University College London, UK; SISSA-ISAS, Trieste, Italy.
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2000 Sep 1;17(6):517-46. doi: 10.1080/02643290050110638.
A single case study is presented of a patient, LT, with a reproduction conduction aphasic pattern of performance on word reproduction tasks; thus he made substitutions, insertions, deletions, and transpositions in reading, writing, and repetition of words and nonwords, as well as in sentence production, and in spoken and written picture and action naming. Further analyses revealed that there was no effect of semantic or syntactic structure on performance, and that reading was slightly better than repetition and writing. Finally, the observed effects of lexicality, length, and word frequency were similar to those found in other phonological output buffer patients. Overall, the pattern observed fits the characteristics typical of phonological output buffer patients, as characterised by Caramazza, Miceli, and Villa (1986). We discuss the implications of these results for understanding the role of the output phonological buffer in neuropsychological and computational models of writing, reading, and repetition. From the perspective of LT's performance, the hypothesis suggested by Caramazza et al. (1986), and that of Hartley and Houghton (1996), that word production in reading and repetition uses an additional route to access articulatory or phoneme-level representations from the phonological output lexicon, is unnecessary; instead, word-nonword differences in other patients can be attributed to resource demand differences between the two types of stimuli. LT's preserved span fit with the assumption that two phonological buffers exist, one for input and the other for output. Results from a word repetition experiment, in which word syllable structure was manipulated, are in conflict with one further noncentral aspect of the Hartley and Houghton's model, which otherwise fits the results well.
呈现了一个单一案例研究，患者 LT 在单词重复任务中表现出复制传导性失语症模式；因此，他在阅读、写作和重复单词和非单词、句子生成以及口语和书面图片和动作命名中出现替代、插入、删除和转换。进一步的分析表明，语义或句法结构对性能没有影响，并且阅读略好于重复和写作。最后，观察到的词汇、长度和词频的影响与其他语音输出缓冲区患者的影响相似。总体而言，观察到的模式符合 Caramazza、Miceli 和 Villa（1986）所描述的语音输出缓冲区患者的典型特征。我们讨论了这些结果对理解输出语音缓冲区在神经心理和写作、阅读和重复计算模型中的作用的影响。从 LT 的表现来看，Caramazza 等人提出的假设（1986 年）和 Hartley 和 Houghton（1996 年），即阅读和重复中的单词产生使用额外的途径从语音输出词汇中访问发音或音位级别的表示，是不必要的；相反，可以将其他患者中的单词-非单词差异归因于两种类型的刺激之间的资源需求差异。LT 的保留跨度符合存在两个语音缓冲区的假设，一个用于输入，另一个用于输出。一项单词重复实验的结果，其中操纵了单词音节结构，与 Hartley 和 Houghton 模型的另一个非中心方面相冲突，该模型在其他方面很好地符合结果。
