Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T03:04:35.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perception of lexical stress by brain-damaged individuals: Effects on lexical–semantic activation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2006

AMEE P. SHAH  and
SHARI R. BAUM
AMEE P. SHAH
Affiliation:
School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, McGill University, Montreal
SHARI R. BAUM
Affiliation:
School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, McGill University, Montreal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A semantic priming, lexical-decision study was conducted to examine the ability of left- and right-brain damaged individuals to perceive lexical-stress cues and map them onto lexical–semantic representations. Correctly and incorrectly stressed primes were paired with related and unrelated target words to tap implicit processing of lexical prosody. Results conformed with previous studies involving implicit perception of lexical stress, in that the left-hemisphere damaged individuals showed preserved sensitivity to lexical stress patterns as indicated by priming patterns mirroring those of the normal controls. An increased sensitivity to the varying stress patterns of the primes was demonstrated by the right-hemisphere damaged patient group, however. Results are discussed in relation to current theories of prosodic lateralization, with a particular focus on the nature of task demands in lexical stress perception studies.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 143 - 156
Copyright
2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baum S. 1997. Phonological, semantic, and mediated priming in aphasia. Brain and Language, 60, 347– 359.Google Scholar
Baum S. 1998. The role of fundamental frequency and duration in the perception of linguistic stress by individuals with brain damage. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 41, 31– 40.Google Scholar
Baum S. 2002. Word recognition in individuals with left and right hemisphere damage: The role of lexical stress. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 233– 246.Google Scholar
Baum S., Kelch Daniloff J., Daniloff R., & Lewis J.1982. Sentence comprehension by Broca's aphasics: Effects of some suprasegmental variables. Brain and Language, 17, 261– 271.Google Scholar
Baum S., & Pell M.1999. The neural bases of prosody: Insights from lesion studies and neuroimaging. Aphasiology, 13, 581– 608.Google Scholar
Blumstein S., Burton M., Baum S., Waldstein R., & Katz D.1994. The role of lexical status on the phonetic categorization of speech in aphasia. Brain and Language, 46, 181– 197.Google Scholar
Boyczuk J., & Baum S.1999. The influence of neighborhood density on phonetic categorization in aphasia. Brain and Language, 67, 46– 70.Google Scholar
Brådvik B., Dravins C., Holtås S., Rosen I., Ryding E., & Ingvar D.1991. Disturbances of speech prosody following right hemisphere infarcts. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 84, 114– 126.Google Scholar
Brookshire R. H., & Nicholas L. E.1993. Discourse Comprehension Test. Minneapolis, MN: BRK Publishers.
Caplan D.1992. Language: Structure, process, and disorders. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Caplan D., & Aydelott-Utman J.1994. Selective acoustic–phonetic impairment and lexical access in an aphasic patient. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 512– 517.Google Scholar
Connine C. M., Clifton C. Jr., & Cutler A.1987. Effects of lexical stress on phonetic categorization. Phonetica, 44, 133– 146.Google Scholar
Cutler A., & Norris D.1988. The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 113– 121.Google Scholar
Emmorey K. 1987. The neurological substrates for prosodic aspects of speech. Brain and Language, 30, 305– 320.Google Scholar
Folstein M. F., Folstein S. E., & McHugh P. R.1975. “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189– 198.Google Scholar
Francis W. N., & Kucera H.1982. Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Gandour J., Dzemidzic M., Wong D., Lowe M., Tong Y., Hsieh L., et al. 2003. Temporal integration of speech prosody is shaped by language experience: An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 84, 318– 336.Google Scholar
Geigenberger A., & Zeigler W.2001. Receptive prosodic processing in aphasia. Aphasiology, 15, 1169– 1188.Google Scholar
Goodglass H., & Kaplan E.1983. The assessment of aphasia and related disorders. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
Grosjean F., & Gee, J. P. 1987. Prosodic structure and spoken word recognition. Cognition, 25, 135– 155.Google Scholar
Heuven V. J. van1985. Perception of stress pattern and recognition: Recognition of Dutch words with incorrect stress position. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 78 S21.Google Scholar
Kaplan E.Goodglass H., &. Weintraub S.1983. Boston Naming Test. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
Kimelman M. D. Z.1999. Prosody, linguistic demands and auditory comprehension in aphasia. Brain and Language, 69, 212– 221.Google Scholar
Kimelman M. D. Z., & McNeil M.1987. An investigation of emphatic stress comprehension in adult aphasia: A replication. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 295– 300.Google Scholar
Lehtihalmes M., & Latvala K.1993. Comprehension of prosody after brain infarction. Poster auf der 3. Tagung der International Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics Association, Helsinki.
Lindfield K. C., Wingfield A., & Goodglass H.1999. The contribution of prosody to spoken word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 395– 405.Google Scholar
Mattys S. L., & Samuel A. G.1997. How lexical stress affects speech segmentation and interactivity: Evidence from the migration paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 87– 116.Google Scholar
McQueen J. M., Norris D., & Cutler A.1994. Competition in spoken word recognition: Spotting words in other words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 621– 638.Google Scholar
Mertus J.1989. BLISS user's manual. Providence, RI: Brown University.
Milberg W., Blumstein S., & Dworetzy B.1988. Phonological factors in lexical access: Evidence from an auditory lexical decision task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 305– 308.Google Scholar
Nelson D. L., McEvoy C. L., & Schreiber T. A.1998. The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Retrieved from http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation.
Norris D., McQueen J., & Cutler A.1995. Competition and segmentation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1209– 1228.Google Scholar
Pell M. D.1998. Recognition of prosody following unilateral brain lesion: Influence of functional and structural attributes of prosodic contours. Neuropsychologia, 36, 701– 715.Google Scholar
Poeppel D. 2001. Pure word deafness and the bilateral processing of the speech code. Cognitive Science, 25, 679– 693.Google Scholar
Slowiaczek L. M. 1990. Effects of lexical stress in auditory word recognition. Language and Speech, 33, 47– 68.Google Scholar
Swinney D. A., Zurif E., & Cutler A.1980. Effects of sentential stress and word class upon comprehension in Broca's aphasia. Brain and Language, 10, 132– 144.Google Scholar
Taft L. A.1984. Prosodic constraints and lexical parsing strategies. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts.
Tyler L. K., Cobb H., & Graham N.1992. Spoken language comprehension: An experimental approach to disordered and normal comprehension. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Van Lancker D. 1980. Cerebral lateralization of pitch cues in the linguistic signal. Papers in Linguistics, 13, 201– 277.Google Scholar
Van Lancker D., & Sidtis J.1992. The identification of affective-prosodic stimuli by left- and right-hemisphere-damaged subjects: All errors are not created equal. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 963– 970.Google Scholar
Walker J. P., Fongemie K., & Daigle T.2001. Prosodic facilitation in the resolution of temporary syntactic ambiguities in subjects with left and right hemisphere damage. Brain and Language, 78, 169– 196.Google Scholar
Wayland S., Wingfield A., & Goodglass H.1989. Recognition of isolated words: The dynamics of cohort reduction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 475– 487.Google Scholar
Weintraub S., Mesulam M. M., & Kramer L.1981. Disturbances in prosody: A right-hemisphere contribution to language. Archives of Neurology, 38, 742– 744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiig E., & Secord W.1989. Test of language competence—Expanded edition (TLC-E). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wilson B., Cockburn J., & Halligan P.1987. Behavioural Inattention Test (BIT). Thames: Thames Valley Test Company.
Wingfield A., Goodglass H., & Lindfield K.1997. Word recognition from acoustic onsets and acoustic offsets: Effects of cohort size and syllabic stress. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 85– 100.Google Scholar
Wunderlich A., Ziegler W., & Geigenberger A.2003. Implicit processing of prosodic information in patients with left and right hemisphere stroke. Aphasiology, 17, 861– 879.Google Scholar