ABSTRACT

This commentary highlights three common difficulties faced by the literature that aims to specify models of speech production based on the performance of aphasic speakers, taking as a springboard a recent study by Mailend et al. These include: (1) difficulties with theoretical assumptions which linki psycholinguistic effects unequivocally to one processing level; (2) difficulties using clinical classifications to localize experimental effects; (3) difficulties making theoretical inferences given the controversial nature of the representations that characterize different processing levels. We argue that these three types of difficulties could be ameliorated by studies in which: (1) the level of psycholinguistic effects is demonstrated with converging analyses; (2) clinical classification is not taken as a starting point in studies investigating the nature of an impairment, but, instead, associations between clusters of symptoms are carefully analysed; (3) The nature of processing levels associated with deficits is made clear and results are not over-interpreted as supporting models whose characteristics go beyond an explanation of the results.

摘要

这篇评论强调了文献所面临的三个共同困难，旨在根据失语者的表现来指定语音产生模型，并将 Mailend 等人最近的一项研究作为跳板。这些包括：（1）理论假设的困难，这些假设将心理语言学效应明确地与一个处理水平联系起来；(2) 难以使用临床分类来定位实验效果；(3) 鉴于表征不同处理级别的表示的争议性质，难以进行理论推论。我们认为，这三种类型的困难可以通过以下研究得到改善：（1）心理语言学影响的水平通过收敛分析得到证明；(2) 临床分类不是研究损伤性质的起点，而是仔细分析症状群之间的关联；(3) 明确了与缺陷相关的处理级别的性质，结果不会被过度解释为支持模型，其特征超出了对结果的解释。