失语症中特殊疑问句的听觉理解：对干预假说的支持
The Auditory Comprehension of Wh-Questions in Aphasia: Support for the Intervener Hypothesis.
作者信息
Sheppard Shannon M, Walenski Matthew, Love Tracy, Shapiro Lewis P
出版信息
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015 Jun;58(3):781-97. doi: 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-14-0099.
PURPOSE
This study examines 3 hypotheses about the processing of wh-questions in both neurologically healthy adults and adults with Broca's aphasia.
METHOD
We used an eye tracking while listening method with 32 unimpaired participants (Experiment 1) and 8 participants with Broca's aphasia (Experiment 2). Accuracy, response time, and online gaze data were collected.
RESULTS
In Experiment 1, we established a baseline for how unimpaired processing and comprehension of 4 types of wh-question (subject- and object-extracted who- and which-questions) manifest. There was no unambiguous support found for any of the 3 hypotheses in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2 with the Broca's participants, however, we found significantly lower accuracy, slower response times, and increased interference in our gaze data in the object-extracted which-questions relative to the other conditions.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results provide support for the intervener hypothesis, which states that sentence constructions that contain an intervener (a lexical noun phrase) between a displaced noun phrase and its gap site result in a significant processing disadvantage relative to other constructions. We argue that this hypothesis offers a compelling explanation for the comprehension deficits seen in some participants with Broca's aphasia.
目的
本研究考察了关于神经功能正常的成年人和患有布罗卡失语症的成年人对特殊疑问句处理的3个假设。
方法
我们对32名未受损参与者（实验1）和8名患有布罗卡失语症的参与者（实验2）采用了边听边眼动追踪的方法。收集了准确率、反应时间和在线注视数据。
结果
在实验1中，我们为4种特殊疑问句（主语提取和宾语提取的who和which疑问句）的正常处理和理解方式建立了一个基线。在实验1中，没有明确的证据支持这3个假设中的任何一个。然而，在有布罗卡失语症参与者的实验2中，相对于其他条件，我们发现宾语提取的which疑问句的准确率显著降低、反应时间更慢，并且注视数据中的干扰增加。
结论
我们的结果为干预者假设提供了支持，该假设认为，在移位的名词短语与其空位之间包含一个干预者（一个词汇性名词短语）的句子结构，相对于其他结构会导致显著的处理劣势。我们认为，这一假设为一些患有布罗卡失语症的参与者出现的理解缺陷提供了一个有说服力的解释。
Zotero 插件