Contributions of cognitive neuropsychological research Brenda Rapp and Matthew Goldrick

& Marin, O. S. M. (1980). Fractionating the reading process in
dementia: Evidence for word-specific print-to-sound associations. In M. Coltheart, K. E.
Patterson, & J. C. Marshall (Eds.) Deep dyslexia (pp. 259-269). London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Schwartz, M. F., Saffran, E. M., Bloch, D. E., & Dell, G. S. (1994). Disordered speech production
in aphasic and normal speakers. Brain and Language, 47, 52-88.
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.
Semenza, C., Butterworth, B., Panzeri, M., & Ferreri, T. (1990). Word formation: New evidence
from aphasia. Neuropsychologia, 28, 499-502.
Semenza, C., & Sgaramella, T. (1993), Production of proper names: A clinical study of the effects
of phonemic cueing. Memory, 1, 265-228.
Semenza, C. & Zettin, M. (1988). Generating proper names: A case of selective inability.
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5, 711-772.
Semenza, C. & Zettin, M. (1989). Evidence from aphasia for the role of proper names as pure
referring expressions. Nature, 342, 678–679
Shallice, T. (1979). Case-study approach in neuropsychological research. Journal of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 1, 183-211.
Shallice, T., Rumiati, R. I., & Zadini, A. (2000). The selective impairment of the phonological
output buffer. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17, 517-546.
Shallice, T., Warrington, E. K., & McCarthy, R. (1983). Reading without semantics. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35A, 111-138.
Shapiro, K., & Caramazza, A. (2001). Sometimes a noun is just a noun: Comments on Bird,
Howard, and Franklin (2000). Brain and Language, 76, 202-212.
Shapiro, K., & Caramazza, A. (2003a)Looming a loom: Evidence for independent access to
58
grammatical and phonological properties in verb retrieval. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 16,
85-112.
Shapiro, K., & Caramazza, A. (2003). Grammatical processing of nouns and verbs in left frontal
cortex? Neuropsychologia, 41, 1189-98.
Shapiro, K., Shelton, J., & Caramazza, A. (2001). Grammatical class in lexical production and
morphological processing: evidence from a case of fluent aphasia. Cognitive
Neuropsychology, 17, 665-682.
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1979). Speech errors as evidence for a serial-ordering mechanism in
sentence production. In W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.) Sentence processing:
Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 295-341). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1992). The role of word structure in segmental serial ordering. Cognition,
42, 213-259.
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: Erlbaum.
Tsapkini, K., Jarema, G., & Kehayia, E. (2001). A morphological processing deficit in verbs but
not in nouns: A case study in a highly inflected language. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 15,
265-288.
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Martin, R. C., & Garrett, M. F. (1999). Is “count” and “mass”
information available when the noun Is not? An investigation of tip of the tongue states and
anomia. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 534–558.
Vousden, J. I., Brown, G. D. A., & Harley, T. A. (2000). Serial control of phonology in speech
production: A hierarchical model. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 101-175.
Warrington, E. K., & McCarthy, R. A. (1987). Categories of knowledge: Further fractionations
and an attempted integration. Brain, 110, 1273–1296.
Warrington, E.K. & Shallice, T. (1979). Semantic access dyslexia. Brain, 102, 43-63.
Wilshire, C. E. (2002). Where do aphasic phonological errors come from? Evidence from
movement errors in picture naming. Aphasiology, 16, 169-197.
Wilshire, C. E., & McCarthy, R. A. (1996). Experimental investigations of an impairment in
phonological encoding. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 13, 1059-1098.
Wilshire, C. E., & McCarthy, R. A. (2002). Evidence for a context-sensitive word retrieval
disorder in a case of nonfluent aphasia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 19, 165-186.
Wright, J. F., & Ahmad, K. (1997). The connectionist simulation of aphasic naming. Brain and
Language, 59, 367-389.
Wu, D. H., Martin, R. C., & Damian, M. F. (2002). A third route for reading? Implications from a
case of phonological dyslexia. Neurocase, 8, 274-295.
59
Table 1. Open theoretical issues, circa 1984; progress on these and related issues, 1984-2004.
Major Issues identified in Ellis 1985 Significant progress 1984-2004
Basic architectural organization:
$ Are spoken comprehension and production served by a single lexicon?
$ Are world knowledge and lexical semantics distinct?
$ Are word meanings and word forms represented independently?
$ How are phonemic and phonetic levels distinguished?
Basic architectural organization:
º Open question
º Open question
º The independent representation of word meaning and form
º Open question
[ The independent representation of word form and word syntax
Representation and processing in the speech output lexicon:
$ Does the speech lexicon respect grammatical category
distinctions?
$ Are morphologically complex words represented in a
decomposed manner?
Representation and processing in the speech output lexicon:
º Grammatical category distinctions at the level of the
phonological output lexicon
º Morphologically decomposed word forms
[ Lexical category distinctions at the level of the phonological
output lexicon
Activation dynamics:
$ What is the role of interactive activation in spoken word
production? Specifically:
 $ cascading activation
 $ feedback
 $ competitive inhibition
Activation dynamics:
º Cascading activation from semantic-lexical-phoneme levels
º Feedback from phoneme to lexical levels
º Open question
60
Table 2. RGB and HW’s performance in oral and written naming.
RGB HW
Spoken Correct 68% 65%
Semantic* 32% 26%
Omissions /
Unrecognizable
0% 9%
Written Correct 94% 91%
Semantic* 0% 0%
Omissions /
Unrecognizable
6% 9%
*includes definitions, morphological errors and nonwords recognizable as semantic errors
[skid](squid) for octopus
61
Table 3. Dante’s accuracy on forced-choice questions on trials where he could not generate the
target word (N=88) (data combined from picture-naming and sentence completion tasks)
Percentage Correct
Grammatical gender 98
Word Length 50
First letter 53
Last letter 47
Rhyming word 48
62
Table 4. Distribution of KSR’s responses on spoken and written naming of nouns and verbs.
Spoken noun Spoken verb Written noun Written verb
Correct 71 89 93 55
Other word 10 6 1 14
Non-word 17 2 3 4
Omission 1 0 1 7
Morphological 1 2 2 11
Other word +
morphological
0 0 0 7
63
Table 5. Percentage of total responses in SJD’s reading aloud of matched sets of affixed/unaffixed
homophones. Examples of each potential error type on each list are shown in parentheses.
Affixed Homophones Unaffixed Homophones
Correct 50 85
Morphological error
 (bowled->bowl; lynx-> link)
42 0
Phonological error
 (frays->prays; bread->breast)
8 15
64
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Ellis (1985)’s framework for speech production.
Figure 2. Schematic of lemma theories of speech production (a) and the Independent Network
theory of Caramazza (1997b).
Figure 3. KSR’s written and spoken naming of target pictures.
Figure 4. Highly discrete (a) highly interactive (b) and restricted interaction (c) accounts of
spoken word production. Dotted lines and units in show activation due to semantic overlap with
the target; dashed lines and units show activation due to phonological overlap with the target.
(Concentric circle denote units activated by both semantic and phonological overlap.) (Greyed-out
units are not directly activated by the target.)
Figure 5. Framework for current theories of speech production, incorporating findings reviewed in
the article. Multiple arrows between processing components denotes cascading activation; double-
headed arrows indicate feedback between components. Dashed line indicates uncertainty
regarding relationship between lexical semantic representations and grammatical features.
Figure 6. Schematic articulatory phonological representation (gestural score) of “pan.”
Articulators are shown on the left hand side. Letters on the left and the right show the association
between articulatory gestures and elements in the segmental transcriptions. For each articulator,
the bar represents the time in which the articulator is active. Labels within the bar refer to the
degree of constriction; for some articulators, location is specified following a colon. Wide
indicates that the degree of constriction is low, while closure indicates a high degree of
constriction.
65
Figure 1
Conceptual
Semantic
System
Speech
Output
Lexicon
Phoneme
Level
Speech
66
Figure 2 A
Semantic
Representations
Lemmas
Phonological
Representations
Orthographic
Representations
Syntactic
Representations
A
67
Figure 2B
Semantic
Representations
Phonological
Representations
Orthographic
Representations
Syntactic
Representations
B
68
Figure 3
69
Figure 4 A
A. Highly Discrete Account
CALF CAT DOG RUG SAGCAP
/k/ /ae/ /t/ /g/ /z//p/
 Semantic
Level
Lexical
Level
Phoneme
Level
70
Figure 4 B
CALF CAT DOG RUG SAGCAP
/k/ /ae/ /t/ /g/ /z//p/
B. Highly Interactive Account
 Semantic
Level
Lexical
Level
Phoneme
Level
71
Figure 4C
CALF CAT DOG RUG SAGCAP
/k/ /ae/ /t/ /g/ /z//p/
C. Restricted Interaction
Account
 Semantic
Level
Lexical
Level
Phoneme
Level
72
Figure 5
Lexical Semantics
Speech Output Lexicon
Nouns Verbs
Proper Common walk +ing
John book +s talk +er
brain sing
Grammatical Features
Phonemes
73
Figure 6
VELUM Wide n
TONGUE BODY ae Wide: Pharyngeal
TONGUE TIP Closure: Alveolar n
LIPS Closure: Labial
GLOTTIS
p
h
Wide
time