Density pervades: An analysis of phonological neighbourhood density effects in aphasic speakers with different types of naming impairment

Cognitive Neuropsychology

Volumn 27, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 401-427

  Middleton, Erica L ^a   Schwartz, Myrna F ^a  

^a MOSS REHABILITATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Aphasia; Interactivity; Lexical access; Neighbourhood density; Phonology

Indexed keywords

AGED; ANOMIA; ARTICLE; BRAIN; CASE REPORT; CONDUCTION APHASIA; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SEMANTICS; VISION;

AGED; ANOMIA; APHASIA, CONDUCTION; BRAIN; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SEMANTICS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 79958723801     PISSN: 02643294     EISSN: 14640627     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02643294.2011.570325     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Baars, B. J., Motley, J. T., & MacKay, D. (1975). Output editing for lexical status from artificially elicited slips of the tongue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 382-391.
2. Badecker, W., Miozzo, M., & Zanuttini, R. (1995). The two-stage model of lexical retrieval: Evidence from a case of anomia with selective preservation of grammatical gender. Cognition, 57, 193-216.
3. Baus, C., Costa, A., & Carreiras, M. (2008). Neighbourhood density and frequency effects in speech production: A case for interactivity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 866-888.
4. Best, W. M. (1995). A reverse length effect in dysphasic naming: When elephant is easier than ant. Cortex, 31, 637-652.
5. Biedermann, B., & Nickels, L. (2008). The representation of homophones: More evidence from the remediation of anomia. Cortex, 44, 276-293.
6. Bonin, P., & Fayol, M. (2002). Frequency effects in the written and spoken production of homophonic picture names. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14, 289-313.
7. Bozeat, S., Lambon-Ralph, M. A., Patterson, K., Garrard, P., & Hodges, J. R. (2000). Nonverbal semantic impairment in semantic dementia. Neuropsychologia, 38, 1207-1215.
8. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009).Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977-990.
9. Buckingham, H. W. (1986). The scan-copier mechanism and the positional level of language production: Evidence from phonemic paraphasia. Cognitive Science, 10, 195-217.
10. Burke, D. M., MacKay, D. G., Worthley, J. S., & Wade, E. (1991). On the tip of the tongue: What causes word finding failures in young and older adults? Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 542-579.
11. Butterworth, B. (1989). Lexical access in speech production. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177-208.
13. Caramazza, A., Bi, Y., Costa, A., & Miozzo, M. (2004). What determines the speed of lexical access: Homophone or specific-word frequency? A reply to Jescheniak et al. (2003). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 278-282.
14. Caramazza, A., Costa, A., Miozzo, M., & Bi, Y. (2001). The specific-word frequency effect: Implications for the representations of homophones in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1430-1450.
15. Cortese, M. J., & Fugett, A. (2004). Imageability rating for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 384-387.
16. Costa, A., Roelstraete, B., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2006). The lexical bias effect in bilingual speech production: Evidence for feedback between lexical and sublexical levels across languages. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 972-977.
17. Dabul, B. (2000). Apraxia battery for adults. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
18. Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283-321.
19. Dell, G. S. (1990). Effects of frequency and vocabulary type on phonological speech errors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 315-349.
20. Dell, G. S., & Gordon, J. K. (2003). Neighbors in the lexicon: Friends or foes. In N. O. Schiller & A. S. Meyer (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
21. Dell, G. S., Martin, N., & Schwartz, M. F. (2007). A case-series test of the interactive two-step model of lexical access: Predicting word repetition from picture naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 490-520.
22. Dell, G. S., & O'Seaghdha, P. G. (1992). Stages of lexical access in speech production. Cognition, 42, 287-314.
23. Dell, G. S., & Reich, P. A. (1981). Stages in sentence production: An analysis of speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 611-629.
24. Dell, G. S., Schwartz, M., Martin, M., Saffran, E. M., & Gagnon, D. A. (1997). Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review, 104, 801-838.
25. Fay, D., & Cutler, A. (1977). Malapropisms and the structure of the mental lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 505-520.
26. Foygel, D., & Dell, G. S. (2000). Models of impaired lexical access in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 182-216.
27. Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
28. Fromkin, V. A. (1971). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language, 47, 27-52.
29. Gagnon, D. A., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Dell, G. S., & Saffran, E. M. (1997). The origins of formal paraphasias in aphasics' picture naming. Brain and Language, 59, 450-472.
30. Gainotti, G., Miceli, G., Caltagirone, C., Silveri, M. C., & Masullo, C. (1981). The relationship between type of naming error and semantic-lexical discrimination in aphasic patients. Cortex, 17, 401-410.
31. Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In G. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 9). New York, NY: Academic Press.
32. Garrett, M. F. (1982). Production of speech: Observations from normal and pathological language use. In A.W. Ellis (Ed.), Normality and pathology in cognitive functions (pp. 19-76). London, UK: Academic Press.
33. German, D. J., & Newman, R. S. (2004). The impact of lexical factors on children's word-finding errors. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 624-636.
34. Gilhooly, K. J., & Logie, R. H. (1980). Age-ofacquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 12, 395-427.
35. Goldrick, M., Folk, J. R., & Rapp, B. (2010). Mrs. Malaprop's neighborhood: Using word errors to reveal neighborhood structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 113-134.
36. Goldrick, M., & Rapp, B. (2007). Lexical and postlexical phonological representations in spoken production. Cognition, 102, 219-260.
37. Gordon, J. K. (2002). Phonological neighborhood effects in aphasic speech errors: Spontaneous and structured contexts. Brain and Language, 82, 113-145.
38. Gordon, J. K., & Dell, G. S. (2001). Phonological neighbourhood effects: Evidence from aphasia and connectionist modeling. Brain and Language, 79, 21-23.
39. Harley, T. A. (1993a). Connectionist approaches to language disorders. Aphasiology, 7, 221-249.
40. Harley, T. A. (1993b). Phonological activation of semantic competitors during lexical access in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 291-309.
41. Harley, T. A., & Bown, H. E. (1998). What causes a tip-of-the-tongue state? Evidence for lexical neighbourhood effects in speech production. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 151-174.
42. Hart, J., & Gordon, B. (1990). Delineation of singleword semantic comprehension deficits in aphasia, with anatomical correlation. Annals of Neurology, 27, 226-231.
43. Hartsuiker, R. J., Anton-Mendez, I., Roelstraete, B., & Costa, A. (2006). Spoonish spanerisms: A lexical bias effects in Spanish. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 32, 949-953.
44. Hartsuiker, R. J., Corley, M., & Martensen, H. (2005). The lexical bias effect is modulated by context, but the standard monitoring account doesn't fly: Related reply to Baars, Motley, and MacKay (1975). Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 58-70.
45. Hillis, A. E., Rapp, B. C., Romani, D., & Caramazza, A. (1990). Selective impairment of semantics in lexical processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 7, 191-243.
46. James, L. E., & Burke, D. M. (2000). Phonological priming effects on word retrieval and tip-of-thetongue experiences in young and older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1378-1392.
47. Jefferies, E., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2006). Semantic impairment in stroke aphasia versus semantic dementia: A case-series comparison. Brain, 129, 2132-2147.
48. Jescheniak, J. D., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 824-843.
49. Jescheniak, J. D., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2003). Specific-word frequency is not all that counts in speech production: Comments on Caramazza, Costa, et al. (2001) and new experimental data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 432-438.
50. Kempen, G., & Huijbers, P. (1983). The lexicalization process in sentence production and naming: Indirect election of words. Cognition, 14, 185-209.
51. Kertesz, A. (1982). Western Aphasia Battery. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.
52. Kittredge, A. K., Dell, G. S., Verkuilen, J., & Schwartz, M. (2008). Where is the effect of frequency in word production? Insights from aphasic picture-naming errors. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25, 463-492.
53. Kohn, S. E., & Smith, K. L. (1990). Between-word speech errors in conduction aphasia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 7, 133-156.
54. Levelt, W.J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55. Levelt, W.J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1-75.
56. Levelt, W.J. M., Schriefers, H., Vorberg, D., Meyer, A. S., Pechmann, T., & Havinga, J. (1991). The time course of lexical access in speech production: A study of picture naming. Psychological Review, 98, 122-142.
57. Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19, 1-36.
58. Magnuson, J. S., Dixon, J. A., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2007). The dynamics of lexical competition during spoken word recognition. Cognitive Science, 31, 1-24.
59. Martin, N., Gagnon, D. A., Schwartz, M. F., Dell, G. S., & Saffran, E. M. (1996). Phonological facilitation of semantic errors in normal and aphasic speakers. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 257-282.
60. Menard, S. (2002). Quantitative applications in the social sciences: Vol. 106. Applied logistic regression analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage University.
61. Meyer, A. S., & Bock, J. K. (1992). The tip-of-thetongue phenomenon: Blocking or partial activation? Memory & Cognition, 20, 715-726.
62. Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (2005). The representation of homophones: Evidence from the distractor- frequency effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1360-1371.
63. Miozzo M., Jacobs M.L., & Singer, N. J.W.(2004).The representation of homophones: Evidence from anomia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 840-866.
64. Mirman, D., Kittredge, A. K., & Dell, G. S. (2010). Effects of near and distant phonological neighbors on picture naming. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1447-1452). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
65. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schrieber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 402-407.
66. Newman, R. S., & German, D. J. (2002). Effects of lexical factors on lexical access among typical language-learning children and children with word-finding difficulties. Language & Speech, 43, 285-317.
67. Newman, R. S., & German, D. J. (2005). Life span effects of lexical factors on oral naming. Language & Speech, 48, 123-156.
68. Nooteboom, S. G. (2005). Listening to oneself: Monitoring speech production. In R. J. Hartsuiker, R. Bastiaanse, A. Postma, & F. Wijnen (Eds.), Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech (pp. 167-186). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
69. Nozari, N., & Dell, G. S. (2009). More on lexical bias: How efficient can a "lexical editor" be? Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 291-307.
70. Nusbaum, H. C., Pisoni, D. B., & Davis, C. K. (1984).,Sizing up the Hoosier mental lexicon: Measuring the familiarity of 20,000 words (Research on Speech Perception, Progress Rep. No. 10). Bloomington, In: Indiana University, Psychology Department, Speech Research Laboratory.
71. Oppenheim, G. M., & Dell, G. S. (2008). Inner speech slips exhibit lexical bias but not the phonemic similarity effect. Cognition, 106, 528-537.
72. Peterson, R. R., & Savoy, P. (1998). Lexical selection and phonological encoding during language production: Evidence for cascaded processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 539-557.
73. Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. (2000). Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. Psychological Review, 107, 460-499.
74. Roach, A., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Grewal, R. S., & Brecher, A. (1996). The Philadelphia naming test: Scoring and rationale. Clinical Aphasiology, 24, 121-133.
75. Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107-142.
76. Roelofs, A. (1997). The WEAVER model of wordform encoding in speech production. Cognition, 64, 249-284.
77. Roelofs, A. (2004). Error biases in spoken word planning and monitoring by aphasic and nonaphasic speakers: Comment on Rapp and Goldrick (2000). Psychological Review, 111, 561-572.
78. Romani, C., & Galluzzi, C. (2005). Effects of syllabic complexity in predicting accuracy of repetition and direction of errors in patients with articulatory and phonological difficulties. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 817-850.
79. Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2004). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart's object pictorial set: The role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition. Perception, 33, 217-236.
80. Ruml, W., Caramazza, A., Capasso, R., & Miceli, G. (2005). Interactivity and continuity in normal and aphasic language production. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 131-168.
81. Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W.J. M. (1990). Exploring the time course of lexical access in production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 86-102.
82. Schwartz M. F., Dell G. S., Martin N., Gahl S., & Sobel P. (2006). A case-series test of the interactive two-step model of lexical access: Evidence from picture naming. Journal ofMemory and Language, 54, 228-264.
83. Schwartz, M. F., Kimberg, D. Y., Walker, G. M., Faseyitan, O., Brecher, A., Dell, G. S., et al. (2009). Anterior temporal involvement in semanticword retrieval: Voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping evidence from aphasia. Brain, 132, 3411-3427.
84. Schwartz, M. F., Wilshire, C. E., Gagnon, D. A., & Polansky, M. (2004). Origins of nonword phonological errors in aphasic picture naming. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 159-186.
85. Severens, E., Ratinckx, E., Ferreira, V., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2008). Are phonological influences on lexical (mis)selection the result of a monitoring bias? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1687-1709.
86. Shallice, T., Rumiati, R. I., & Zadini, A. (2000). The selective impairment of the phonological output buffer. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17, 517-546.
87. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174-215.
88. Sommers, M. S. (2009). Washington University in St. Louis Speech and Hearing Lab Neighborhood Database: A web-based implementation of the 20,000-word Hoosier Mental Lexicon. Retrieved October, 2009, from http://neighborhoodsearch. wustl.edu/neighborhood/Home.asp.
89. Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Davis, C. J. (2006). The Bristol norms for age of acquisition, imageability, and familiarity. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 598-605.
90. Stemberger, J. P. (1985). An interactive activation model of language production. In A.W. Ellis (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language (Vol. 1, pp. 143-186). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
91. Vigliocco, G., Antonini, T., & Garrett, M. F. (1997). Grammatical gender is on the tip of Italian tongues. Psychological Science, 8, 314-317.
92. Vigliocco, G., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2002). The interplay of meaning, sound, and syntax in sentence production. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 442-472.
93. Vitevitch, M. S. (1997).The neighborhood characteristics of malapropisms. Language and Speech, 40, 211-228.
94. Vitevitch, M. S. (2002). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 735-747.
95. Vitevitch, M. S., Armbruster, J., & Chu, S. (2004). Sublexical and lexical representations in speech production: Effects of phonotactic probability and onset density. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 514-529.
96. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1998). When words compete: Levels of processing in spoken word perception. Psychological Science, 9, 325-329.
97. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 374-408.
98. Vitevitch M.S., & Luce P.A. (2004).Aweb-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 481-487.
99. Vitevitch, M. S., & Sommers, M. S. (2003). The facilitative influence of phonological similarity and neighborhood frequency in speech production in younger and older adults. Memory and Cognition, 31, 491-504.