Cohen R, Engel D, Kelter S, List G, Strohner H
Arch Psychiatr Nervenkr (1970). 1976 Dec 30;222(4):325-38. doi: 10.1007/BF00343241.
Matched groups (N = 25) of fluent and nonfluent aphasics, brain-damaged and normal controls as well as schizophrenics were requested to name (1) as many animals and (2) as many things that are typically yellow as possible within 5 min. The main results of Gloning & Müller (1972) as to smaller numbers of correct responses, higher percentages of repetitions, shorter association clusters, and higher popularity in aphasics could be replicated for animal task. Comparing the data from both tasks for fluent and nonfluent aphasics with the various control groups led to considerable doubts as to what extent these results follow directly from quantitative differences in verbal output or have to be interpreted as qualitative differences in memory storage, retrieval, and self-editing processes.
要求将流畅性失语症患者和非流畅性失语症患者、脑损伤患者和正常对照组以及精神分裂症患者各匹配成组（每组25人），在5分钟内尽可能多地说出（1）动物的名称，以及（2）通常为黄色的事物的名称。格洛宁和米勒（1972年）关于失语症患者正确回答数量较少、重复百分比较高、联想群较短以及受欢迎程度较高的主要研究结果，在动物任务中得到了重复验证。将流畅性失语症患者和非流畅性失语症患者在两项任务中的数据与各个对照组进行比较后，引发了人们对这些结果在多大程度上直接源于言语输出的数量差异，还是必须被解释为记忆存储、检索和自我编辑过程中的质量差异的严重质疑。
