The Experts below are selected from a list of 11577 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Daniel J Acheson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a common neural substrate for Language Production and verbal working memory
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2011Co-Authors: Daniel J Acheson, Massihullah Hamidi, Jeffrey R Binder, Bradley R PostleAbstract:Verbal working memory (VWM), the ability to maintain and manipulate representations of speech sounds over short periods, is held by some influential models to be independent from the systems responsible for Language Production and comprehension [e.g., Baddeley, A. D. Working memory, thought, and action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007]. We explore the alternative hypothesis that maintenance in VWM is subserved by temporary activation of the Language Production system [Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C. Verbal working memory and Language Production: Common approaches to the serial ordering of verbal information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 50-68, 2009b]. Specifically, we hypothesized that for stimuli lacking a semantic representation (e.g., nonwords such as mun), maintenance in VWM can be achieved by cycling information back and forth between the stages of phonological encoding and articulatory planning. First, fMRI was used to identify regions associated with two different stages of Language Production planning: the posterior superior temporal gyrus (pSTG) for phonological encoding (critical for VWM of nonwords) and the middle temporal gyrus (MTG) for lexical-semantic retrieval (not critical for VWM of nonwords). Next, in the same subjects, these regions were targeted with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) during Language Production and VWM task performance. Results showed that rTMS to the pSTG, but not the MTG, increased error rates on paced reading (a Language Production task) and on delayed serial recall of nonwords (a test of VWM). Performance on a lexical-semantic retrieval task (picture naming), in contrast, was significantly sensitive to rTMS of the MTG. Because rTMS was guided by Language Production-related activity, these results provide the first causal evidence that maintenance in VWM directly depends on the long-term representations and processes used in speech Production.
-
twisting tongues and memories explorations of the relationship between Language Production and verbal working memory
Journal of Memory and Language, 2009Co-Authors: Daniel J Acheson, Maryellen C MacdonaldAbstract:Many accounts of working memory posit specialized storage mechanisms for the maintenance of serial order. We explore an alternative, that maintenance is achieved through temporary activation in the Language Production architecture. Four experiments examined the extent to which the phonological similarity effect can be explained as a sublexical speech error. Phonologically similar nonword stimuli were ordered to create tongue twister or control materials used in four tasks: reading aloud, immediate spoken recall, immediate typed recall, and serial recognition. Dependent measures from working memory (recall accuracy) and Language Production (speech errors) fields were used. Even though lists were identical except for item order, robust effects of tongue twisters were observed. Speech error analyses showed that errors were better described as phoneme rather than item ordering errors. The distribution of speech errors was comparable across all experiments and exhibited syllable-position effects, suggesting an important role for Production processes. Implications for working memory and Language Production are discussed.
-
verbal working memory and Language Production common approaches to the serial ordering of verbal information
Psychological Bulletin, 2009Co-Authors: Daniel J Acheson, Maryellen C MacdonaldAbstract:Verbal working memory (WM) tasks typically involve the Language Production architecture for recall; however, Language Production processes have had a minimal role in theorizing about WM. A framework for understanding verbal WM results is presented here. In this framework, domain-specific mechanisms for serial ordering in verbal WM are provided by the Language Production architecture, in which positional, lexical, and phonological similarity constraints are highly similar to those identified in the WM literature. These behavioral similarities are paralleled in computational modeling of serial ordering in both fields. The role of long-term learning in serial ordering performance is emphasized, in contrast to some models of verbal WM. Classic WM findings are discussed in terms of the Language Production architecture. The integration of principles from both fields illuminates the maintenance and ordering mechanisms for verbal information.
Simon Garrod - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
do people use Language Production to make predictions during comprehension
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2007Co-Authors: Martin J. Pickering, Simon GarrodAbstract:We present the case that Language comprehension involves making simultaneous predictions at different linguistic levels and that these predictions are generated by the Language Production system. Recent research suggests that ease of comprehending predictable elements is due to prediction rather than facilitated integration, and that comprehension is accompanied by covert imitation. We argue that comprehenders use prediction and imitation to construct an ‘emulator', using the Production system, and combine predictions with the input dynamically. Such a process helps to explain the rapidity of comprehension and the robust interpretation of ambiguous or noisy input. This framework is in line with a general trend in cognitive science to incorporate action systems into perceptual systems and has broad implications for understanding the links between Language Production and comprehension.
-
Do people use Language Production to make predictions during comprehension?
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2007Co-Authors: Martin J. Pickering, Simon GarrodAbstract:We present the case that Language comprehension involves making simultaneous predictions at different linguistic levels and that these predictions are generated by the Language Production system. Recent research suggests that ease of comprehending predictable elements is due to prediction rather than facilitated integration, and that comprehension is accompanied by covert imitation. We argue that comprehenders use prediction and imitation to construct an 'emulator', using the Production system, and combine predictions with the input dynamically. Such a process helps to explain the rapidity of comprehension and the robust interpretation of ambiguous or noisy input. This framework is in line with a general trend in cognitive science to incorporate action systems into perceptual systems and has broad implications for understanding the links between Language Production and comprehension. © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Martin J. Pickering - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Parallel processing in Language Production
Language cognition and neuroscience, 2014Co-Authors: Alissa Melinger, Holly P. Branigan, Martin J. PickeringAbstract:Following the Sixth International Workshop on Language Production (Edinburgh, UK, Sept., 2010), this special issue presents a collection of contributions concerned with a wide range of representational and processing components. In the present article, we review the evidence for parallel processing at different levels within the Production system with the aim of identifying any generalisation or common characteristics that might underpin a robust model of Language Production. Our review synergises with the other articles of the special issue. After reviewing the literature, we conclude that the evidence for parallelism is stronger at some levels than at others and it is premature to take a strong stand for a unified principle that applies equally to all components of the Production system. Following our review, we introduce the other articles represented within this special issue.
-
Co-activation of syntax in bilingual Language Production.
Cognitive Psychology, 2010Co-Authors: Anna Hatzidaki, Holly P. Branigan, Martin J. PickeringAbstract:Abstract We report four experiments that examined whether bilinguals’ Production of one Language is affected by the syntactic properties of their other Language. Greek–English and English–Greek highly proficient fluent bilinguals produced sentence completions following subject nouns whose translation had either the same or different number. We manipulated whether participants produced completions in the same Language as the subject (the source Language ; one-Language Production ) or the other Language (the non-source Language ; two-Language Production ), and whether they used only one Language or both Languages within the experimental session. The results demonstrated that the grammar systems of both Languages were activated during both one-Language and two-Language Production. The effects of the non-source Language were particularly enhanced in two-Language utterances, when both Languages were used in the experiment, and when it was the bilinguals’ native Language. We interpret our results in terms of a model of bilingual sentence Production.
-
do people use Language Production to make predictions during comprehension
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2007Co-Authors: Martin J. Pickering, Simon GarrodAbstract:We present the case that Language comprehension involves making simultaneous predictions at different linguistic levels and that these predictions are generated by the Language Production system. Recent research suggests that ease of comprehending predictable elements is due to prediction rather than facilitated integration, and that comprehension is accompanied by covert imitation. We argue that comprehenders use prediction and imitation to construct an ‘emulator', using the Production system, and combine predictions with the input dynamically. Such a process helps to explain the rapidity of comprehension and the robust interpretation of ambiguous or noisy input. This framework is in line with a general trend in cognitive science to incorporate action systems into perceptual systems and has broad implications for understanding the links between Language Production and comprehension.
-
Do people use Language Production to make predictions during comprehension?
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2007Co-Authors: Martin J. Pickering, Simon GarrodAbstract:We present the case that Language comprehension involves making simultaneous predictions at different linguistic levels and that these predictions are generated by the Language Production system. Recent research suggests that ease of comprehending predictable elements is due to prediction rather than facilitated integration, and that comprehension is accompanied by covert imitation. We argue that comprehenders use prediction and imitation to construct an 'emulator', using the Production system, and combine predictions with the input dynamically. Such a process helps to explain the rapidity of comprehension and the robust interpretation of ambiguous or noisy input. This framework is in line with a general trend in cognitive science to incorporate action systems into perceptual systems and has broad implications for understanding the links between Language Production and comprehension. © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
Architectures, Representations and Processes of Language Production.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 2006Co-Authors: F.-xavier Alario, Albert Costa, Victor S Ferreira, Martin J. PickeringAbstract:We present an overview of recent research conducted in the field of Language Production based on papers presented at the first edition of the International Workshop on Language Production (Marseille, France, September 2004). This article comprises two main parts. In the first part, consisting of three sections, we review the articles that are included in this Special Issue. These three sections deal with three different topics of general interest for models of Language Production: (A) the general organisational principles of the Language Production system, (B) several aspects of the lexical selection process and (C) the representations and processes used during syntactic encoding. In the second part, we discuss future directions for research in the field of Language Production, given the considerable developments that have occurred in recent years.
Maryellen C Macdonald - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Speak, Act, Remember The Language-Production Basis of Serial Order and Maintenance in Verbal Memory
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2016Co-Authors: Maryellen C MacdonaldAbstract:The fields of Language Production and verbal memory have relatively little contact. I argue that utterance planning for Language Production has substantial memory maintenance demands and that utterance planning provides the maintenance and ordering processes for short-term verbal memory tasks. There has already been some movement toward this view. I discuss benefits to pursuing these links more fully.
-
twisting tongues and memories explorations of the relationship between Language Production and verbal working memory
Journal of Memory and Language, 2009Co-Authors: Daniel J Acheson, Maryellen C MacdonaldAbstract:Many accounts of working memory posit specialized storage mechanisms for the maintenance of serial order. We explore an alternative, that maintenance is achieved through temporary activation in the Language Production architecture. Four experiments examined the extent to which the phonological similarity effect can be explained as a sublexical speech error. Phonologically similar nonword stimuli were ordered to create tongue twister or control materials used in four tasks: reading aloud, immediate spoken recall, immediate typed recall, and serial recognition. Dependent measures from working memory (recall accuracy) and Language Production (speech errors) fields were used. Even though lists were identical except for item order, robust effects of tongue twisters were observed. Speech error analyses showed that errors were better described as phoneme rather than item ordering errors. The distribution of speech errors was comparable across all experiments and exhibited syllable-position effects, suggesting an important role for Production processes. Implications for working memory and Language Production are discussed.
-
verbal working memory and Language Production common approaches to the serial ordering of verbal information
Psychological Bulletin, 2009Co-Authors: Daniel J Acheson, Maryellen C MacdonaldAbstract:Verbal working memory (WM) tasks typically involve the Language Production architecture for recall; however, Language Production processes have had a minimal role in theorizing about WM. A framework for understanding verbal WM results is presented here. In this framework, domain-specific mechanisms for serial ordering in verbal WM are provided by the Language Production architecture, in which positional, lexical, and phonological similarity constraints are highly similar to those identified in the WM literature. These behavioral similarities are paralleled in computational modeling of serial ordering in both fields. The role of long-term learning in serial ordering performance is emphasized, in contrast to some models of verbal WM. Classic WM findings are discussed in terms of the Language Production architecture. The integration of principles from both fields illuminates the maintenance and ordering mechanisms for verbal information.
Patrick Santens - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Subthalamic nucleus stimulation and spontaneous Language Production in Parkinson's disease: A double laterality problem.
Brain and Language, 2015Co-Authors: Katja Batens, Miet De Letter, Robrecht Raedt, Wouter Duyck, Sarah Vanhoutte, Dirk Van Roost, Patrick SantensAbstract:Abstract Background Asymmetric degeneration of dopaminergic neurons, are characteristic for Parkinson’s disease (PD). Despite the lateralized representation of Language, the correlation of asymmetric degeneration of nigrostriatal networks in PD with Language performance has scarcely been examined. Objective/hypothesis The laterality of dopamine depletion influences Language deficits in PD and thus modulates the effects of subthalamic nucleus (STN) stimulation on Language Production. Methods The spontaneous Language Production of patients with predominant dopamine depletion of the left (PD-left) and right (PD-right) hemisphere was compared in four stimulation conditions. Results PD-right made comparatively more verb inflection errors than PD-left. Bilateral STN stimulation improves spontaneous Language Production only for PD-left. Conclusions The laterality of dopamine depletion influences spontaneous Language Production and the effect of STN stimulation on linguistic functions. However, it is probably only one of the many variables influencing the effect of STN stimulation on Language Production.
-
The effects of subthalamic nucleus stimulation on semantic and syntactic performance in spontaneous Language Production in people with Parkinson's disease
Journal of Neurolinguistics, 2014Co-Authors: Katja Batens, Miet De Letter, Robrecht Raedt, Wouter Duyck, Sarah Vanhoutte, Dirk Van Roost, Patrick SantensAbstract:Abstract Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) has become an established therapeutic option for advanced Parkinson's disease (PD). In this study, the effects of unilateral and bilateral STN stimulation on spontaneous Language Production are explored, by comparing linguistic performance in different stimulation conditions with normative data of healthy subjects. Language samples of ten PD patients with DBS of the STN were obtained in four stimulation conditions: bilateral stimulation on, bilateral stimulation off, stimulation of the left STN only and stimulation of the right STN only. The spontaneous Language Production differed from the normative data in all four stimulation conditions. Especially morphosyntactic elements of spontaneous Language Production were altered. Despite these linguistic differences with normal controls no significant differences between stimulation conditions were found. These results emphasize that the effects of STN stimulation on spontaneous Language Production reflect a complex interplay of multiple factors.
