word-retrieval difficulties

Word-retrieval models are largely derived from ___________

• ________ errors

• ________ errors

• ________ errors

neurotypical speech errors

• phonological

• morphological

• semantic

exchanges

We can exchange consonants for consonants and vowels for vowels

Word-retrieval models are largely derived from ___________

• ________ errors

• ________ errors

• ________ errors

neurotypical speech errors

• phonological

• morphological

• semantic

exchanges

We can exchange consonants for consonants and vowels for vowels

In case she decide_ to hits it”

this is an example of?

morphological shifts

"Nunique New York"

this is an example of?

anticipation

“Unique Yew York"

this is an example of?

perseveration

clarefully

this is an example of?

additions

fazzled

this is an example of?

deletions

slickery, gluttony + sloth → sluttony

this is an example of?

blends

“You look absolutely ugly.”

this is an example of?

semantic substitutions

types of semantic relationships

• contrasts

• similarity

• sub/super-ordination

• coordination

• part-whole

• completion

• egocentrism

• word derivatives

• predication

contrasts

day-night

most common error

sad-unhappy

similarity

family-sister; vehicle-car

sub/superordination

superordinate vs subordinate

super: category

sub: under category

sister-brother; apple-peach

coordination

bird-feather; year-month

part-whole

gin-tonic; big-mac

completion

republican-rich

egocentrism

deep-depth

word derivatives

baby-cry; dog-bark (syntagmatic associations)

predication (more common in children)

discrete-stage model

interactive (la) model

step 1: word form selection, semantic feedforward and phonological feedback activation determine what lexical representation will be selected

step 2: phonological encoding

language vs speech production (be careful)

in AD (and svPPT) the concepts are gone not language,

what must be reached for the correct semantic and phonologic representation to be retrieved?

then what happens?

• a threshold level of activation

• Competitor targets (even from L2) should decay.

• After being produced, the target itself should decay.

• → if not, you end up with perseverated responses

The level of impairment is identifiable with _________________

testing/observation (error analysis)

Impaired/degraded semantic features or concepts (more common in AD or svPPA)

what step?

Semantic anomia (semantic features)

step 1

Impaired interactive activation between semantic feature and lexical networks AND/OR between lexical and phonological network levels

what step?

Word form anomia (lexical-phonological or lexical-semantic)

semantic paraphasias, phonologically-related targets, real-word substitutions are examples of?

Word form anomia (lexical-phonological or lexical-semantic)

Impaired phonological selection OR impaired phonological encoding (choosing the wrong phoneme)

what step?

Phoneme assembly (phonological output)

non-word errors, or close (phonologically-related) to target are examples of?

Phoneme assembly (phonological output)

includes i don’t know and nonresponses as well as vague responses “that thing”

nonresponse

whole-part responses where part of the target is names (e.g., “building” for city; “furniture” for office; “ducks” for follow). also includes responses that are visually similar to the target and from a different semantic category (e.g., “snake” for rope)

visual errors

error that could be perceptually or semantically based as responses are from the same semantic category and are visually similar (e.g., “fox” for dog)

ambiguous visual/semantic category errors

responses from the same category and are typically not usually visually similar (e.g., “world map” for globe")

semantic-within category errors (coordinate errors)

response is correct but too general (e.g., “room” for office; “animal” for dog)

semantic superordinate errors

thematically-related response with an obvious semantic association with the target that can include statements of action or function (e.g., “bing bang” for bell), physical attributes (e.g., “glass for vase; “hemp” for rope) contextual associations (e.g., “route” for road), and specific subordinate or proper noun examples of the target (e.g., “putter” for club)

semantic-associative errors

multiword responses that indicate accurate identification of the target (e.g., “outside of a house to walk through” for door). also included in this category were acceptable slang terms. the error had to provide some uniquely-specifying information.

semantic circumlocutionary errors

deletions, insertions, transpositions, or insertions of phonemenes of the target word with at least one syllable correct (e.g, “ven” for oven)

phonemic/phonological errors

response repetition (either correct or incorrect) which has been used to name 1 of the previous 5 pictures

perseverations

responses with no clear connection between the response and the target, or incoherent responses (e.g., “man?” for dag; or “pusska” for radio)

unrelated errors

“can you hand me the… er…. remote"?”

anomic pause

“can you hand me the TV?”

semantic paraphasia

“can you hand me the rebote?”

phonemic paraphasia

“can you hand me the …other there… the clicker…for the TV?”

anomic circumlocution

“can you hand me the jazzlepam?”

neologism

“griss me the jazzlepam”

jargon

“you…uh…remote?”

agrammatism

fast the jazzleman on the choose.”

paragrammatism/empty speech

word-retrieval neuroanatomy

WHAT: Areas affecting semantics

• anterior temporal lobe

• MCA lesions affecting the temporal lobe

WHERE: Areas affecting phonology

• Anterior: LIFG, anterior insula, SMA

• Posterior: middle posterior temporal lobe, angular or supramarginal gyr

stimuli and assessment considerations

• word frequency

• word length

• semantic categories

• task demands

Frequency effects (high vs. low) in repetition are apparent: may signal impaired __________ vs ________ level

phonological versus semantic

Word length

– Affects which level of impairment?

– If the phonological network is impaired, shorter words may result in …

-any

-more paraphasias (because there are more phonologically-related neighbors)

Semantic categories

– __________ may be inaccessible/affected by the lesion

Specific categories

task demands

confrontation naming vs. discourse, non-propositional speech

which level is targeted in SFA?

lexical-semantic level

which level is targeted in PCA?

phonological-lexical/phonological output

which level is targeted in Verb network strengthening treatment (VNeST)?

lexical-semantic

which level is targeted in Lexical Retrieval Cascade (LRC)?

phonological-semantic-lexical

Generalization considerations at the semantic level

• Atypical → typical- prototypicality effect

• Abstract → concrete

• Infrequent → frequent

• Be creative about categories: Goal-derived/ad hoc categories

cueing hierarchies