Event Abstract

Back to Event

Structural prediction in aphasia

Chia-Ming Lei1*, Tessa Warren2 and Michael W. Dickey1, 3
  • 1 University of Pittsburgh, Communication Science & Disorders, United States
  • 2 University of Pittsburgh, Psychology, United States
  • 3 VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, United States

There is considerable evidence that young healthy comprehenders predict the structure of upcoming material, and that their processing is facilitated when they encounter material matching those predictions (e.g., Staub & Clifton, 2006; Yoshida, Dickey & Sturt, 2013). However, less is known about structural prediction in aphasia. There is evidence that lexical prediction may be spared in aphasia (Dickey et al., 2014; Love & Webb, 1977; cf. Mack et al, 2013). However, predictive mechanisms supporting facilitated lexical access may not necessarily support structural facilitation. Given that many people with aphasia (PWA) exhibit syntactic deficits (e.g. Goodglass, 1993), PWA with such impairments may not engage in structural prediction. However, recent evidence suggests that some PWA may indeed predict upcoming structure (Hanne, Burchert, De Bleser, & Vashishth, 2015). Hanne et al. tracked the eyes of PWA (n=8) with sentence-comprehension deficits while they listened to reversible subject-verb-object (SVO) and object-verb-subject (OVS) sentences in German, in a sentence-picture matching task. Hanne et al. manipulated case and number marking to disambiguate the sentences’ structure. Gazes to an OVS or SVO picture during the unfolding of a sentence were assumed to indicate prediction of the structure congruent with that picture. According to this measure, the PWA’s structural prediction was impaired compared to controls, but they did successfully predict upcoming structure when morphosyntactic cues were strong and unambiguous. Hanne et al.’s visual-world evidence is suggestive, but their forced-choice sentence-picture matching task places tight constraints on possible structural predictions. Clearer evidence of structural prediction would come from paradigms where the content of upcoming material is not as constrained. The current study used self-paced reading study to examine structural prediction among PWA in less constrained contexts. PWA (n=17) who had varying levels of sentence-comprehension impairment read sentences where an upcoming disjunction either could (1b) or could not (1a) be predicted, based on the presence of either (Staub & Clifton, 2006; see Figure 1 for example). If either spurs PWA to predict an upcoming disjunction and this prediction is facilitative, then reading times on the or and second disjunct (or a beautiful portrait) should be faster in the Either condition than in the No Either condition. Results confirmed this prediction (see Figure 1; β=352, t=2.36). The magnitude of this facilitation was related to overall language-impairment severity on the Comprehensive Aphasia Test (CAT: Swinburn, et al., 2004): PWA with milder language impairments showed more facilitation for either than PWA with more severe language impairments (r=.594, p<.05). However, consistent with Hanne et al. (2015), facilitation magnitude was not related to more specific measures of sentence comprehension impairment, namely written sentence comprehension T-scores or the number of errors for syntactically complex sentences (p’s>.05). This finding represents strong and novel evidence that PWA can use a lexical cue to predict the structural form of upcoming material during comprehension. However, the lack of relation between these PWA’s degree of structural facilitation and their sentence comprehension ability may indicate that structural predictions could speed reading without improving comprehension.

Figure 1
Image

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health through grant number R01DC011520 to the second and third authors. It is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System.

References

Dickey, M. W., Warren, T., Hayes, R., & Milburn, E. (2014). Prediction during sentence comprehension in aphasia. Frontiers in Psychology. http://doi.org/10.3389/conf.fpsyg.2014.64.00067

Goodglass, H. (1993). Understanding aphasia. Academic Press.
Hanne, S., Burchert, F., De Bleser, R., & Vashishth, S. (2015). Sentence comprehension and morphological cues in aphasia: What eye-tracking reveals about integration and prediction. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 34, 83-111.

Love, R.J. & Webb, W.G. (1977). The efficacy of cueing techniques in Broca’s aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 42(2), 170-178.

Mack, J.E., Yi, W., & Thompson, C. (2013). Effects of verb meaning on lexical integration in agramatic aphasia: Evidence from eye tracking. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26, 619-636.

Staub, A. & Clifton, C. (2006). Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: Evidence from Either…or. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 322, 425-436.

Swinburn, K., G. Porter, & Howard, D. (2004). Comprehensive aphasia test. New York:
Psychology Press.

Yoshida, M., Dickey, M.W. & Sturt, P. (2013). Predictive processing of syntactic structure: Sluicing and ellipsis in real-time sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(3), 272-302.

Keywords: sentence comprehension in aphasia, Aphasia, Syntax Processing, prediction, disjunction

Conference: Academy of Aphasia 53rd Annual Meeting, Tucson, United States, 18 Oct - 20 Oct, 2015.

Presentation Type: Poster

Topic: Student first author

Citation: Lei C, Warren T and Dickey MW (2015). Structural prediction in aphasia. Front. Psychol. Conference Abstract: Academy of Aphasia 53rd Annual Meeting. doi: 10.3389/conf.fpsyg.2015.65.00061

Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.

The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.

Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.

For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.

Received: 01 May 2015; Published Online: 24 Sep 2015.

* Correspondence: Mr. Chia-Ming Lei, University of Pittsburgh, Communication Science & Disorders, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States, chl162@pitt.edu