Language And The Brain

Front 1

Perisylvian

Back 1

close to the Sylvian fissure

Front 2

Extrasylvian

Back 2

distant from the Sylvian fissure

Front 3

CT scan

Back 3

Invasive
Structural
Good Spatial Resolution

Front 4

Pros Group Studies

Back 4

Can provide stronger data to test theories.
Can do correlational or regression analyses to investigate particular disorders that are shared by an otherwise heterogeneous group

Front 5

Cons of Group Studies

Back 5

Can’t group patients by classical categories for traditional group studies.
Difficult to find cases that are similar in type of lesion and impairment even if they are classified the same
No two cases are completely alike

Front 6

Pros of Single Patient Studies

Back 6

Single case studies are very useful when a patient presents a very unusual pattern rarely seen and if that pattern challenges a established theory.
Single case studies provide a very detailed profile of the case

Front 7

Cons of Single Patient Studies

Back 7

Cannot generalize findings without cases that are similar this can be quite difficult if the pattern observed is rare.
Sometimes a language profile is unusual simply because no one has observed it or reported it. If so, finding other cases should not be too difficult

Front 8

MRI scan

Back 8

Noninvasive
Structural
Good Spatial Resolution

Front 9

PET scan

Back 9

Invasive
Functional
Good Spatial Resolution
Not good Temporal Resolution

Front 10

fMRI scan

Back 10

Noninvasive
Functional
Good Spatial Resolution
Not good Temporal Resolution

Front 11

EEG

Back 11

Invasive
Functional
Not good Spatial Resolution
Good Temporal Resolution

Front 12

MEG

Back 12

Noninvasive
Functional
Not good Spatial Resolution
Good Temporal Resolution

Front 13

ECoG

Back 13

Invasive
Structural
Functional
Good Spatial Resolution

Front 14

Structural Imaging

Back 14

Deals with the structure of the brain and is used to diagnose intracranial disease (such as tumor), and injury

Front 15

Functional Imaging

Back 15

Used to diagnose metabolic diseases and lesions on a finer scale, for neurological and cognitive psychology research, and building brain-computer interfaces.

Front 16

Spatial Imaging

Back 16

Shows the structure of the brain and displays physical damage

Front 17

Temporal Imaging

Back 17

Shows the time when an effect occurs

Front 18

Luria's Contributions In Neuroplasiticy

Back 18

Language areas destroyed by stroke can
be reorganized and re assigned.
Treatment has direct effect on brain
Intervention should restructure the functional system

Front 19

Luria's Contributions In Neurology

Back 19

3 blocks of the brain:
1)thalamus, cerebellum( Subcortical structures), brain stem and limbic system.
-Regulates “tone” or tension and degree of awareness.
-Damage to this are affects awareness and control over cognitive abilities
2) Post central cortex including visual, auditory and sensory systems in the parietal, temporal and occipital lobes.
-Receives, analyzes and stores incoming information
-Organizes units of the language
3) Pre-central cortex (frontal lobes)
-Programs, regulates and controls mental activity.

Front 20

Motor Unit

Back 20

Motor Unit. Symbolic process from sensory unit are translated into intentions in the tertiary motor areas and then into patterns of action in the secondary and primary motor zones.
Activity (message) from the posterior tertiary sensory zones is passed onto the tertiary zone of the motor, or frontal, unit; - intentions are formed here.
Activity (message) passes on to the secondary zone where plans of action are formed
Activity (message) passes on to the primary motor zone, where execution of the plans is initiated

Front 21

Influences of Neuroimaging

Back 21

Enables us to map the cognitive models of language onto its neural substrates – cortical regions, pathways and systems.

Front 22

Influences of Computational Modeling

Back 22

Enables us to hypothesize and test hypotheses about mental dynamics of language processing.

Front 23

Influences of Clinical Work

Back 23

Some diagnostic and therapy approaches follow a specific model
-Luria’s stepwise restoration of functional systems.
-Classic neuroanatomical framework of Wernicke-Lichtheim –Geschwind
-Cognitive neuropsychological models
-Linguistic models
*and some are more communicatively based.

Front 24

Influences of Psychology and Cognitive Science

Back 24

-Development of tests and measurements of cognition and language
-Experimental design
+Group studies
+Single case studies
-Why is this a better option than group design when studying language disorders?
-Statistical analysis
-Cognitive models of langauge processing:
+Serial information processing models (box- and arrow-models
+Connectionist models

Front 25

Linguistic Influences on Models of Lexical Processing

Back 25

Structuralist tradition (de Saussure, 1916 – language is described as structured systems representing different aspects of language –morphology, syntax, e.g
-Generative grammar – Based on work of Chomsky and largely influencing models of syntax.
-Cognitive semantics – mental models of semantics

Front 26

Sensory Unit

Back 26

Input is elaborated in the secondary zones.
It is then integrated in the tertiary zones of the sensory, or posterior, unit.  (also known as association cortex).
Sensory units, primary, secondary and tertiary blocks that are modality specific: auditory, visual sensory/kinesthetic.

Front 27

Norman Geschwind

Back 27

Combined psycholinguistic accounts with neurophysiology
focused transmission of information between motor and sensory processing centers, so called “disconnection syndromes”
Co-occurrence of symptoms that correspond to a particular site of lesion.

Front 28

Harold Goodglass

Back 28

Treatment based on specific impairment
of aphasia developed depending upon aphasia
Aphasia is: defined in terms of anatomical site and a specific set of linguistic representations and the deployment of those representations in language tasks

Front 29

John Marshall

Back 29

introduced psycholinguistic model-based analyses of language impairments.
"Box and Arrow” models
-Box = level of representation being processed
-Arrow = where does that representation go next?

Front 30

Levelt

Back 30

Acccording to Levelt, production
of words and sentences takes
place over a series of discrete
stages, each with their own
specific aspect of language to
process.
There is no interaction between
the stages.

Front 31

G. Hickok’s model

Back 31

Shows stages of processing in a hierarchy but some of the stages do communicate bidirectionally. Each level can connect with its adjacent stage but processing must reach a certain stage to pass on to another level

Front 32

Dell's Interactive Activation Model of Word Production

Back 32

According to Dell and others, production of words and sentences does follow stages of processing, but
there is interaction between each stage
before a word or sentence is produced.

Front 33

Discrete or Interactive Processes

Back 33

Discrete: when you prepare to say a word or name a picture, you retrieve its concept is activated in your mind.
This activation spreads to all of the semantic features of the that concept and activates them.
Activation spreads further to your lexicon and activates the word form that represents that set of semantic features.
Activation spreads to the appropriate sound representations and then to the articulators that initiate production of the word.
Interactive: In an interactive activation model, the same stages are initiated in producing a word, but each one of these “levels of word representation” stay active until the point where the word and sounds are retrieved for production. Later stages can influence earlier stages because of feedback activation through the levels of processing.

Front 34

Data used to test models of processing

Back 34

-Speech errors produced by normal (e.g., Garrett, 1975) and aphasic speakers
-Naming reaction time data
-Analyses of hesitations and pauses in speech production
-Analyses of tip-of-the-tongue phenomena in normal speakers

Front 35

Types of Speech Errors

Back 35

Paradigmatic:
-Additions, deletions, substitutions and blends
Syntagmatic:
-Movement errors: anticipation, perseveration, exchange
-Indicate that we are planning utterances ahead.

Front 36

Baars, Motley & Mackay Experiment

Back 36

Hypothesis: If lexical and phonological levels interact, phoneme movement errors would be influenced by the word outcome of such an error.
barn door --> darn bore
car door --> dar coor).
Subjects read two word pairs with initial phonemes that would prime an exchange of initial phonemes in a third pair.
Results favored their hypothesis: More errors occurred when the outcome was two words.
This suggests that word level representations influence phonological processing.

Front 37

Lexical Bias Effect

Back 37

This occurred in the Baar's experiment since the participants favored real words over non-words.

Front 38

Evidence against and for the interaction of stages

Back 38

Levelt found NO temporal overlap in interference of semantic and phonological probes.
Suggests independence of semantic and phonological stages of word retrieval.
Subsequent experiments by Peterson (2000) varied the degree of semantic and phonological similarity of probes and target names and found evidence for interaction.

Front 39

Word Frequency

Back 39

how often a word is used in a language.
High frequency words are easier to process than low frequency words.

Front 40

Imageability/concreteness

Back 40

with regard to the word’s meaning, is it imageable or is it abstract.
Concrete words are processed more easily than abstract words.

Front 41

Reversed concreteness effect

Back 41

has been reported in some patients with semantic dementia.
Abstract words are processed more easily than concrete words.

Front 42

Word Length Effects

Back 42

long words can be harder to say (output) but can also be easier to recognize (input)

Front 43

Lexical Phonological effects of a word

Back 43

if a word has many similar sounding relatives, it can be more difficult to recognize, but it can also be easier to say.

Front 44

Grammatical Class

Back 44

in some types of aphasia, some classes of words are more difficult than others – e.g., nouns, verbs, function vs. closed class words.

Front 45

Category Specific Effects

Back 45

Dissociations in naming or comprehension of certain semantic categories of words.
Selective deficits in processing animals, tools, fruit, body parts, furniture etc.
Greene and Hodges (1996): Category-specific patterns reflect differential weight of perceptual and function attributes in the representation of natural vs. artifactual objects
Hillis and Caramazza (1991)(Unitary model OUCH): Semantic features cluster together in semantic space by similarity. Objects that share categories also have overlapping features. Semantic loss could affect specific categories in this way.

Front 46

Light Verbs

Back 46

a verb that has little semantic content of its own and it therefore forms a predicate with some additional expression, which is usually a noun. (ex. do, give, make, take, etc.)

Front 47

Heavy Verbs

Back 47

a verb that has a lot of semantic content of its own. (ex. play, camp, swim, etc.)

Front 48

Semantically based anomia

Back 48

impairment at the level of conceptual semantics
Typical response: No response – no attempt to name, superordinates - dog -> animal, visual errors
Meaning representations are degrading
Item consistency: Fails to demonstrate knowledge of a word’s meaning in all tasks
Top-down degradation of semantic through lexical and finally to phonological representations
Reversed concreteness effect is seen in these patients

Front 49

Anomic Aphasia

Back 49

semantic representations are intact, but access to the word from semantics is impaired (also called output lexicon impairment)
Typical response: Semantic substitutions (paraphasias), no response: I know it but I can’t say it.

Front 50

Phonologically based anomia

Back 50

access to the word from semantics is intact, but phonological encoding of words is impaired
Typical Response: Phonological substitutions and misorderings, semantic and formal paraphasias

Front 51

Peripheral Alexias/dyslexias

Back 51

Neglect dyslexia
Pure alexia
Attentional dyslexia

Front 52

Central Alexias/dyslexias

Back 52

Surface dyslexia
Phonological Dyslexia
Deep dyslexia.
Associated with parietal lobe lesions, the parietal lobe is used for spatial orientation and perception.

Front 53

Neglect dyslexia

Back 53

This disorder is specific to perceiving letters and is not a general agnosia.
It is distinguished from visual field cuts (hemianopsias) due to lesions of the optic nerve – affecting sensory input.
Impairment in the way written words are perceived and analyzed during reading - difficult identifying initial or final letters in words.

Front 54

Pure alexia

Back 54

Alexia without agraphia is a form of alexia that most often results from a stroke affecting the left posterior cerebral artery, this in turn damages the corpus callosum
Person can write but cannot read – not even what he/she just wrote.

Front 55

Attentional dyslexia

Back 55

Single word reading is okay, but reading is disrupted for words in text.
Cannot identify letters within words
Words next to each other may blend into one word, e.g., take lime -> tame.
Attributed to impairment of visual attention and/or loss of location information.

Front 56

Phonological dyslexia

Back 56

cannot sound out words.
Cannot read ‘new’ words
Concrete words read more easily than abstract words
Morphological errors affecting inflectional (e.g., directed) more than derivational (government) affixes.
(ex. moment -> movement, curf -> curl

Front 57

Deep Dyslexia

Back 57

Same as phonological dyslexia, but also makes semantic errors in reading.
(ex. applaud -> clap, flet -> felt)

Front 58

Surface Dyslexia

Back 58

Cannot read irregularly spelled words.
Can only sound out words – using grapheme phoneme conversion rules.
(ex. yacht -> yatch, suede -> sud)

Front 59

MI

Back 59

Ph.D. in English literature
8 years post LCVA resulting in anomic aphasia
CT findings consistent with infarct involving left frontal-occipital-parietal lobes
Presents with a deep dyslexic profile
High proportion of semantic paralexias .25
Severe impairment in reading nonwords
Imageability effect
Difficulty with derivational endings
Semantic paralexias the hallmark of deep dyslexia during oral word reading
MI read .0 (0/198) nonwords accurately.
MI produced a rarely reported pattern of responses to nonwords:
A two step error characterized by semantic paralexias in response to nonwords.
“rodka” -> “liquor”
“poltue” -> “chicken”
“wiff” -> “wedding”
“frosk” -> “ice”
STIMULUS MEDIATING WORD OUTPUT “athlems”  (athlete)  “ball”