4.2 Article

Automatic processing of wh- and NP-movement in agrammatic aphasia: Evidence from eyetracking

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLINGUISTICS
Volume 22, Issue 6, Pages 563-583

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2009.06.004

Keywords

Aphasia; Agrammatism; Eyetracking; Filler-gap dependencies; NP-movement; Sentence comprehension; wh-movement

Funding

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [R01 DC001948, R01 DC001948-14] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Individuals with agrammatic Broca's aphasia show deficits in comprehension of non-canonical wh-movement and NP-movement sentences. Previous work using eyetracking has found that agrammatic and unimpaired listeners show very similar patterns of automatic processing for wh-movement sentences. The current study attempts to replicate this finding for sentences with wh-movement (in object relatives in the Current study) and to extend it to sentences with NP-movement (passives). For wh-movement sentences, aphasic and control participants' eye-movements differed most dramatically in late regions of the sentence and post-offset, with aphasic participants exhibiting lingering attention to a salient but grammatically impermissible competitor. The eye-movement differences between correct and incorrect trials for wh-movement sentences were similar. with incorrect trials also exhibiting competition from an impermissible interpretation late in the sentence. Furthermore, the two groups exhibited similar eye-movement patterns in response to passive NP-movement sentences, but showed little evidence of gap-filling for passives. The results suggest that aphasic and unimpaired individuals may generate similar representations during comprehension, but that aphasics are highly vulnerable to interference from alternative interpretations (Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of non-canonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2),164-203). (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available