Event Abstract

Back to Event

Sentence comprehension in aphasia: A noisy channel approach

Tessa Warren1*, Teljer Liburd1 and Michael W. Dickey1, 2
  • 1 University of Pittsburgh, United States
  • 2 VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, United States

Probabilistic accounts of language understanding assume that comprehension involves determining the probability of an intended message (m) given an input utterance (u) (P(m|u); e.g. Gibson et al, 2013a; Levy et al, 2009). One challenge is that communication occurs within a noisy channel; i.e. the comprehender’s representation of u may have been distorted, e.g., by a typo or by impairment associated with aphasia. Bayes’ rule provides a model of how comprehenders can combine the prior probability of m (P(m)) with the probability that m would have been distorted to u (P(mu)) to calculate the probability of m given u (P(m|u)  P(m)P(mu)). This formalism can capture the observation that people with aphasia (PWA) rely more on semantics than syntax during comprehension (e.g., Caramazza & Zurif, 1976): given the high probability that their representation of the input is unreliable, they weigh message likelihood more heavily. Gibson et al. (2013a) showed that unimpaired adults are sensitive to P(m) and P(mu): they more often chose interpretations that increased message plausibility or involved distortions requiring fewer changes, and/or deletions instead of insertions (see Figure 1a for examples). Gibson et al. (2013b) found PWA were also sensitive to both P(m) and P(mu) in an act-out task, but relied more heavily than unimpaired controls on P(m). This shows group-level optimization towards the less noisy (semantic) channel in PWA. The current experiment (8 PWA; 7 age-matched controls) investigated noisy channel optimization at the level of individual PWA. It also included active/passive items with a weaker plausibility manipulation to test whether P(m) is higher for implausible than impossible strings. The task was forced-choice sentence-picture matching (Figure 1b). Experimental sentences crossed active versus passive (A-P) structures with plausibility (Set 1) or impossibility (Set 2), and prepositional-object versus double-object structures (PO-DO: Set 3) with plausibility. Target pictures depicted the observed utterance u; foils depicted a message that could have been distorted to u (Figure 1a-b). Replicating Gibson et al (2013b), both controls and PWA more often chose foils when the possible distortions involved fewer changes (DO-PO compared to A-P: F[1,13]=4.82, p<.05). This is despite passives’ low frequency and common impairment in aphasia (Schwartz, et al., 1980). Furthermore, although both groups more often chose foils when the possible distortion was more plausible, this preference was larger for PWA (plausibility x group interaction : F[1,13]=12.09, p<.01). The strength of the semantic manipulation did not matter: plausibility and possibility manipulations did not differ. Interestingly, there was little evidence that an individual’s reliance on the form of the input vs. the likelihood of a message was predicted by their syntactic vs. semantic abilities. Standardized sentence-comprehension scores (Comprehensive Aphasia Test: Swinburn, et al., 2004) did not predict preference for simpler distortions, nor did conceptual-semantic processing measures (e.g., Kissing and Dancing: Bak & Hodges, 2003; Pyramids and Palm Trees: Howard & Patterson, 1992) predict the size of plausibility effects. Additionally, individual participants showed non-optimization: one PWA with relatively spared syntax (good performance on reversible passives) but impaired semantics (poor conceptual-semantic processing scores) relied almost exclusively on semantics.

Figure 1
Image

References

Bak, T. H., & Hodges, J. R. (2003). Kissing and dancing—a test to distinguish the lexical and conceptual contributions to noun/verb and action/object dissociation. Preliminary results in patients with frontotemporal dementia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 16(2), 169-181.
Caramazza, A., & Zurif, E. B. (1976). Dissociation of algorithmic and heuristic processes in language comprehension: Evidence from aphasia. Brain and language, 3(4), 572-582.
Gibson, E., Bergen, L., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2013). Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(20), 8051-8056.
Gibson, E., Sandberg, C., Fedorenko, E., & Kiran, S. (2013). A rational inference approach to aphasic language comprehension. Talk presented at the CUNY Sentence Comprehension Conference (March: Columbia, SC).
Howard, D., & Patterson, K. E. (1992). The Pyramids and Palm Trees Test: A test of semantic access from words and pictures. Thames Valley Test Company.
Swinburn, K., Porter, G., & Howard, D. (2004). CAT: comprehensive aphasia test. Psychology Press.
Levy, R., Bicknell, K., Slattery, T., & Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(50), 21086-21090.

Keywords: sentence comprehension, sentence comprehension in aphasia, syntax, semantics, Bayesian inference

Conference: Academy of Aphasia -- 52nd Annual Meeting, Miami, FL, United States, 5 Oct - 7 Oct, 2014.

Presentation Type: Platform or poster presentation

Topic: Not student

Citation: Warren T, Liburd T and Dickey MW (2014). Sentence comprehension in aphasia: A noisy channel approach. Front. Psychol. Conference Abstract: Academy of Aphasia -- 52nd Annual Meeting. doi: 10.3389/conf.fpsyg.2014.64.00068

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 2014; Published Online: 04 Aug 2014.

* Correspondence: Dr. Tessa Warren, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States, tessa@pitt.edu