Dial Heather, Martin Randi
Department of Psychology, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005, United States.
Department of Psychology, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005, United States.
Neuropsychologia. 2017 Feb;96:192-212. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.01.009. Epub 2017 Jan 16.
Several studies have reported that aphasic patients may perform substantially better on lexical than sublexical perception tasks (e.g., Miceli et al., 1980). These findings challenge claims made by models of speech perception which assume obligatory sublexical processing (e.g., McClelland and Elman, 1986; Norris, 1994). However, prior studies have not closely matched the phonological similarity of targets and distractors or task demands of the sublexical and lexical perception tasks. The current study addressed shortcomings of these prior studies, testing 13 aphasic patients on sublexical and lexical tasks matched in phonological similarity of stimuli and task demands. When the lexical and sublexical tasks were not matched (Experiment 1a), as in prior studies (e.g., Miceli et al., 1980), several patients with impaired sublexical perception were within the control range on tasks tapping lexical perception. In contrast, when the lexical and sublexical tasks (sublexical: syllable discrimination, auditory-written syllable matching (AWSM); lexical: word discrimination, lexical decision, and picture-word matching (PWM)) were matched on these factors (Experiments 1b and 2), in most instances, patients were impaired on both sublexical and lexical tasks relative to controls and performance on the lexical tasks was not significantly greater than that on the sublexical tasks. For two patients, performance on one lexical task was statistically better than that on one sublexical task, but the advantage was not replicated across other task comparisons. The current study is consistent with models of speech perception which assume obligatory sublexical processing and fails to support models that do not require successful sublexical perception in order to access lexical levels (e.g., Goldinger, 1998; Hickok and Poeppel, 2000).
多项研究报告称,失语症患者在词汇感知任务上的表现可能比次词汇感知任务要好得多(例如,米切利等人,1980年)。这些发现对言语感知模型的观点提出了挑战,这些模型假定存在强制性的次词汇加工(例如,麦克莱兰和埃尔曼,1986年;诺里斯,1994年)。然而,先前的研究并没有紧密匹配目标词和干扰词的语音相似性,也没有匹配次词汇和词汇感知任务的任务要求。本研究弥补了这些先前研究的不足,对13名失语症患者进行了次词汇和词汇任务测试,这些任务在刺激的语音相似性和任务要求方面进行了匹配。当词汇和次词汇任务不匹配时(实验1a),如同先前的研究(例如,米切利等人,1980年)那样,一些次词汇感知受损的患者在涉及词汇感知的任务上处于正常范围。相反,当词汇和次词汇任务(次词汇:音节辨别、听觉-书写音节匹配(AWSM);词汇:单词辨别、词汇判断和图片-单词匹配(PWM))在这些因素上进行匹配时(实验1b和2),在大多数情况下,与对照组相比,患者在次词汇和词汇任务上均表现受损,并且词汇任务的表现并不显著优于次词汇任务。对于两名患者,一项词汇任务的表现在统计学上优于一项次词汇任务,但这种优势在其他任务比较中并未重现。本研究与假定存在强制性次词汇加工的言语感知模型一致,并且未能支持那些不需要成功的次词汇感知就能进入词汇层面的模型(例如,戈尔丁格,1998年;希科克和波佩尔,2000年)。