Literature DB >> 28624680

The timing of spontaneous detection and repair of naming errors in aphasia.

Julia Schuchard1, Erica L Middleton2, Myrna F Schwartz3.   

Abstract

This study examined the timing of spontaneous self-monitoring in the naming responses of people with aphasia. Twelve people with aphasia completed a 615-item naming test twice, in separate sessions. Naming attempts were scored for accuracy and error type, and verbalizations indicating detection were coded as negation (e.g., "no, not that") or repair attempts (i.e., a changed naming attempt). Focusing on phonological and semantic errors, we measured the timing of the errors and of the utterances that provided evidence of detection. The effects of error type and detection response type on error-to-detection latencies were analyzed using mixed-effects regression modeling. We first asked whether phonological errors and semantic errors differed in the timing of the detection process or repair planning. Results suggested that the two error types primarily differed with respect to repair planning. Specifically, repair attempts for phonological errors were initiated more quickly than repair attempts for semantic errors. We next asked whether this difference between the error types could be attributed to the tendency for phonological errors to have a high degree of phonological similarity with the subsequent repair attempts, thereby speeding the programming of the repairs. Results showed that greater phonological similarity between the error and the repair was associated with faster repair times for both error types, providing evidence of error-to-repair priming in spontaneous self-monitoring. When controlling for phonological overlap, significant effects of error type and repair accuracy on repair times were also found. These effects indicated that correct repairs of phonological errors were initiated particularly quickly, whereas repairs of semantic errors were initiated relatively slowly, regardless of their accuracy. We discuss the implications of these findings for theoretical accounts of self-monitoring and the role of speech error repair in learning.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aphasia; Error detection; Naming; Repair; Speech self-monitoring

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28624680      PMCID: PMC5536244          DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2017.05.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cortex        ISSN: 0010-9452            Impact factor:   4.027


  27 in total

Review 1.  Detection of errors during speech production: a review of speech monitoring models.

Authors:  A Postma
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2000-11-16

2.  Semantic and phonological context effects in speech error repair.

Authors:  Robert J Hartsuiker; Martin J Pickering; Nivja H de Jong
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  Why does monitoring fail in jargon aphasia? comprehension, judgment, and therapy evidence.

Authors:  J Marshall; J Robson; T Pring; S Chiat
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  1998-06-01       Impact factor: 2.381

4.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal.

Authors:  Dale J Barr; Roger Levy; Christoph Scheepers; Harry J Tily
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 3.059

5.  A large, searchable, web-based database of aphasic performance on picture naming and other tests of cognitive function.

Authors:  Daniel Mirman; Ted J Strauss; Adelyn Brecher; Grant M Walker; Paula Sobel; Gary S Dell; Myrna F Schwartz
Journal:  Cogn Neuropsychol       Date:  2011-06-30       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Towards a Theory of Learning for Naming Rehabilitation: Retrieval Practice and Spacing Effects.

Authors:  Erica L Middleton; Myrna F Schwartz; Katherine A Rawson; Hilary Traut; Jay Verkuilen
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2016-10-01       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Phonemic paraphasias: linguistic structures and tentative hypothesis.

Authors:  A R Lecours; F Lhermitte
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  1969-09       Impact factor: 4.027

8.  Monitoring and self-repair in speech.

Authors:  W J Levelt
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1983-07

9.  Lack of error awareness in an aphasic patient with relatively preserved auditory comprehension.

Authors:  L M Maher; L J Rothi; K M Heilman
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 2.381

10.  Detecting self-produced speech errors before and after articulation: an ERP investigation.

Authors:  Kevin M Trewartha; Natalie A Phillips
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-11-11       Impact factor: 3.169

View more
  3 in total

1.  The Subjective Experience of Inner Speech in Aphasia Is a Meaningful Reflection of Lexical Retrieval.

Authors:  Mackenzie E Fama; Sarah F Snider; Mary P Henderson; William Hayward; Rhonda B Friedman; Peter E Turkeltaub
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  A Comprehension- or a Production-Based Monitor? Response to Roelofs (2020).

Authors:  Nazbanou Nozari
Journal:  J Cogn       Date:  2020-09-03

3.  Intellectual awareness of naming abilities in people with chronic post-stroke aphasia.

Authors:  Candace M van der Stelt; Mackenzie E Fama; Joshua D Mccall; Sarah F Snider; Peter E Turkeltaub
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 3.054

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.