“Ride” vs. “/baI/”: Examining networks that support word retrieval through semantic vs. phonemic cueing
-
1
University of Massachusetts Amherst, United States
Introduction
Cueing is the cornerstone of anomia therapy. Word searches can be resolved following either a semantic (SEM) or phonemic (PHON) cue, supporting spreading activation models of lexical retrieval and demonstrating that the interface between semantic and phonological representations is particularly susceptible to word retrieval failures (Laine & Martin, 2006). It has been proposed that cueing improves lexical access in aphasia by facilitating the mapping between word meaning and form (Nickels, 2002). While intuitively satisfying, this mechanism has not been demonstrated empirically. The current study used task-based functional connectivity (FC) to investigate inter-regional patterns of temporal correlation between measurements of neuronal activity during SEM and PHON cued word recall in non-aphasic controls (NCs).
Methods
Nineteen NCs with normal hearing participated in a proof-of-concept auditory cued picture naming fMRI paradigm. Participants named one of four pictures of common objects (Snodgrass & Vanderwart, 1980) presented in a 2x2 array following a SEM or PHON single syllable cue. Matched sets of 48 pictures were arbitrarily assigned to the SEM or PHON condition. The same 96 pictures were also presented in an ‘UNCued’ condition, in which a visual change in border was accompanied by the auditory cue, “Name”.
MRI data were acquired in a 3T Skyra scanner. SPM12 was used for pre-processing (realign, co-register with 3DMPRAGE, segment, indirectly normalize to MNI template, smooth data) and statistical modeling. First-level t-tests examined task-related activation during SEM, PHON, and UNCUED conditions and second-level tests examined SEM vs. PHON and Cued vs. UNCued.
Task-based connectivity analyses were carried out using the Conn functional connectivity toolbox (Version 18a; Whitfield-Gabrieli & Nieto-Castanon, 2012). Nuisance regressors were included for 6-parameter motion and the first-order derivatives, WM and CSF CompCor components, and linear trends. Outlier scans were identified using the Artifact Detection Tool (ART; http://web.mit.edu/swg/art/art.pdf) and excluded from the analyses. To avoid removing task-related effects only a high-pass filter was used (0.008 Hz). Finally, task-specific functional connectivity was calculated for each ROI-ROI pair by submitting the de-noised condition time series (convolved HRF and averaged across voxels within an ROI) to a GLM.
Results
Preliminary results include:
• Univariate analysis demonstrated differences in PHON and SEM task activation resembling the dorsal/ventral dual-stream model of the functional anatomy of language (Hickok & Poeppel, 2007);
• Using LIFG and frontal operculum as seeds (see figure) revealed stronger network connectivity for PHON>SEM, whereas seeds in RIFG and FO revealed the opposite pattern of connectivity (uncorrected);
• Using all atlas ROIs as seeds/targets, patterns of FC revealed distinct networks that included RIFG (for SEM>PHON) and LIFG (for PHON>SEM) in an exploratory analysis (p<0.05, FDR).
Discussion
Preliminary results suggest strikingly different networks may be involved in semantic vs. phonemically cued word recall in non-aphasic subjects. A better understanding of the inter-regional coupling that occurs during semantic vs. phonemic cueing could help to explain the mechanism behind a recent finding of the superiority of phonemic cueing (Meteyard & Bose, 2018). Ultimately, it may help to resolve the longstanding enigma of why semantic and phonologically-based therapies seem to be equally effective in aphasia.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by pilot funding from the Institute for Applied Life Sciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst (Kurland, PI).
References
Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2007). The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 393-402.
Laine, M., & Martin, N. (2006). Anomia: Theoretical and clinical aspects. New York: Psychology Press.
Meteyard, L., & Bose, A. (2018). What does a cue do? Comparing phonological and semantic cues for picture naming in aphasia. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61, 658-674.
Nickels, L. (2002). Improving word finding: Practice makes (closer to) perfect? Aphasiology,16(10), 1047-1060.
Snodgrass & Vanderwart (1998). A standardized set of 250 pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6, 174-215.
Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., and Nieto-Castanon, A. (2012). Conn: A functional connectivity toolbox for correlated and anticorrelated brain networks. Brain Connectivity. doi:10.1089/brain.2012.0073
Keywords:
Cueing,
lexical access,
functional connectivity,
fMRI,
semantic vs phonemic cueing,
Anomia therapy
Conference:
Academy of Aphasia 56th Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada, 21 Oct - 23 Oct, 2018.
Presentation Type:
poster presentation
Topic:
not eligible for a student prize
Citation:
Kurland
J,
Ross
DA,
Liu
A and
Stokes
P
(2019). “Ride” vs. “/baI/”: Examining networks that support word retrieval through semantic vs. phonemic cueing.
Conference Abstract:
Academy of Aphasia 56th Annual Meeting.
doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2018.228.00049
Copyright:
The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers.
They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.
The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.
Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.
For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.
Received:
25 Apr 2018;
Published Online:
22 Jan 2019.
*
Correspondence:
Dr. Jacquie Kurland, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, United States, jkurland@comdis.umass.edu