当前位置: X-MOL 学术J. Neurolinguistics › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Structural prediction in aphasia: Evidence from either
Journal of Neurolinguistics ( IF 2 ) Pub Date : 2016-08-01 , DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.01.001
Tessa Warren 1 , Michael Walsh Dickey 2 , Chia-Ming Lei 1
Affiliation  

Young neurotypical adults engage in prediction during language comprehension (e.g., Altmann & Kamide, 1999; Staub & Clifton, 2006; Yoshida, Dickey & Sturt, 2013). The role of prediction in aphasic comprehension is less clear. Some evidence suggests that lexical prediction may be spared in aphasia (Dickey et al., 2014; Love & Webb, 1977; cf. Mack et al, 2013), and there is even indication that structural prediction may be spared in some people with aphasia (PWA; e.g. Hanne, Burchert, De Bleser, & Vashishth, 2015). The current self-paced reading experiment manipulated the presence of either to examine structural prediction among PWA and a set of similar-aged neurotypical control participants. Consistent with intact structural prediction for both groups of participants, when either preceded a disjunction, reading times were faster on the or and second disjunct (cf. Staub & Clifton, 2006). For neurotypical controls, this effect of the presence vs. absence of either shrank reliably as more experimental items were encountered, whereas for PWA there was a non-significant trend for it to grow as more experimental items were encountered. These findings indicate that PWA and older neurotypical individuals can use a lexical cue to predict the structural form of upcoming material during comprehension, but that on-line adaptation to patterns in the local context may be different for the two groups.

中文翻译:

失语症的结构预测:证据来自

年轻的神经典型成年人在语言理解过程中参与预测(例如,Altmann & Kamide,1999;Staub & Clifton,2006;Yoshida,Dickey & Sturt,2013)。预测在失语理解中的作用不太清楚。一些证据表明,词汇预测在失语症中可能不会发生(Dickey 等人,2014 年;Love & Webb,1977 年;cf. Mack 等人,2013 年),甚至有迹象表明,某些失语症患者可能不会发生结构性预测(PWA;例如 Hanne、Burchert、De Bleser 和 Vashishth,2015 年)。当前的自定进度阅读实验操纵了两者之一的存在,以检查 PWA 和一组类似年龄的神经典型控制参与者之间的结构预测。与两组参与者的完整结构预测一致,无论是在分离之前,在 or 和 second disjunct 上的阅读时间更快(参见 Staub & Clifton, 2006)。对于神经典型对照,随着遇到更多的实验项目,这种存在与不存在的影响会可靠地缩小,而对于 PWA,随着遇到更多的实验项目,它没有显着的增长趋势。这些发现表明,PWA 和年长的神经典型个体可以在理解过程中使用词汇线索来预测即将出现的材料的结构形式,但是这两组对当地环境模式的在线适应可能不同。而对于 PWA,随着遇到更多的实验项目,它的增长趋势并不显着。这些发现表明,PWA 和年长的神经典型个体可以在理解过程中使用词汇线索来预测即将出现的材料的结构形式,但是这两组对当地环境模式的在线适应可能不同。而对于 PWA,随着遇到更多的实验项目,它的增长趋势并不显着。这些发现表明,PWA 和年长的神经典型个体可以在理解过程中使用词汇线索来预测即将出现的材料的结构形式,但是这两组对当地环境模式的在线适应可能不同。
更新日期:2016-08-01
down
wechat
bug