Comparing the effectiveness of orthographic and phonological cues in the treatment of anomia....
-
Upload
linette-hart -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Comparing the effectiveness of orthographic and phonological cues in the treatment of anomia....
Comparing the effectiveness of orthographic and phonological cues
in the treatment of anomia.
Lyndsey Nickels1, Antje Lorenz1,2,
1 Macquarie Centre for Cognitive Science (MACCS), Macquarie University
2 Institut für Linguistik, Potsdam University
Introduction: phonological cues
• Phonological cues have strong effects on spoken word retrieval (e.g. Pease & Goodglass, 1978)
• early studies: phonological cues produce only short-lasting effects on naming success
- Patterson et al., 1983 (NO effects: 25 min. later) - Howard et al., 1985a (NO effects: 10 min. later)
• more recent studies: phonological cues may produce long-lasting effects
e.g. Best et al., 2002 (effects still present: 10 min. later), Barry & McHattie, 1991 (20 min.)
Introduction: orthographic cues
• relatively little research on the effects of written cues on spoken word retrieval
• orthographic cues may have strong effects (e.g. Howard & Harding, 1998: single-case study)
•orthographic cue-effects might be long-lasting (Best et al., 2002: 10 min. Later)
Introduction: phonological vs. orthographic cues
- little research looking at phonological vs. orthographic cues in the same participants
- both phonological and orthographic cues may have similar effects on word retrieval in anomic aphasia (Best et al., 2002)
- orthographic cues may produce longer lasting effects than phonological cues / tasks in language-unimpaired subjects and aphasic people
(e.g. Basso et al., 2001)
AIM of this study
...to compare the effects of phonological and orthographic
cues with a specific focus on:
1. duration of effects (immediate vs. delayed effects: 20 min. vs. 24 h)
2. predictability of cueing-effects from underlying functional deficits
3. underlying mechanism of effectiveness of phonological vs. orthographic cues
Material: Black & white line drawings of objects (N=224)
Phonological cues (N=56) Orthographic cues (N=56)
UNCUED SETS (N=112)
CUED SETS (N=112)
seen (N=56)(presented for uncued namingin all sessions)
unseen (N=56)(only in pre- and post-assessments)
Material: Black & white line drawings of objects (N=224)
MATCHING
- matching of sets for each participant individually:
for naming-accuracy in the pre-assessment (N=224)
further factors:
word frequency (comb. spoken + written, log.); word-length (nb. phonemes);
articulatory complexity (consonant clusters); animacy; OPC-regularity
pre-assessments
Design
Phase 1: 24 hr post-assessment
PHASE 1
PICTURE NAMING
sound cues
letter cues
no cues
(n=28 each set)
3 sessions
pseudorandomized order of pictures within each set
order of presentation of different sets counterbalanced across different sessions
Phase 2: 24 hr post-assessment
PHASE 2
PICTURE NAMING
sound cues
letter cues
no cues
(n=28 each set)
3 sessions
Preparation of experiments
Prestimulation-paradigm:
SOUNDS (wav-files)
initial sound
break: 300 ms
target picture
(time-out: 6 sec.)
break: 200 ms
LETTERS (bmp-files)
initial letter: 600 ms
break: 300 ms
target picture
break: 200 ms
NO CUES
after 300 ms:
target picture
break: 200 ms
(Universal Data Acquisition Program, UDAP, Zierdt, 2002)
20 minutes later all pictures are named again with NO CUES
Participants
- no (severe) apraxia of speech
- auditory discrimination of single sounds unimpaired (or mildly impaired)
- unimpaired in object decision task (BORB, Riddoch & Humphreys, 1993)
- impaired word retrieval in conversation and spoken naming
- predominantly post-semantic anomia in all participants
Initials GenderAge
(years)
Time post
onset (years; months)
AetiologySpeech output
Auditory discrimination: single sounds
% correct(n=50)
Spoken naming
% correct (n=224)
DRS F 56 5;11 L CVA Fluent 90 55.8
JUE F 33 4;9 L CVA Nonfluent 96 64.8
MCB F 63 3;2 L CVA Fluent 96 48.7
KCC M 66 6;0 L CVA NonFluent 92 33.5
Cue effects in first session: immediate effects
* p < .05, McNemar-test (2-tailed): pre-assessment vs. naming immediately after cue
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
DRS MCB JUE KCC
% e
ffec
t si
ze (
cued
nam
ing
- pr
e)
phoneme
grapheme
no cue
**
n.s.n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
DRS MCB JUE KCC
% e
ffec
t si
ze (
cued
nam
ing
- pr
e)
phoneme
grapheme
no cue
**
n.s.n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Cue effects in first session
* p < .05, McNemar-test (2-tailed): pre-assessment vs. naming after cue
Immediate 20 mins later
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
DRS MCB JUE KCC
% e
ffec
t si
ze (
cued
nam
ing
- pr
e)
phoneme
grapheme
no cue
**
n.s.n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Cue effects in first session
* p < .05, McNemar-test (2-tailed): pre-assessment vs. naming after cue
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
DRS MCB JUE KCC
* *
**
Immediate 20 mins later
Cue effects in third sessionthird session: cumulative effects
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
DRS MCB JUE KCC
% e
ffec
t si
ze (
cued
nam
ing
- pr
e)
phoneme
grapheme
no cue
* p < .05, McNemar-test (2-tailed): pre-assessment vs. naming after cue
*
Immediate
* **
**
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
DRS MCB JUE KCC
3rd session: 20 mins after cue
* ***
**
*
* p < .05, McNemar-test (2-tailed): pre-assessment vs. naming after cue
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
DRS MCB JUE KCC
3rd session: 20 mins after cue
* ***
**
*
Post-test: 1 day after 3rd session
* p < .05, McNemar-test (2-tailed): pre-assessment vs. naming after cue
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
DRS MCB JUE KCC
*
Immediate
3rd session: 20 mins after cue
* **
** * **
*
**
*
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
DRS MCB JUE KCC
% e
ffe
ct
siz
e (
de
lta
)
phoneme
grapheme
no cue
unseen control
Post-test: 1 day after 3rd session
* **
***
Summary of results: JUE & KCC
• did not improve with seen or unseen control pictures
• graphemic cue effective
• stable effect (20 min., 24 hours later)
How do letter cues help SPOKEN naming?
phonological output lexicon
phonological output buffer
semantic
system
speech
target picture
How might letter cues work?
tomato
/t/ /ə/ /m/ /a:/ /t/ /əʊ/
“tomato”
phonological output lexicon
phonological output buffer
semantic
system
speech
target picture
How might letter cues work?
tomato
phonological output lexicon
phonological output buffer
semantic
system
speech
target picture
How might letter cues work?
tomato
/t/
“tomato”
orthographic-phonological conversion
T
initial grapheme cue
tomato
/t/ /ə/ /m/ /a:/ /t/ /əʊ/
Nonword reading route
JUE & KCC: Reading aloud
reading, non-
words PALPA (n=40)
initial phoneme correct in erroneous responses
JUE 0 87.5
KCC 5 42.1
Nonword reading impaired - is there another
mechanism by which cues might be effective?
phonological output lexicon
phonological output buffer
semantic
system
speech
target picture
How might letter cues work? Direct lexical theory
tomato
orthographic-phonological conversion
T
initial grapheme cue
orthographicinput lexicon
phonological output lexicon
phonological output buffer
semantic
system
speech
target picture
How might letter cues work? Direct lexical theory
tomato
“tomato”
orthographic-phonological conversion
T
initial grapheme cue
tomato
/t/ /ə/ /m/ /a:/ /t/ /əʊ/
orthographicinput lexicon[tomato][toy] [tent] [tea]
Summary of results: JUE & KCC
• did not improve with seen or unseen control pictures
• graphemic cue effective
• stable effect (20 min., 24 hours later)
• Poor nonword reading – but some ability – is it enough?• Further investigation with words with irregular initial letters (e.g.
Knife) will determine whether this is the cueing mechanism
• Good (concrete) word reading – means a direct lexical mechanism may be a possibility (cf Best et al.)
Summary of results: DRS
• DRS
– improved with seen control pictures (no cues, help, feedback)
– unseen control pictures remained stable
ie trying to name pictures (with no feedback) helps naming on a subsequent occasion
Conclusions
• Orthographic cues can be effective in improving naming
- BUT NOT for all individuals
- further investigation required to determine the mechanism
- Orthographic cues may be effective via a direct-lexical route in some people.
• Trying to name the same set of pictures in different sessions without help or feedback can result in an improved naming of those pictures for some individuals
Thank you!