: 1 - Lexical -phonological hypothesis: when the lexical route is weak, the nonlexical route is recruited. 2 - Nonlexical hypothesis: when the nonlexical route is weak, it is abandoned. 3 - Semantic-access hypothesis: when access to meaning fails, the nonlexical route is recruited. In neurocognitive terms, hypotheses 1 and 2 identify different aspects of the intactness of the dorsal stream, while the third hypothesis focuses on the ventral stream. Our findings (and a subsequent meta-analysis of four studies) support hypotheses 2 and 3. Ultimately, we claim that the choice about whether to recruit the nonlexical route is guided, not by assessment of production abilities that support repetition, but instead by relying on accessible cues, namely whether the speaker understands the word, or can remember its sequence of phonemes.",
keywords = "Aphasia, Auditory word repetition, Computational models of language, Dual route, Language production, Lexical route, Ventral and dorsal stream",
author = "Nazbanou Nozari and Dell, {Gary S}",
year = "2013",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.bandl.2013.07.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "126",
pages = "327--337",
journal = "Brain and Language",
issn = "0093-934X",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How damaged brains repeat words

T2 - A computational approach

AU - Nozari, Nazbanou

AU - Dell, Gary S

PY - 2013/9/1

Y1 - 2013/9/1

N2 - Two routes have been proposed for auditory repetition: a lexical route which activates a lexical item and retrieves its phonology, and a nonlexical route which maps input phonology directly onto output phonology. But when is the nonlexical route recruited? In a sample of 103 aphasic patients, we use computational models to select patients who do and do not recruit the nonlexical route, and compare them in light of three hypotheses: 1 - Lexical -phonological hypothesis: when the lexical route is weak, the nonlexical route is recruited. 2 - Nonlexical hypothesis: when the nonlexical route is weak, it is abandoned. 3 - Semantic-access hypothesis: when access to meaning fails, the nonlexical route is recruited. In neurocognitive terms, hypotheses 1 and 2 identify different aspects of the intactness of the dorsal stream, while the third hypothesis focuses on the ventral stream. Our findings (and a subsequent meta-analysis of four studies) support hypotheses 2 and 3. Ultimately, we claim that the choice about whether to recruit the nonlexical route is guided, not by assessment of production abilities that support repetition, but instead by relying on accessible cues, namely whether the speaker understands the word, or can remember its sequence of phonemes.

AB - Two routes have been proposed for auditory repetition: a lexical route which activates a lexical item and retrieves its phonology, and a nonlexical route which maps input phonology directly onto output phonology. But when is the nonlexical route recruited? In a sample of 103 aphasic patients, we use computational models to select patients who do and do not recruit the nonlexical route, and compare them in light of three hypotheses: 1 - Lexical -phonological hypothesis: when the lexical route is weak, the nonlexical route is recruited. 2 - Nonlexical hypothesis: when the nonlexical route is weak, it is abandoned. 3 - Semantic-access hypothesis: when access to meaning fails, the nonlexical route is recruited. In neurocognitive terms, hypotheses 1 and 2 identify different aspects of the intactness of the dorsal stream, while the third hypothesis focuses on the ventral stream. Our findings (and a subsequent meta-analysis of four studies) support hypotheses 2 and 3. Ultimately, we claim that the choice about whether to recruit the nonlexical route is guided, not by assessment of production abilities that support repetition, but instead by relying on accessible cues, namely whether the speaker understands the word, or can remember its sequence of phonemes.

KW - Aphasia

KW - Auditory word repetition

KW - Computational models of language

KW - Dual route

KW - Language production

KW - Lexical route

KW - Ventral and dorsal stream

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84881160224&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84881160224&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.07.005

DO - 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.07.005

M3 - Article

C2 - 23933472

AN - SCOPUS:84881160224

VL - 126

SP - 327

EP - 337

JO - Brain and Language

JF - Brain and Language

SN - 0093-934X

IS - 3

ER -