Literature DB >> 9642022

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

J Marshall1, J Robson, T Pring, S Chiat.   

Abstract

Many people with jargon aphasia seem unaware of their speech disorder. The first section of this paper reports data from four subjects which indicate that self-monitoring can fail even when subjects' input skills are apparently adequate to detect their errors. Explanations for this dissociation have attributed monitoring failure to a deficit in auditory feedback, or to a resource limitation which prevents concurrent speaking and monitoring. Section 2 reports a series of naming and judging experiments with one of the subjects which rule out these explanations. These show that the subject can detect his neologisms when he is repeating, but not when he is naming. These results suggest that his monitoring difficulties arise when he is accessing phonology from semantics. Section 3 presents a study which supports this inference, since it shows that semantically focused intervention yields improvements in self-monitoring. It is concluded (1) that monitoring failure can arise from deficits within the production process which preclude comparison of actual with intended output, and (2) that this deficit is best explained within a connectionist model in which monitoring is performed by feedback mechanisms in the word production process. Copyright 1998 Academic Press.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9642022     DOI: 10.1006/brln.1997.1936

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Lang        ISSN: 0093-934X            Impact factor:   2.381


  18 in total

1.  Comparing cortical activations for silent and overt speech using event-related fMRI.

Authors:  Jie Huang; Thomas H Carr; Yue Cao
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 5.038

2.  Complexity in the treatment of naming deficits.

Authors:  Swathi Kiran
Journal:  Am J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.408

3.  Is comprehension necessary for error detection? A conflict-based account of monitoring in speech production.

Authors:  Nazbanou Nozari; Gary S Dell; Myrna F Schwartz
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2011-06-07       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Self-reported inner speech relates to phonological retrieval ability in people with aphasia.

Authors:  Mackenzie E Fama; Mary P Henderson; Sarah F Snider; William Hayward; Rhonda B Friedman; Peter E Turkeltaub
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2019-03-25

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

Authors:  Julia Schuchard; Erica L Middleton; Myrna F Schwartz
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 4.027

Review 6.  Inner Speech in Aphasia: Current Evidence, Clinical Implications, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Mackenzie E Fama; Peter E Turkeltaub
Journal:  Am J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 2.408

7.  Does naming accuracy improve through self-monitoring of errors?

Authors:  Myrna F Schwartz; Erica L Middleton; Adelyn Brecher; Maureen Gagliardi; Kelly Garvey
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2016-02-07       Impact factor: 3.139

8.  Prosodic changes in aphasic speech: timing.

Authors:  Diana Van Lancker Sidtis; Daniel Kempler; Catherine Jackson; E Jeffrey Metter
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.346

9.  VATA-L: visual-analogue test assessing anosognosia for language impairment.

Authors:  Gianna Cocchini; Nicola Gregg; Nicoletta Beschin; Michael Dean; Sergio Della Sala
Journal:  Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.535

10.  Anosognosia for motor impairment following left brain damage.

Authors:  Gianna Cocchini; Nicoletta Beschin; Annette Cameron; Aikaterini Fotopoulou; Sergio Della Sala
Journal:  Neuropsychology       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.