Dementia Research Centre, Box 16, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2011 Sep;28(6):414-34. doi: 10.1080/02643294.2012.673481. Epub 2012 Apr 10.
This study presents neuropsychological evidence for differences in the semantic representations underpinning spoken and written word comprehension. Potential modality-based discrepancies in the semantic system were examined by testing whether spoken word (auditory-verbal input) and written word (visual-verbal input) comprehension exhibited the same effect profile on variables typically used to distinguish so-called access and storage disorders (e.g., response consistency, sensitivity to item frequency). The study was based on the premise that damage to a common set of semantic representations should have an equivalent impact upon comprehension performance irrespective of input modality, whereas damage to partially dissociable semantic representations may give rise to different qualities of deficit (access/storage) in the comprehension of stimuli presented in different input modalities (spoken/written). The study involved two patients with global aphasia following left middle cerebral artery stroke (F.B.I. and H.O.P.). The two patients showed matched performance on conventional tests of single word comprehension with clear evidence of semantic impairment for stimuli presented in both the spoken and written input modalities. However, in H.O.P., spoken and written word comprehension was affected in the same way by variations in stimulus category, frequency, and multiple stimulus presentations, whilst in F.B.I., there were clear differences between input modalities with all three variables. More specifically, F.B.I.'s written word comprehension was significantly affected by category (living > nonliving) and frequency (high > low) but not multiple presentations (single = multiple), more consistent with degradation of stored representations (storage deficit). By contrast, his spoken word comprehension was unaffected by category (living = nonliving) and frequency (high = low) but was affected by multiple presentations (single > multiple; serial position effects), more consistent with impaired access to stored representations (access deficit). These spoken/written input modality differences were observed on tasks matched closely for output modality, stimulus identity, and executive control requirements. It is argued that subtle differences in comprehension performance for stimuli presented in different input modalities may reflect damage to multimodal representations, which are intermediate between unimodal and amodal representations on a continuum of convergence within the semantic system. These ideas are discussed in the context of existing "distributed-only", "distributed-plus-convergence", or "distributed-plus-hub" models of conceptual knowledge.
本研究提供了神经心理学证据,证明口语和书面语理解所基于的语义表征存在差异。通过测试口语词(听觉-言语输入)和书面语词(视觉-言语输入)理解是否在通常用于区分所谓的访问和存储障碍的变量上表现出相同的效应模式,来检查潜在的基于模态的语义系统差异(例如,反应一致性,对项目频率的敏感性)。该研究基于这样一个前提,即一组共同的语义表征的损伤应该对理解表现产生相同的影响,而与输入模态无关,而部分可分离的语义表征的损伤可能导致不同质量的缺陷(访问/存储)在不同输入模态(口语/书面语)呈现的刺激的理解中。该研究涉及两名左大脑中动脉卒中后患有全面性失语症的患者(F.B.I.和 H.O.P.)。这两名患者在常规的单个单词理解测试中表现出匹配的表现,并且清楚地表明在口语和书面输入模式下呈现的刺激存在语义障碍。然而,在 H.O.P.中,口语和书面语词理解受到刺激类别、频率和多次呈现的变化的影响方式相同,而在 F.B.I.中,所有三个变量在输入模态之间存在明显差异。更具体地说,F.B.I.的书面语词理解受到类别(生物 > 非生物)和频率(高 > 低)的显著影响,但不受多次呈现的影响(单次 = 多次),更符合存储表示的退化(存储缺陷)。相比之下,他的口语词理解不受类别(生物 = 非生物)和频率(高 = 低)的影响,但受多次呈现的影响(单次 > 多次;序列位置效应),更符合存储表示的访问受损(访问缺陷)。这些口语/书面输入模态差异是在输出模态、刺激身份和执行控制要求密切匹配的任务中观察到的。有人认为,在不同输入模态呈现的刺激的理解表现上的细微差异可能反映了对多模态表示的损伤,这些损伤处于语义系统中连续性的连续体上的单模态和非模态表示之间。这些想法在现有的“仅分布式”、“分布式加收敛”或“分布式加中心”概念知识模型的背景下进行了讨论。