Lexical access in brain-damaged individuals: Evidence from anomic aphasia

Q4 Neuroscience Neuroscience Research Notes Pub Date : 2022-08-15 DOI:10.31117/neuroscirn.v5i3.150
Biraj Bhattarai, Abhishek Buddiguppe Panchakshari
{"title":"Lexical access in brain-damaged individuals: Evidence from anomic aphasia","authors":"Biraj Bhattarai, Abhishek Buddiguppe Panchakshari","doi":"10.31117/neuroscirn.v5i3.150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Facilitation and inhibition are the two mechanisms of lexical activation. If one word in the lexical facilitates the activation of the other word, it is termed facilitation. On the other hand, if one word/lexical item impedes the activation of the other word in the lexicon, it is called inhibition. Many experimental tasks like naming and priming tasks can be used to tap these two mechanisms of lexical activation. The current study aimed to test these two patterns of lexical activation in persons with anomic aphasia. Ten persons with anomic aphasia and ten neurologically healthy individuals designated as group 1 and group 2 served as participants. The blocked naming task was administered to the participants. The semantically related blocks comprised pictures belonging to the same lexical category, while semantically unrelated blocks comprised pictures belonging to different lexical categories. For group 1, vocal reaction time and accuracy scores were better for unrelated blocks than related ones. For group 2, there was no evident difference between the vocal reaction time and accuracy scores for related and unrelated blocks. The difference between the vocal reaction time for semantically related and unrelated blocks was significant statistically only for group 1, indicating that the mechanism of lexical activation was different for the two groups. Better vocal reaction time for unrelated blocks indicated inhibition in persons with anomic aphasia.","PeriodicalId":36108,"journal":{"name":"Neuroscience Research Notes","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroscience Research Notes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31117/neuroscirn.v5i3.150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Neuroscience","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Facilitation and inhibition are the two mechanisms of lexical activation. If one word in the lexical facilitates the activation of the other word, it is termed facilitation. On the other hand, if one word/lexical item impedes the activation of the other word in the lexicon, it is called inhibition. Many experimental tasks like naming and priming tasks can be used to tap these two mechanisms of lexical activation. The current study aimed to test these two patterns of lexical activation in persons with anomic aphasia. Ten persons with anomic aphasia and ten neurologically healthy individuals designated as group 1 and group 2 served as participants. The blocked naming task was administered to the participants. The semantically related blocks comprised pictures belonging to the same lexical category, while semantically unrelated blocks comprised pictures belonging to different lexical categories. For group 1, vocal reaction time and accuracy scores were better for unrelated blocks than related ones. For group 2, there was no evident difference between the vocal reaction time and accuracy scores for related and unrelated blocks. The difference between the vocal reaction time for semantically related and unrelated blocks was significant statistically only for group 1, indicating that the mechanism of lexical activation was different for the two groups. Better vocal reaction time for unrelated blocks indicated inhibition in persons with anomic aphasia.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脑损伤个体的词汇获取:来自失语症的证据
促进和抑制是词汇激活的两种机制。如果词汇中的一个词促进了另一个词的激活,则称为促进。另一方面,如果一个单词/词汇项目阻碍了词汇中另一个单词的激活,则称为抑制。许多实验任务,如命名和启动任务,可以用来挖掘这两种词汇激活机制。目前的研究旨在测试失语症患者的这两种词汇激活模式。被指定为第1组和第2组的10名失语症患者和10名神经健康个体作为参与者。已将阻止的命名任务管理给参与者。语义相关的块包括属于同一词汇类别的图片,而语义不相关的块则包括属于不同词汇类别的照片。对于第1组,不相关区块的发声反应时间和准确性得分高于相关区块。对于第2组,相关和不相关区块的发声反应时间和准确性得分之间没有明显差异。语义相关和不相关块的发声反应时间之间的差异仅在第1组具有统计学意义,表明两组的词汇激活机制不同。不相关阻滞的较好发声反应时间表明失语症患者的抑制作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neuroscience Research Notes
Neuroscience Research Notes Neuroscience-Neurology
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Comparative retrospective analysis: exploring the quality of life of people with epilepsy in two cohorts Default mode network perturbations in Alzheimer's disease: an fMRI study in Klang Valley, Malaysia Gene expression analysis in plasma of patients with Alzheimer's disease Psychological science in Mongolia: Its history, development, and future prospects Neuroinflammation-induced neurodegeneration and associated microglia activation in Parkinson’s disease: a novel neurotherapeutic avenue
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1