How left inferior frontal cortex participates in syntactic processing Love 2008.pdf

8/11/2019 How left inferior frontal cortex participates in syntactic processing Love 2008.pdf

1/17

How left inferior frontal cortex participates in syntacticprocessing: Evidence from aphasia q

Tracy Love a,b,*, David Swinney b,1, Matthew Walenski b, Edgar Zurif b

a San Diego State University, School of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, 5500 Campanile Drive, MC 1518, San Diego, CA 92182-1518, USAb University of California, San Diego, USA

Accepted 15 November 2007Available online 26 December 2007

Abstract

We report on three experiments that provide a real-time processing perspective on the poor comprehension of Brocas aphasic patientsfor non-canonically structured sentences. In the first experiment we presented sentences (via a Cross Modal Lexical Priming (CMLP)paradigm) to Brocas patients at a normal rate of speech. Unlike the pattern found with unimpaired control participants, we observeda general slowing of lexical activation and a concomitant delay in the formation of syntactic dependencies involving moved constit-uents and empty elements. Our second experiment presented these same sentences at a slower rate of speech. In this circumstance, Brocaspatients formed syntactic dependencies as soon as they were structurally licensed (again, a different pattern from that demonstrated bythe unimpaired control group). The third experiment used a sentence-picture matching paradigm to chart Brocas comprehension fornon-canonically structured sentences (presented at both normal and slow rates). Here we observed significantly better scores in the slowrate condition. We discuss these findings in terms of the functional commitment of the left anterior cortical region implicated in Brocasaphasia and conclude that this region is crucially involved in the formation of syntactically-governed dependency relations, not because itsupports knowledge of syntactic dependencies, but rather because it supports the real-time implementation of these specific representa-tions by sustaining, at the least, a lexical activation rise-time parameter.Published by Elsevier Inc.

Keywords: Aphasia; Brocas area; Syntax; Slow rise time; Gap filling; Rate of speech; On-line; Priming; Sentence processing; Neurolinguistics

1. Introduction

This paper provides data from Brocas aphasia concern-ing a timing parameter of syntactic processing and its neu-

rological underpinning. We have focused on this syndromefor two reasons: (1) there are specific linguistic processingdeficits associated with it; and (2) it has lesion-localizingvaluethe deficits implicate damage to left inferior frontalcortex.

As is well known, Brocas aphasia is variably associatedwith large superficial and deep lesions, often including, butcertainly not confined to, the classically delimited Brocasareaviz., BA (Brodmann Area) 44 and BA 45 (Alexan-der, Naeser, & Palumbo, 1990; Benson, 1985; Mohr,1976; Vignolo, 1988). Still, this larger, indeterminate ante-rior region is clearly distinguishable from the posteriorregion associated with Wernickes aphasia (Benson, 1985;Tonkonogy, 1986; Vignolo, 1988). So, specific linguisticdeficits found only in Brocas aphasia are reasonably cer-tain to be based on a different neuroanatomical substrate

0093-934X/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Inc.

doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2007.11.004

q The work reported in this paper was supported primarily by NIHGrant DC 02984 with additional support from NIH Grant DC 03660,DC000494 and NIH Grant DC005207. We thank Dr. Penny Prather andDr. Nick Nagel for their help in constructing stimuli and in formulatingthe experimental design, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpfulcomments.* Corresponding author. Address: San Diego State University, School of

Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, 5500 Campanile Drive, SanDiego, CA 92182-1518, USA.

E-mail address:[email protected](T. Love).1 David Swinney, our friend and colleague, passed away on April 14,

2006.

www.elsevier.com/locate/b&l

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Brain & Language 107 (2008) 203219
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/17

from those found only in Wernickes aphasia. And suchdifferences have, indeed, been reported, including differ-ences involving real-time processing parameters of the sortto be described in the present paper. In any case, we willnot be concerned here with the cortical area implicated inWernickes aphasia, but only with the commitment to syn-

tactic processing of the region associated with Brocasaphasiai.e., with a left anterior cortical region, howeverimprecisely bounded it is.2

Not all syntactic operationsnor perhaps even verymanyseem to rely on the integrity of left inferior frontalcortex. In fact, several past analyses of comprehension inBrocas aphasia suggest that only a minimal functional def-icit following lesions to this area arises: the inability toestablish syntactic dependencies (e.g., Grodzinsky, 1986,2000, 2006; Mauner, Fromkin, & Cornell, 1993; Hickok,Zurif, & Conseco-Gonzalez, 1993; Friedmann & Shapiro,2003; Thompson, Shapiro, Tait, Jacobs, & Schneider,1996). This deficit prevents the hypothesized formation of

links between positions at which noun phrases (NPs)appear (are heard) in sentences and positions at which theyare interpreted.

Dependencies of this sort must be accounted for by anysyntactic theory. Relevant frameworks are provided in,among other places,Pollard and Sag (1994) (Head-DrivenPhrase Structure Grammar) and Chomsky (1981)(theoryof Government and Binding), an important tenet of whichis constituent movement. In this latter theory, movement ofa phrasal constituent leaves a tracean abstract, phono-logically unrealized placeholderin the vacated position.On this view, traces are crucial for the assignment of the-

matic roles in a sentence, such roles being assigned tocanonical positions regardless of the identity of theassignee and of the actual ordering of constituents in the

sentence. So if a thematic position contains a trace, thenthe trace is assigned the thematic role and the moved con-stituent, or antecedent, that left the trace gets its role onlyindirectly, by being linked to the trace. Consider as anexample the following notated non-canonical sentence,(The boy)ithat the horse chased (t)iis tall. The transitive

verb chase assigns two roles: the role of agent to the sub-ject on its left (horse) and the role of entity-acted-uponto the trace position marked by t on its right. In effect,to ensure proper comprehension, the NP the boy,though heard at the beginning of the sentence, is hypothe-sized to be interpretedi.e., assigned its role of entity-acted-uponat its canonical position directly after theverb, as indexed by the trace or t. The dependency rela-tion between the two positions is shown by the subscripti.

The application of this theory to aphasia, first proposedbyGrodzinsky (1986), encompasses more than just the ideathat Brocas patients are unable to represent syntactic

dependencies involving traces. There is another part to itas well, which is that, faced with a thematically unassignedconstituent, Brocas patients resort to their knowledge ofprobabilities acquired through experience: namely, theyapply a linearly ordered (non-grammatical) agent-firststrategy (Bever, 1970), incorrectly interpreting the firstnoun phrase (NP) encountered as the agent of the action.But since this strategy is hypothesized to apply in the con-text of an otherwise normally elaborated syntactic repre-sentation, the structures the patients form end up withtwo agents, leading them to guess at the interpretation.Of course, also consistent with this argument is the fact

that Brocas show relatively spared comprehension for allsorts of canonical structures, that is, for structures in whichthe first NP preceding the verb is correctly (grammatically)mapped as agent. In this way, (e.g., Grodzinsky, 1986,2000, 2006) and, with variations, a number of other inves-tigators (e.g., Hickok et al., 1993; Mauner et al., 1993)account for a fairly large body of comprehension data atthe sentence level. For lists of studies attesting to thisrobust result pattern and, equally, for references to, andcritiques of, the several analyses vaunting variability, see,e.g., Drai, Grodzinsky, and Zurif (2001); Drai and Grod-zinsky (2006a, 2006b); Grodzinsky, Pinango, Zurif, andDrai (1999).

This syntactic limitation in Brocas aphasia is especiallymarked when the formation of an antecedent-trace link isstudied online, that is, as comprehension temporallyunfolds. The relevant fact here is that tracesthe gapsthey indexnormally appear to have real-time processingconsequences (Swinney & Fodor, 1989 and articlestherein). This has been most commonly shown by studiesof lexical priming wherein one observes that the meaningof a displaced constituent or antecedent is activated whenit is first encountered in a sentence, and then, in an opera-tion referred to as gap filling,reactivated at the site indexedby the trace (Hickok, Conseco-Gonzalez, Zurif, & Grim-

shaw, 1992; Love, 2007; Love & Swinney, 1996; Nicol,

2 Neuroimaging analyses of normal sentence processing have sought toprovide greater precision on this matter. Several studies suggest that thefrontal cortical region for syntax incorporates only the inferofrontalgyrusBA44 and BA45 (Ben-Shachar, Hendler, Kahn, Ben-Bashat, &Grodzinsky, 2003; Caplan, Alpert, & Waters, 1998; Dapretto & Book-heimer, 1999; Stromswold, Caplan, Alpert, & Rauch, 1996). But not allstudies have shown this particular focus of activation. For instance, Cookeet al. (2001)have observed recruitment, not of BA44 or of BA45, but ofBA47 in their fMRI analysis of syntactic processing. Even in the same

laboratory, even for the same underlying syntactic operation, BA44 and/or 45 are not invariably activated. (See Caplan, 2000for a discussion ofthese inconsistencies.) Moreover, it is not clear that efforts to achieve suchfine-grained localization on the basis of neuroimaging are warranted evenin principle. Interindividual variation in the language regions is great nomatter what anatomical mapping method is used (e.g.,Amunts & Zilles,2006; Petrides, 2006). In addition, Amunts, Zilles, and their colleagueshave shown that the sulcal contours defining BA 44 and 45 are not reliablelandmarks of cytoarchitectonic borders (e.g., Amunts & Zilles, 2006;Amunts et al., 1999). Even so there is clearly both greater precision and amuch wider view provided by neuroimaging. And because of this widerviewbecause neuroimaging studies are lesion independentthe totalactivation patterns they reveal for particular syntactic operations can, inprinciple, be compared with the lesion sites known to disrupt suchoperations, thereby distinguishing those sites that are crucially involved

and those that play participatory roles.

204 T. Love et al. / Brain & Language 107 (2008) 203219


3/17

Fodor, & Swinney, 1994; Nicol & Swinney, 1989; Swinney& Fodor, 1989; Swinney & Osterhout, 1990; Tanenhaus,Boland, Garnsey, & Carlson, 1989; Zurif, Swinney, Prath-er, Wingfield, & Brownell, 1995).3 Consider our earlierexample, (The boy)i that the horse chased (t)i is tall.Using priming to measure activation of a lexical item,

one observes boy to be activated just after being heardand again at the gap indexed by the t where there isno phonologically realized word at all. Moreover, the wordboy does not show activation just before the verbchased. This last point is crucial; it signifies that activa-tion for boy at the gap is not due to residual activationfrom its earlier appearance, but is rather the result of itsreactivation. In effect, for neurologically intact subjectsthe link between a displaced constituent and its trace isreflexively formed in real-time, at the moment the trace siteor gap is encountered. By contrast, Brocas patients do notshow reactivation of the antecedent at the trace sitetheydonot form syntactic dependency relations in real-time, or

at least, not within the normal time frame (Swinney, Zurif,Prather, & Love, 1996; Zurif, Swinney, Prather, Solomon,& Bushel, 1993).

A number of clinical observations suggest that this fail-ure to form syntactic dependencies (to fill gaps) is the con-sequence of a processing limitation, not the reflection of anunalterable loss of syntactic knowledge. For one thing,Brocas patients occasionally show dissociations betweencomprehension capacity and the capacity to make gram-matical judgments (e.g., Linebarger, Schwartz, & Saffran,1983). That is, these patients do not always show an over-arching syntactic limitation that equally diminishes all lan-

guage activities, as would be expected if a part of syntacticknowledge were absent. A second relevant clinical findingis that the Brocas comprehension problem has sometimesbeen relieved by relaxing various task demandsby repeat-ing sentences and delivering them more slowly (e.g., Gard-ner, Albert, & Weintraub, 1975; Lasky, Weidner, &Johnson, 1976; Pashek & Brookshire, 1982; Poeck & Pie-tron, 1981; but seeBlumstein, Katz, Goodglass, Shrier, &Dworetzky, 1985for contrary evidence). So the knowledgeof syntactic dependencies seems to be there; the problemseems to be accessing it in real-time. And this, in turn,seems related to the particular processing resourcesdemanded by the gap-filling operation.

One processing demand has to do with the fact that theoperation is fast acting(Fodor, 1983). As we have alreadynoted, the data show that the moved constituent is nor-mally reactivated as soon as it is structurally licensed todo soat the moment the gap, or trace, site is encountered

(e.g.,Nicol & Swinney, 1989). It is this temporal parameterof gap-filling that forms the topic of the present report. Tobe more specific, we provide evidence consistent with theidea that left inferior frontal cortex enters into syntacticprocessing, not because it supports syntactic knowledge,but rather because, whatever else; it sustains the requisite

lexical activation speed needed for the real-time formationof a syntactic dependency.We have argued this last point in some earlier articles

and book chapters (e.g., Swinney et al., 1996; Zurif,1995, 2000). We have even provided some preliminary evi-dence that Brocas patients do eventually reactivate theantecedent, but that they do so beyond the gaptoo lateto support normal syntactic processing (Love, Swinney,& Zurif, 2001; Swinney & Love, 1998; also seeBurkhardt,Pinango, & Wong (2003)for evidence of late reactivation).But the two-fold argument that there is a connectionbetween speed of lexical activation and successful syntacticprocessing, and that normal lexical access speed is depen-

dent upon the integrity of the cortical area implicated inBrocas aphasia, has only been indirectly established; thedata on slow lexical activation (or slow rise time as its alsotermed) in the face of left inferior frontal damage have beengathered quite apart from considerations of syntactic pro-cessing. They come from one study of polysemy (Swinney,Zurif, & Nicol, 1989) and from single case studies using alist priming paradigm (Prather, Zurif, Stern, & Rosen,1992; Prather, Zurif, Love, & Brownell, 1997). In this latterparadigm a subject is required to make a lexical decisionfor each word in an ongoing list, some of the adjacentwords in this list being semantically associated, most not.

An important feature is that the words rapidly followone another in such a way as to minimize relatednessexpectations and post-lexical checkingtwo strategies thatestablish controlled, as opposed to automatic, processing(e.g., Shelton & Martin, 1992). Therefore the list primingparadigm can be said to foster automatic processing. Inthis experimental situation the Brocas patients that werestudied did not show priming until the words were sepa-rated from each other by 1500 msthey activated wordmeanings slower than normally (Prather et al., 1992,1997). Thus, until the present, our claim of a connectionbetween a temporal alteration in lexical processing andthe syntactic problem in Brocas comprehension has beencircumstantial: viz., Brocas patients who do not shownormal lexical activation speed do not demonstrate gapfilling in real time.

The three studies that we present here, however, take usbeyond this circumstance. The first of these studies focuseson how Brocas patients both activate andreactivate lexicalinformation under normal speech conditionsthat is,when words in a sentence are presented at a normal speak-ing rate. We already know that Brocas patients show slowlexical activation when faced with list formats. Here weseek to establish whether or not they also show this tempo-ral alteration in a sentence context. Also, we seek to con-

firm earlier indications that although the patients fail to

3 Priming refers to the fact that lexical decisions are faster for targetwords when they are immediately preceded by semantically related wordsthan when preceded by unrelated words. This difference is taken to meanthat the preceding wordthe priming wordhas been activated and thatthis activation, having spread within a semantic/associative networkincluding the target, has lowered the targets recognition threshold (e.g.,

Meyer, Schvaneveldt, & Ruddy, 1975).

T. Love et al. / Brain & Language 107 (2008) 203219 205


4/17

reactivate lexical items at their gap sites, they do reactivatethem eventually, but too late to allow normal syntactic pro-cessing (Love et al., 2001; Swinney & Love, 1998; Burk-hardt et al., 2003). In effect, in our first experiment weseek evidence that the syntactic comprehension problemin Brocas aphasia is best understood, not as a loss of

knowledge of representations containing syntactic depen-dencies, but as a change in the processing resources thatsustain the normal speed of lexical activation, thereby dis-rupting the reflexive syntactic operation of gap-filling.

Our second study, undertaken with the same aim inmind, provides, perhaps, an even more important test ofour hypothesis that slow lexical activation underlies thesyntactic problem in Brocas aphasia. In this study, weexamine whether Brocas patients can establish syntacti-cally-governed dependency relationswhether they canreactivate moved constituents at gap siteswhen sentencesare spoken more slowly than is usual, but in a manner thatstill sounds normal. To this end, we digitally modified the

input rate, slowing it to 3.4 syllables per second. This is justoutside the range of the normal speech rate which is 4 to 6syllables per second. Decreasing the input rate allowedeven the gap site to have an expanded temporal windowby which to afford the formation of a syntactic dependencyin the face of slow lexical activation. (Love et al., 2001;Swinney & Love, 1998; Swinney, Love, Oliver, Bouck, &Zurif, 1999)

Both of these two studies make use of an on-line taskcalled cross-modal lexical priming (CMLP) (Swinney,Onifer, Prather, & Hirshkowitz, 1979). In this task, forany one trial, participants listen to a sentence over ear-

phones, and at one point while listening to the sentence,are required to make a lexical decision for a visually pre-sented letter string target flashed on a screen in front ofthem. Words formed by the letter strings are either relatedor unrelated to the moved constituent in the sentence. Bylocating the letter strings at various points during the audi-tory presentation of the sentence, we can monitor when theantecedentthe moved constituentis serving as a prim-ing word for the related visual target. That is, we can mon-itor when the meaning of the antecedent in the sentence hasbeen activated, or reactivated.

Our third study shifts the focus from on-line behavior tooff-line comprehension. Specifically, we use a sentence-pic-ture matching task to assess the Brocas patients under-standing of whos doing what to whomwho the agentis, who the entity-acted-upon iswhen this informationis conveyed by non-canonically structured sentences. Andcrucially, we test understanding for these sentences bothwhen they are spoken at a normal speed and at the slowrate of 3.8 syllables per second. Our aim here is to deter-mine if greater success in real-time gap-filling for sentencespresented at this slower rate is accompanied by greater suc-cess in off-line comprehension.

Our specific hypotheses are as follows: With normallyrapid speech, the patients will show both delayed lexical

activation when encountering the moved constituent near

the beginning of the utterance and delayed reactivationof that constituent at the gap sitethe latter delay disrupt-ing the normal formation of a syntactic dependency. Butfaced with a slower rate of speech input, the patients willshow both normal gap filling and an improvement in theircomprehension of non-canonically structured sentences.

2. Experiment 1: Normal rate of speech input

In this experiment we use an on-line cross-modal lexicalpriming (CMLP) task (Swinney et al., 1979), with auditorysentences presented at a normal rate of speech to examinewhether Brocas aphasic patients show slower-than-normallexical activation of words when the words are presented aspart of an ongoing auditory sentence. Additionally, weseek to confirm earlier indications that Brocas patientsexhibit a similar slow rise time of activation of an anteced-ent at a gap position. Such a finding would bolster theclaim that the syntactic comprehension problem in Brocas

aphasia is best understood as a disruption in automaticsyntactic operations underlying gap-filling due to a changein the processing resources that sustain the normal speed oflexical activation (Prather et al., 1997). Moreover, suchfindings would pose challenges for claims that Brocasaphasia represents a loss of the (specific) syntactic knowl-edge concerning the dependency relations necessary forgap-filling (Grodzinsky, 1990).

2.1. Methods

2.1.1. Participants

We tested two groups of participants (Tables 1a, 1b): agroup of 8 Brocas aphasic patients (age at time of testing:4780; mean: 62.4 years) and 4 neurologically unimpairedcontrols (that were age- and education-matched to fourof the Brocas patients; age at time of testing: 4774; mean:62 years). Participants were tested at one of two sites: TheLaboratory for Research on Aphasia and Stroke at TheUniversity of California, San Diego (San Diego; n= 4)and at The Aphasia Research Center at the Boston Veter-ans Administration Medical Center (Boston; n= 4). All ofthe control participants were tested at The AphasiaResearch Center at the Boston Veterans AdministrationMedical Center. All participants were paid $15 per visit.

Brocas aphasic patients.All patients were native Englishspeakers with normal or corrected-to-normal auditory andvisual acuity for age, and were right handed prior to theirstroke. All patients had left hemisphere damage with a sin-gle, relatively localized lesion site, predominantly in ante-rior regions/structures. The diagnosis of Brocas Aphasiawas based on the convergence of clinical consensus andthe results of a standardized aphasia examinationtheBoston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE-version2,Goodglass & Kaplan, 1972). At the time of testing, allparticipants had retained the defining features of their ori-ginal diagnosis. We note that the profile of one of our

patients (FT) does not line up perfectly with the standard



5/17


6/17

BDAE profile for Brocas aphasia. However he demon-strates agrammatic speech and his lesion site is anterior,involving Brocas area. He is therefore included in the

patient group. No patient had a previous history of otherinfarcts, and all were neurologically and physically stable(i.e., at least 6 months post onset), with no history of activeor significant alcohol and/or drug abuse, no history ofactive psychiatric illness, and no history of other significantbrain disorder or dysfunction (e.g., Alzheimers/dementia,senility, Parkinsons, Huntingtons, Korsakoffs, mentalretardation).

Neurologically unimpaired controls.All participants wereright-handed native English speakers, with normal or cor-rected-to-normal visual and auditory acuity for age. Noparticipants had a history of: (a) active or significant alco-

hol and/or drug abuse; (b) active psychiatric illness; (c)other significant brain disorder or dysfunction.

2.1.2. Materials

The test items consisted of 40 experimental object rela-tive sentences like the following:

The audience liked the wrestleri1 that the2 parish priest

condemned (t)i3 for4 foul5 language.

In these sentences, the relativized noun (wrestler) is co-indexed with the trace (t) in the direct object position ofthe relative clause (hereafter referred to as the gap). This

noun (wrestler) therefore serves as the antecedent of the

trace, and hence is interpreted as the direct object of the rel-ative clause verb (condemned).

In order to measure priming effects in this CMLP task,participants make binary lexical decisions to visually pre-sented letter strings (visual probes). Two visual probewords were chosen for each sentence. One of the visual

probe words (the related probe; e.g., fighter for theexample above) was a close semantic associate of the ante-cedent. Semantic association was determined by both pub-lished word association data (Jenkins, 1970) and datapreviously collected from college-age and elderly adults(Love & Swinney, 1996). The other visual probe word(the control probe; e.g., climber for the example above)was not semantically associated with the antecedent or withany other word in the sentence (to avoid accidental prim-ing). Priming is measured by comparing response timesto the related and control probesfaster response timesto the related probes indicate a priming effect. Importantly,priming effects in CMLP tasks reflect activation, not inte-

gration, of the visual probe into the ongoing auditory sen-tence (Nicol, Swinney, Love, & Hald, 2006).

The visual probes were paired with sentences using aswitched target design such that a related probe for onesentence appeared as a control probe for a different sen-tence. Thus over all sentences, the set of related probes isidentical to the set of control probes, minimizing the possi-bility that any observed priming effects are due to lexicaldifferences (e.g., frequency, length differences) betweenthe related and control probes.

In order to establish the time course of activation of theantecedent, the related and control visual probes were pre-

sented at five positions in the ongoing auditory sentence(indicated approximately by superscript numerals in theexample above). Probe position 1 is immediately at the off-set of the antecedent. Probe position 2 is 300 ms down-stream from probe position 1. This position allowed usto widen the window of measurement and observe whetherthe Brocas patients had activated the antecedent, but witha slower-than-normal rise time. Probe position 3 is at thegap position, where priming of the antecedent is expectedfor unimpaired subjects. Probe position 4 is 300 ms afterthe gap and Probe position 5 is 500 ms after the gap. Likeprobe position 2, probe positions 4 and 5 also widened themeasurement window, allowing us to determine if Brocaspatients also exhibit a slower-than-normal rise time forreactivation of the antecedent at the gap.

In addition to these experimental sentences, we created50 filler sentences that were similar in length and structureto the experimental sentences, but with some variation inthe positioning of the relative clause. Forty of these fillersentences were paired with a non-word probe (that obeyedEnglish phonotactic constraints; e.g., flep), and 5 werepaired with a real-word letter string, balancing the numberof word and non-word responses over the full set ofitems. In addition, the position of the visual probe variedfor the filler sentences; for some it occurred early on in

the sentence, for some roughly in the middle, and for others

Table 1bDemographic Information for all unimpaired control participants inexperiments 1, 2, and 3a

Control Testing

Location Gender Age Education

Experiment one

BJ Boston F 57 14 yearsCR Boston F 47 H.S.QC Boston F 71 B.A.SM Boston F 74 H.S.

Experiment two

BR Boston M 75 H.S.CF Boston F 73 HSCP Boston F 71 H.S.JR Boston F 75 H.S.SF Boston F 66 14 yearsSP Boston M 73 HS

Experiment three

AH San Diego F 73 H.S.BD San Diego M 74 H.S.

TA San Diego F 68 H.S.PM San Diego F 47 H.S.FN San Diego M 76 M.A.JT San Diego F 70 H.S.QT San Diego F 71 B.A.JT San Diego F 66 M.A.ST San Diego M 48 B.S.WN San Diego F 69 B.A.

a Some control participants participated in more than one experiment.



7/17

near the end of the sentence, to prevent the (unlikely)occurrence of subjects anticipating the probe positions.

The 90 sentences (40 experimental; 50 filler) werepseudo-randomly ordered into a single script, such thatno more than three sentences of a given condition (experi-mental or filler; word or non-word) occurred in a row. The

sentences were recorded by a male native English speakerat a normal rate of speech (4.47 syllables per second),and were digitized at 22 K samples per second. Therecorded sentences were saved on one channel of a stereosound file. Digital tones, in the form of a 100 ms 1 KHzpulse, were recorded (via digital techniques) for all sen-tences on the second inaudible stereo channel, at timesappropriate for presentation of the visual probes.

For playback, the single channel containing the auditoryform of the sentence was split into two channels, andplayed to the subjects in stereo over a set of headphones.The single channel containing the digital tone was trans-mitted to the RTLAB V11 software program, and served

to trigger the occurrence of the visual probe in the centerof a display monitor. This second channel containing thedigital tones was therefore completely inaudible to the sub-jects, and could not have served as a cue for the appearanceof the visual probe. Simultaneously with the appearance ofthe visual probe, the software package initiated a timingfunction to record the button press response times indicat-ing a subjects binary word/non-word lexical decision (withmillisecond accuracy).

2.1.3. Design

This CMLP study used a within subjects design, so that

every participant saw every sentence in every condition.The visual probes and probe positions were counterbal-anced across multiple tapes (to counterbalance the probepositions) and multiple lists (to counterbalance the relatedand control probes). Each tape contained the same experi-mental and filler sentences in the same pseudo-randomorder (see above). Importantly, each participant (whetheran unimpaired control or Brocas aphasic patient) wastested on each tape/list combination in a separate test ses-sion. These sessions were separated by at least two weeks,

and most often by more than two weeks, so as to minimizepotential exposure effects. Thus each participant saw multi-ple exemplars of every condition in each session, but didnot receive any one sentence or visual probe word morethan once per testing session. Fig. 1 gives an example ofhow a single sentence and its related and control visual

probes would be rotated throughout the multi-tape/listconditions.As the unimpaired controls were not expected to exhibit

any delay inreactivation of the antecedent at the gap posi-tion, the materials for these participants were only counter-balanced across three tape/list conditions, and onlyincluded the first 3 probe positions (PP1-antecedent, PP2-antecedent + 300 ms and PP3-gap) across six testingsessions.

For the Brocas patients, in order to reduce the numberof test sessions required to complete the experiment, not allparticipants were tested at all test points. The patientstested in Boston contributed data at four probe positions

(PP1, PP2, PP3, and PP4). For these patients, the materialswere counterbalanced across 4 tapes and 2 lists, requiringeight test sessions. The patients tested in San Diego con-tributed data at two probe positions (PP3 and PP5)forthese patients the materials were therefore counterbalancedacross 2 tapes and 2 lists, requiring four test sessions tocomplete. Crucially, all of the patients contributed datato the probe position at the gap and to at least one post-gap probe position.

2.1.4. Procedure

In each session, participants were instructed on the

simultaneous auditory and visual tasks, and were givenconsiderable practice and feedback on these tasks beforetesting began.

For the auditory task, participants were told that theywould hear a series of sentences over the headphones andthat they should to listen carefully to each sentence. Toencourage attention to the sentences, the experiment waspaused and the participants were asked a multiple-choicequestion about the sentence that had just been presented(25 questions per session). These questions bore only on

T5T4T3T2T1

The audience liked the wrestleri1 that the2 parish priestcondemned (t)i

3 for4 foul 5language.

L1 fighter fighter fighter fighter fighter

L2 climber climber climber climber climber

Fig. 1. Example of tape/list counterbalancing for a test item in Experiment 1. The superscript numerals indicate the visual probe positions (digital tone oninaudible second stereo channel) in the ongoing auditory sentence (played to the participants; see text). The position of the visual probes changes acrosstapes, so that participants respond to the visual probe at probe position 1 in Tape 1, probe position 2 in Tape 2, etc. The related and control visual probesare counterbalanced across two lists. For this example, list one has the related visual probe fighter, and list two the control visual probe climber.Participants would get a unique tape/list combination in each test session, and would return until they had completed all of their tape/list combinations(for the unimpaired controls, the materials were counterbalanced across probe positions 1, 2, and 3; for the Brocas patients tested in Boston, the materialswere counterbalanced across probe positions 1, 2, 3, and 4; and for the Brocas patients tested in San Diego the materials were counterbalanced acrossprobe positions 3 and 5). Thus for this sentence in the Tape 1/List 1 combination, a participant would see fighterat probe position one (at the offset ofwrestler). In the Tape 3/List 2 combination, a participant would see climberat probe position three (gap position). Crucially, across all 40 experimentalitems in a particular tape/list combination, participants would respond to some items from every condition (related vs. control visual probe at various

probe positions).



8/17

the setting or general topic of the sentence; and wereintended only to reinforce the need for the subjects to listento the sentences, rather than as a test of their comprehen-sion per se. Accordingly, we did not examine or analyzethe responses to these questions in any way.

Participants were also told that there would be a second,

simultaneous task to perform: at some point during the audi-tory presentation of each sentence, they would see a string ofletters appear in the center of the screen before them, andthey would have to decide as quickly and accurately as pos-sible whether the letter string formed an actual English wordor not. They were instructed to indicate their decision bypressing the yes key for a word and the no key for anon-word. All participants (Brocas patients and age-matched controls) responded with their left hand, as manyof the patients exhibited right hemiparesis or weakness.

2.2. Results

Prior to analysis, it was discovered that for five sen-tences, the visual probes could have constituted plausiblecontinuations of the auditory sentence for at least oneprobe position. All data points from these items wereremoved to avoid any possible confound of interpretationwith respect to priming vs. integration effects (see above).Data from two additional sentences were excluded becauseof association of visual probes to noun phrases (other thanthe antecedent) in the experimental sentence.

2.2.1. Unimpaired control participants

Data from the unimpaired control participants are pre-

sented inTable 2. Response times from incorrect responses(e.g. wrong button presses or a failure to respond in thetime allotted) were excluded prior to descriptive or inferen-tial analyses (approximately 1.74%). As it is well estab-lished that neurologically intact subjects, whether youngor elderly, demonstrate reactivation of the syntactically

correct antecedent at the gap position (Love, 2007; Love& Swinney, 1996; Nicol & Swinney, 1989; Swinney &Fodor, 1989; Swinney & Osterhout, 1990; Tanenhauset al., 1989; Zurif et al., 1995), for the unimpaired controlgroup we carried out only a prioripaired t-tests comparingthe reaction-time data for the related and control visual

probes at each probe position.The results (Table2) indicate that, as expected, thecontrolparticipants primed the antecedent at probe position 1 (theoffset of the antecedent; control minus related differenceof +37 ms; t3= 2.997, p= .015). At probe position 2(300 ms downstream from the antecedent) no priming wasobserved (control minus related difference of 17 ms;t3= .619, p = .285). At probe position 3 (gap position),priming of the antecedent was again observed (controlminus related difference of +24 ms; t3= 4.83, p= .004),consistent with prior published reports (see just above).

2.2.2. Brocas aphasic patientsAs with the unimpaired control participants, response

times from incorrect responses were excluded prior to anal-ysis (7.97% data loss for San Diego participants and 9.45%data loss for Boston participants). In addition, in order toreduce skewness in the distribution of patients responses,extreme outliers were removed on the basis of visualinspection of the normal probability plot. This led to theexclusion of responses with RTs less than 500 ms or greaterthan 2500 ms (approx 2.8% of the data). An additionaldata screen was computed to reduce item varianceforeach sentence, we excluded responses greater or less than

2 standard deviations from the mean of responses for eachvisual probe type (related, control) at each probe position(1.25% of the data).

The remaining data were submitted to descriptive andinferential statistics. The results (Fig. 2) ofa prioripairedt-tests indicate that at probe position one (offset of theantecedent) there was no significant priming effect (con-trol minus related difference of +29 ms; t3= 1.28,p= 0.145). However, at probe position two (antecedentplus 300 ms) there was significant priming (control minusrelated difference of +57 ms; t2= 2.76, p= 0.05).

4 Atprobe position three (gap position) the patients again didnot show a priming effect (control minus related differ-ence of3 ms;t7= .584, p= 0.29). At Probe Position four,300 ms further downstream from the gap, patients still didnot show a priming effect (control minus related differ-ence of +6 ms; t3= 0.171, p= 0.437). Finally, at ProbePosition five (500 ms downstream from the gap), thepatients demonstrated a priming effect (control minusrelated difference of +117 ms; t3= 3.29, p= 0.02).

In order to assess whether the absence of a priming effectat probe position 4 or the presence of a priming effect atprobe position 5 reflected a change from the prior probe

Table 2Results from experiment one for age-matched unimpaired controlsa

Probe position 1antecedent offset

Probe position 2antecedent+ 300 ms

Probe position 3gap position

Relatedvisualprobe

923 (67) 922 (130) 896 (103)

Controlvisualprobe

960 (71) 905 (120) 920 (114)

Difference(controlrelated)

+37p


9/17


10/17

position, and probe position 3 was 500 ms after the gap.Accordingly, the materials were counterbalanced across 3tapes/2 lists, and all participants completed the experimentin six test sessions.

3.1.3. Procedure

The procedure was the same as described inExperiment 1.

3.2. Results

Prior to analysis, data from the same seven sentencesidentified in experiment one as problematic were removedfrom all analyses.

3.2.1. Unimpaired control participants

Prior to analysis, response times from incorrectresponses were excluded (1% of the data). At each probe

position, mean response times (by subjects) for the relatedand control visual probes were compared by a prioripairedt-tests (p-values reported one-tailed). The results (Table 3)indicate that there was a priming effect at probe positionthree (control minus related difference of +46; t5= 2.11,p = 0.04); but not at probe position one (control minusrelated difference of2;t5= 0.099, p = .46) or probe posi-tion two (control minus related difference of24;t5= 1.25,p= .133). This pattern is consistent with prior results indi-

cating that slowing the rate of speech input disrupts thenormally automatic processing of syntactic dependenciesin unimpaired young adults (Love et al., 2001). It is alsoin line with evidence that time-expanded sentence inputtends to be detrimental to off-line comprehension in olderadults (Vaughan, Furakawa, Balasingam, Mortz, & Fausti,

2002).

3.2.2. Brocas aphasic patients

Data were analyzed using a mixed-effects regressionmodel, with crossed random effects of subject and sentence,and fixed effects of probe position (1, 2, 3) and visual probetype (related vs. control). All incorrect responses (asdefined in experiment one) were excluded prior to analysis(4.6% of the data). In order to reduce skewness in the dis-tribution of responses, extreme outliers were removed onthe basis of visual inspection of the normal probability plot(responses with RTs less than 500 ms or greater than2500 ms; 2.3% of the data). An additional data screen

was computed to reduce item variancefor each sentence,we excluded responses greater or less than 2 standard devi-ations from the mean of responses at each probe positionfor each visual probe type (2.3% of the data). F-statisticsare reported for main effects and interactions, and t-statis-tics for planned comparisons of related vs. control targettype differences. All p-values from t-statistics are reportedone-tailed. Data from PP1 and PP2 were analyzed in oneregression model (to allow for an interaction; see below);data from PP3 were analyzed separately. In all analyses,degrees of freedom were computed using the Satterthwaiteapproximation (Satterthwaite, 1946). Note that the degrees

of freedom are large because they are based on the numberof data points in these regression models, not thenumber of subjects or items. For similar analyses in adifferent patient population, see Walenski, Mostofsky,and Ullman (2007). For further discussion of thesemethods of analysis, see Baayen (2004, 2007).

The results for the patients (Table 3) indicate no primingat probe position one (control minus related difference of+4 ms; t917= .026, p= 0.40), but significant priming atprobe position two (control minus related differencewas +76 ms; t917= 2.97, p= 0.001). In addition, a signifi-cant priming effect was also seen at probe position three(control minus related difference was +47 ms;t439= 1.85,p = 0.035). This last effect likely indicates resid-ual activity from the reactivation of the moved constituentat position 2.

Of central concern to this study was the hypothesis thatthe speed manipulation would cause achangein the patternof priming between probe position 1 (baseline) and probeposition 2 (gap position), thus demonstrating a normal pat-tern of syntactic reactivation in the Brocas patients.Importantly, interaction between probe position (PP1 vs.PP2) and visual probe type (related vs. control) was signif-icant (F(1,917) = 3.65,p= .056;Fig. 4), consistent with theclaim of normalreactivation of the antecedent at the trace

position.

Table 3Results from Experiment 2 for Brocas patients and unimpaired controlsa

Probeposition 1Baseline

Probe position 2GAP position

Probe position 3500 ms post GAP

Age-matched controls (n = 6)

Relatedvisualprobe

937 (37) 926 (53) 896 (45)

Controlvisualprobe

935 (34) 902 (45) 920 (46)

Difference(controlrelated)

2ns 24ns +46p


11/17

4. Experiment 3. Effect of slowed rate of input on off-line

comprehension

This experiment shifts the focus from on-line behaviorto off-line comprehension. Specifically, we use a sentence-picture matching task (the SOAP: Subject-relative,Object-relative, Active and Passive; Love & Oster, 2002)to assess the Brocas patients comprehension of non-canonically structured sentences, including sentences withobject relative clauses, and normal and slow rates ofspeech. Our aim here is to examine whether a slowed rateof speech input improves success not only with respect toautomatic, real-time gap-filling processes, but also with

respect to off-line comprehension.

4.1. Methods

4.1.1. Participants

Eight Brocas aphasic patients (age at testing: 5082years; mean: 60.5 years) and 10 neurologically unimpairedcontrols (matched to the patients on age; age at testing: 4776 years; mean: 64.4 years) participated in the study. Allparticipants were tested at The University of California,San Diego and were paid $15 per session. Participant selec-tion criteria for both aphasic and control groups followed

those described in Experiment 1 above.

4.1.2. Materials

The SOAP test consists of four kinds of sentence struc-tures (Fig. 5): active sentences, sentences containing subjectrelative clauses (subject relatives), passive sentences, andsentences containing object relative clauses. The formertwo sentence types have canonical structuresthat is, theorder of the arguments in the sentence follows the canoni-cal agent-verb-patient order typical of Englishwhile thelatter two have non-canonical structures, in which thepatient argument precedes the verb. Each sentence is pre-

sented with three pictures, only one of which is a correct

depiction of whos doing what to whom in the sentence(i.e., which argument is the agent and which the patient).There are 10 exemplars for each sentence type, giving riseto a total of 40 experimental items. All sentences are equa-ted for length, such that actives, passives, subject andobject relative sentences contain approximately 11 words

each. In addition, 5 practice sentences consisting of activeand subject relative constructions are given at the begin-ning of each session to ensure the participants understandand can perform the task. Further details on the materialscan be found inLove and Oster (2002).

For the present experiment, the sentences were recordedby a female native English speaker at a normal speech rate(approx 5.5 syllables/second). The sentences were then dig-itally slowed to 3.8 syllables per second (just slower thannormal) via speech editing software (Cool Edit Pro, Syn-trillium Software), without affecting the comprehensibilityof the sentences (as rated by 10 nave judges).

Participants completed the experiment over two test ses-

sions. In one session, the rate of presentation of the SOAPmaterials was at normal speed; at the other session the ratewas at slow speed. All of the SOAP materials (i.e., includ-ing all exemplars of all four sentence types) were presentedto participants during each visit. As in experiments one andtwo, there was a minimum of two weeks between test ses-sions, to minimize exposure effects.

4.1.3. Procedure

During the SOAP test, participants listen to each sen-tence, and point to the picture that they think best repre-sents the meaning of the sentence. For further details

about the presentation and procedures of the SOAP, seeLove and Oster (2002). The presentation of slowed and reg-ular rates was counterbalanced for the unimpaired controlparticipants. However, as the Brocas patients had beenparticipating in research protocols at the UCSD laboratoryfor some time, they had previously been administered theSOAP task (at a regular speech rate) as a diagnostic task,in some cases 1 or 2 years prior to the running of this exper-iment (seeLove & Oster, 2002for more information aboutSOAP as a diagnostic tool). For this reason, Brocaspatients were first administered the slowed version of theSOAP, and then given the regular rate version of the task,on a second visit (again, with a minimum of two weeksbetween testing sessions). We compared the performanceof the initial test scores (from when the patients enteredthe laboratory) to the current performance (reportedbelow), and verified that each patient indeed had a stablepattern across the two administrations of the SOAP at aregular speech rate.

4.2. Results

The results indicate that at normal rates of speech, neu-rologically unimpaired control participants had little diffi-culty with the task (Table 4)getting 98% of the

canonically structured sentences correct and 99% of the

1100

1120

1140

1160

1180

1200

1220

1240

1260

1280

1300

MeanRT(msec)

Probe Position 1:

Baseline 1191 1195

Probe Position 2: GAP 1170 1246

Related Control

Fig. 4. Mean response time (milliseconds) for Brocas aphasic patients forsentences presented at a slow rate of speech at baseline and gap probepositions (PP1, PP2) in experiment two.



12/17

non-canonically structured sentences correct. In contrast,Brocas aphasic patients demonstrated spared performanceon canonical structures but poorer (near chance) perfor-mance on non-canonical structures, consistent with thepattern that has been reported for them in the literaturemany times (see above).

At the slow speech rate however, neither the unimpairedcontrols nor the Brocas participants showed any detrimen-tal effect on their performance for the canonical structures,compared to their performance on these structures at nor-mal speed (Table 4). However, at the slowed rate of speechthe groups patterns diverged for the non-canonical struc-tures (Table 4). The unimpaired controls did worse onthese structures at slow speed than normal speeda

decline in performance that was statistically reliable (one-

tailed paired comparison, t9= 1.809, p= .05).5 By con-

trast, the Brocas patients benefited from the slowed speechinput, improving to 71% percent accuracy from 61% accu-racy. This change was also statistically reliable (one-tailedpaired comparison, t7= 1.965, p= .045). To be sure,71%, although a significant improvement, is less-than-nor-mal. But the symptom complex of Brocas aphasia mayinvolve processing limitations that far exceed the disrup-tion to mechanisms involved in the real-time formationof syntactic dependencies; and presumably these other lim-itations could adversely affect performance on this task,

Fig. 5. An example stimulus from the SOAP battery. This same picture would be shown to participants four times over the course of each test session,once with an active sentence(The man in the red shirt pushes the little boy.) , once with a subject relative sentence (The man that pushes the boy is wearing ared shirt.), once with a passive sentence (The man in the red shirt is pushed by the boy.), and once with an object relative sentence(The man that the boypushes is wearing a red shirt.).For the active and subject relative sentences (canonical sentence structures), the correct response is the top picture. Forthe passive and object relative sentences (non-canonical sentence structures) the correct response is the bottom picture. The order of sentences andexpected responses is counterbalanced across items to minimize a reliance on strategies by the participants.

5 We note that while there is a decrease in participant performance,

overall, the unimpaired group does perform very well on this task.



13/17

despite improvements in performance due to the slowedinput.

Note that an omnibus ANOVA examining main effectsand interactions of the factors rate of presentation (normalvs. slow), canonicity (canonical vs. non-canonical) and par-ticipant group (patient vs. control) revealed a main effect ofparticipant group (F(1,64) = 35.535,p < .0001) and a mar-ginal effect of canonicity (F(1,64) = 3.193, p= .079), butno other main effects or interactions.

5. Discussion

The data met our expectations. When the sentences werespoken at a normal rate, the Brocas patients showed bothdelayed lexical activation when encountering moved con-stituents and delayed reactivation of these constituents attheir gap sites. This delay in reactivation confirms bothour earlier findings (Love et al., 2001) and the data pre-sented byBurkhardt et al. (2003); and, of course, it atteststo the disruption of the normal formation of a syntacticdependency. By contrast, when presented with a slower-than-normal rate of speech input and, therefore, a longerlasting trace site, the patients didshow reactivation at thegap. Trace sites are therefore not immutable barriers forBrocas patients, at least not when the normal time con-straints for reactivation are relaxed. Moreover, whennon-canonically structured sentences were spoken at aslower rate, the Brocas patients also showed a significantimprovement in their comprehension on our sentence-pic-ture matching task.

Our finding that gap-filling occurred for Brocas patientsand that their comprehension improved for sentences spo-ken at a slower-than-normal rate serves to explain anapparent contradiction recently entered in the literature.Based on evidence from eye-tracking analyses, Dickey

and colleagues (Dickey & Thompson, 2006; Dickey, Choy,

& Thompson, 2007) conclude that Brocas patients have noproblem in gap-filling to begin withthat is, that they fillgaps in a normally timely fashion. But an examination oftheir methodology reveals that they presented sentenceswith an input rate of approximately 3.3 syllables per sec-ond. And this corresponds, not to a normal input rate,

but to the rate of our slowed speech conditionindeed,even slightly slower than that in our slowed-down condi-tion. So, inadvertently, and contrary to their claim, theyveshown what weve shownnamely, that Brocas do formsyntactic dependencies on-line when the input accommo-dates their slower-than-normal lexical rise time. We reiter-ate however, that those findings in no way demonstratenormal gap-filling in Brocas patients with sentences pre-sented at a normal rate of speech as the rate was clearlyoutside the standard boundary. Consistent with this con-clusion is the fact that the Brocas patients in their studyshowed off-line comprehension scores for non-canonicalsentences that were nearly identical to those we found for

our slowed down presentation (approximately 70%).

5.1. The effect on sentence comprehension of late gap-filling

We feel fairly confident, therefore, that our data are inline with Grodzinskys (1986, 2000, 2006) generalizationthat chance performance in the Brocas patients compre-hension of normally spoken non-canonical sentences isthe result of a problem in the linking of moved constituentsand their traces. But having offered an account in process-ing termsin terms of an alteration in processing speedwe form a different perspective from Grodzinskys with

respect to the consequences of this syntactic linkingproblem.

Grodzinsky claims that because the syntactic depen-dency is not formed, the patient confusingly constructsan interpretation in which the non-canonical sentence con-tains two agents: One agent is the consequence of gram-matical assignment by the verb. The other agent is theconsequence of the non-grammatical agent-first heuristicbeing inappropriately applied to the unassigned movedconstituenti.e., to the constituent that has not been nor-mally linked to its trace site. Our work changes thisaccount. Since we show that the syntactic link is eventuallyformed, however slow, we document a circumstance thatadds to the Brocas patients interpretive burden. Not onlydoes the patient represent non-canonical sentences as hav-ing two agents, but in addition s/he represents the movedconstituent as both the agent of the action and, later, whenthe dependency is finally constructed, as the entity-acted-upon. This leads to even more representational confusionand the need to guess on a sentence-picture-matching task.

5.2. Slowed lexical access vs. slowed syntax

Our data emphasize that lexical access, the basis for syn-tactic processing and indeed for processing at all levels, is

slow following left anterior brain damage. Equally, the

Table 4Mean percent correct for Brocas patients and age-matched controls forcanonical and non-canonical sentence structures of the SOAPs assessmentat both regular and slowed rates of speecha

Canonical sentencestructure

Non-canonical sentencestructure

Regular Slow

rate

Regular

rate

Slow

rate

Brocas patients(n= 8)

81% ! 80%ns 61% 71%*

(Standard error) (8.3) (7.1) (11.3) (9.9)

Age-matchedcontrols (n= 10)

98% ! 99%ns 99% 97%*

(Standard error) (1.1) (0.67) (0.67) (1.1)

a Bidirectional solid arrows indicate non-significant effects in thecomparison of performance at regular vs. slow rate of speech. Unidirec-tional dashed arrows indicate significant effects in the comparison ofperformance at regular vs. slow rate of speech, pointing in the direction ofbetter performance.* p< 05.



14/17

data indicate that the adverse effect of a temporal prolon-gation of lexical access is felt only when because of it thefailure to create a syntactic link in time allows the confus-ing entry of a non-grammatical strategy. By contrast,Burkhardt et al. (2003), argue that delayed gap-filling isthe result of a general slowing only of syntactic operations

(see also Haarmann & Kolk, 1991), and that once finallyformed, the syntactic structure that Brocas patients con-struct is indistinguishable from that built by the intactbrain. If so, the slow-syntax hypothesis cannot on itsown explain why sentences that feature constituent move-ment are understood less well than those that dont. Toaccomplish this, the hypothesis needs to incorporate con-flicting operationsconflict of the sort introduced by theintrusion of the agent-first strategy, for example, or conflictbetween syntactic and semantic linking mechanisms as pro-posed by Pinango (2000), or inappropriate competitionbetween syntactic and discourse operations as hypothesizedin Avrutins (2006)model of weak syntax.

However, even with any one of these additions, theslow-syntax hypothesis still falls short. Having testedonly for reactivation (at and around the gap site), andnot for initial activation of the antecedent, Burkhardtet al. (2003) miss the point that not just syntacticallylicensed lexical reactivation at the gap site is delayed, butthat lexical activation, in general, is abnormally slow dur-ing sentence processing in Brocas aphasia. They thereforemiss an important generalization: namely, that damage toleft anterior cortex alters a basic processing parameterspeed of lexical access during sentence comprehensionwithout necessarily honoring distinctions within and

between abstract levels of linguistic representation. In thelight of this generalization, the formation of a syntacticdependency involving a moved constituent is selectivelyvulnerable, not because its a syntactic operation, butbecause if lexical reactivation is not accomplished withina normal time frame, a non-grammatical heuristic kicksin to provide a conflicting interpretation. So in the viewwe present here, the basic change following left anteriorbrain damage is the timing of lexical informationactivation.

This perspective also has particular relevance for think-ing about thevariabilitythat Brocas patients show in theircomprehension of non-canonically structured sentences. Itis highly unlikely that speed of lexical activation will bediminished by precisely the same amount for each Brocaspatient. So there is a clear basis for some variability in theircomprehension data and even for expecting some outliers.But though this processing variability plays a role in shap-ing the distribution of comprehension scores across sub-jects, the fact remains that Brocas patients, as a group,perform at chance level for non-canonical structures (Drai& Grodzinsky, 2006a, 2006b).

We think that our focus on lexical timing also cap-tures a generalization about normal as well as abnormalsentence processing. In particular, we think that the per-

formance disruptions of our neurologically intact sub-

jects when faced with slowed-down non-canonicalsentencestheir abnormal gap-filling and less accuratecomprehensionare also accountable in terms of a mis-match between lexical activation speed and the temporaldemands imposed by syntactic processing. So in a com-plete reversal of the circumstances influencing aphasic

comprehension, normal lexical rise time (control sub-jects) may cause problems for the comprehension of sen-tences delivered at a slowed speed, just as slow lexicalrise time (aphasic patients) appears to cause problemsfor the comprehension of sentences delivered at a nor-mal rate of speechthe control subjects may be unableto accommodate the slower unfolding of the sentence tothe rapidity of their lexical activation. That is, the slo-wed-down input may disrupt the reflexive quality ofgap-filling such that the unimpaired listeners have thetime to form unhelpful competing strategies and hypoth-eses. When there is a match between the speed of lexicalactivation and sentence input speed, performance is bet-

ter (for both patients and controls) than when there is amismatch.

The claim that left anterior brain damage diminishes lex-ical activation speed holds up equally well when consider-ing compositional semantic processingin particular, theaccessing of potential argument structure configurationsas well as aspectual coercion and complement coercion.None of these sentence-level semantic operations areadversely affected by the Brocas slower-than-normal wordactivation pattern (Pinango & Zurif, 2001; Shapiro &Levine, 1990; Shapiro, Gordon, Hack, & Killackey,1993). And for good reason: The semantic operations

are, themselves, normally slower to develop and longerlasting than syntactic operations (McElree & Griffith,1995; Pinango, Winnick, Ullah, & Zurif, 2006). That is,they are less temporally demandingthey accommodateslower lexical activation than does the formation of a syn-tactic dependency.

5.3. The functional commitment of left inferior frontal cortex

Using data from aphasia to study functional neuroanat-omy does not permit elaboration concerning the entire neu-ral network supporting any particular process. Still, withinthe left-sided perisylvian cortical language region, we canbe fairly certain that the anterior area implicated in Brocasaphasia plays a role in sustaining processing speedandthe syntactic operations dependent upon such speedthatis not played by the temporoparietal area associated withWernickes aphasia. Thus, in contrast to Brocas patients,Wernickes patients show normal speed patterns withrespect to both initial lexical activation on the list primingparadigm (Prather et al., 1997) and gap-filling (Swinneyet al., 1996; Zurif et al., 1993). We are not claiming by thisthat their rapid activation of word forms leads to normallyelaborated word representations; nor are we claiming thattheir gap filling is structurally constrained in the normal

manner. Indeed, to enter the standard caveat, even the data



15/17

we have already gained need replication. But as it stands,our Broca-Wernicke comparisons do suggest a uniquefunctional commitment of left anterior cortex to initial lex-ical rise-time parameters.

That said, however, it is not clear that the term lexicalactivation should even be a primitive expression in our

explanation of the role of left anterior cortex. We can claimonly that the term describes a real consequence of left ante-rior brain damage and that it accounts for the syntacticlimitation. Slow lexical activation, itself, however, maypossibly turn out to be explicable in terms of more basicaberrations of processing and activation, whether theseaberrations involve dynamics of any network of informa-tion, linguistic or otherwise, or whether they implicate onlynetworks composed of linguistically-specific formats. (SeeAvrutin (2006)andBlumstein & Milberg (2000)for discus-sions along these lines.)

Furthermore, it is not likely that the role of left ante-rior cortex in syntactic comprehension has only to do

with processing speed. This cortical region has also beenshown to sustain various forms of memory (e.g., Smith& Geva, 2000) and memory constraints are certainlyimplicated in the real-time formation of syntactic depen-denciessome sort of buffer must exist in order to holda moved constituent in memory until a gap is found anda link formed. (See Cooke et al. (2001) for data on leftinferior frontal area activation patterns as a function ofthe amount of information to be held in the buffer dur-ing sentence processing). These memory demands likelyadd to the Brocas patients processing burden. Indeedthe extra work required to maintain a temporary buffer

explains our finding that although both lexical activationand reactivation are significantly delayed during thecourse of sentence processing, the latter is delayed evenmore than the former.

Given the data presented here, then, it seems quite clearthat syntactic limitations stateable in the abstract terms oflinguistic theory can be connected to changes in corticallylocalizable processing resources. This means that descrip-tions of language localization in the brain can be offeredin terms of speed of activation and storage capacityinterms, that is, of processing resources that intuitively feelwired in. To be more exact, the left anterior corticalregion associated with Brocas aphasia appears cruciallyinvolved in the reflexive formation of syntactically-gov-erned dependency relations, not because its the locus ofspecific syntactic representations per se, but rather becauseit sustains the real time implementation of these specificrepresentations by supporting, at the least, a lexical activa-tion rise-time parameter (as we have focused upon here)and some form of working memory.

References

Alexander, M., Naeser, M., & Palumbo, C. (1990). Brocas area aphasias:Aphasia after lesions including the frontal operculum. Neurology, 40,

353362.

Amunts, K., Schleicher, A., Burgel, U., Mohlberg, H., Uylings, H., &Zilles, K. (1999). Brocas region revisited: Cytoarchitecture andintersubject variability. The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 412,319341.

Amunts, K., & Zilles, K. (2006). A multimodal analysis of structure andfunction in Brocas region. In Y. Grodzinsky & K. Amunts (Eds.),

Brocas region. New York: Oxford University Press.Avrutin, S. (2006). Weak syntax. In Y. Grodzinsky & K. Amunts (Eds.),

Brocas region. New York: Oxford University Press.Baayen, H. R. (2004). Statistics in psycholinguistics: A critique of some

current gold standards.Mental Lexicon Working Papers 1, 1, pp. 147.Baayen, H. R. (2007).Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to

statistics. Cambridge University Press.Ben-Shachar, M., Hendler, T., Kahn, I., Ben-Bashat, D., & Grodzinsky,

Y. (2003). The neural reality of syntactic transformations: Evidencefrom fMRI. Psychological Science, 14.5, 433440.

Benson, D. F. (1985). Aphasia. In K. Heilman & E. Valenstein (Eds.),

Clinical neuropsychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Bever, T. (1970). The cognitive basis of linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes

(Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Blumstein, S. E., Katz, B., Goodglass, H., Shrier, R., & Dworetzky, B.

(1985). The effects of slowed speech on auditory comprehension inaphasia. Brain and Language, 24, 246265.

Blumstein, S., & Milberg, W. (2000). Language deficits in Brocas andWernickes aphasia: A singular impairment. In Y. Grodzinsky, L.Shapiro, & D. Swinney (Eds.),Language and the brain: Representationand processing. San Diego: Academic Press.

Burkhardt, P., Pinango, M., & Wong, K. (2003). The role of the anteriorleft hemisphere in real-time sentence comprehension: Evidence fromsplit intransitivity. Brain and Language, 86, 922.

Caplan, D. (2000). Positron emission tomographic studies of syntacticprocessing. In Y. Grodzinsky, L. Shapiro, & D. Swinney (Eds.),Language and the brain: Representation and processing. San Diego:Academic Press.

Caplan, D., Alpert, N., & Waters, G. (1998). Effects of syntactic structureand propositional number on patterns of regional cerebral blood flow.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 541552.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht:Foris.

Cooke, A., Zurif, E. B., DeVita, C., Alsop, D., Koenig, P., Detre, J.,et al. (2001). Neural basis for sentence comprehension: Grammaticaland short-term memory components. Human Brain Mapping, 15,8094.

Dapretto, M., & Bookheimer, S. (1999). Form and content: Dissociatingsyntax and semantics in sentence comprehension.Neuron, 24, 427432.

Dickey, M. W., & Thompson, C. K. (2006). Automatic processing of wh-and NP-movement in agrammatic aphasia. Brain and Language, 99,6364.

Dickey, M. W., Choy, J., & Thompson, C. K. (2007). Real-timecomprehension of wh-movement in aphasia: Evidence from eyetrack-ing while listening.Brain and Language, 100, 122.

Drai, D., Grodzinsky, Y., & Zurif, E. B. (2001). Brocas aphasia is

associated with a single pattern of comprehension performance. Brainand Language, 76, 185192.Drai, D., & Grodzinsky, Y. (2006a). A new empirical angle on the

variability debate: Quantitative neurosyntactic analyses of a large dataset from Brocas aphasia. Brain and Language, 76.2, 117128.

Drai, D., & Grodzinsky, Y. (2006b). The variability debate: Morestatistics, more linguistics. Brain and Language, 76(2), 157170.

Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press. ABradford Book.

Friedmann, N., & Shapiro, L. (2003). Agrammatic comprehension ofsimple active sentences with moved constituents: Hebrew OSV andOVS structures. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,46, 288297.

Gardner, H., Albert, M., & Weintraub, S. (1975). Comprehending a word:The influence of speed and redundancy on auditory comprehension in

aphasia. Cortex, 11, 155162.



16/17

Goodglass, H., & Kaplan, E. (1972). Boston diagnostic aphasia examina-tion. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.

Grodzinsky, Y. (1986). Language deficits and the theory of syntax. Brainand Language, 27, 135159.

Grodzinsky, Y. (1990). Theoretical perspectives on language deficits.Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Grodzinsky, Y. (2000). The neurology of syntax: Language use withoutBrocas area. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 23, 171.

Grodzinsky, Y. (2006). A blueprint for a brain map of syntax. In Y.Grodzinsky & K. Amunts (Eds.), Brocas region. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Grodzinsky, Y., Pinango, M., Zurif, E. B., & Drai, D. (1999). The criticalrole of group studies in neuropsychology: Comprehension regularitiesin Brocas aphasia. Brain and Language, 67, 134147.

Haarmann, H., & Kolk, H. (1991). Syntactic priming in Brocas aphasics:Evidence for slow activation.Aphasiology, 5(3), 247263.

Hickok, G., Conseco-Gonzalez, E., Zurif, E. B., & Grimshaw, J. (1992).Modularity in locating Wh-gaps.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,21, 545561.

Hickok, G., Zurif, E., & Conseco-Gonzalez, E. (1993). Structuraldescription of agrammatic comprehension. Brain and Language, 45,371395.

Jenkins, J. (1970). The 1952 Minnesota word association norms. In L.Postman & G. Keppel (Eds.), Norms of Word Associations. New York:Academic Press.

Lasky, E. Z., Weidner, W. E., & Johnson, J. P. (1976). Influence oflinguistic complexity, rate of presentation, and interphrase pause timeon auditory-verbal comprehension of adult aphasic patients. Brain andLanguage, 3, 386395.

Linebarger, M., Schwartz, M., & Saffran, E. (1983). Sensitivity togrammatical structure in so-called agrammatic aphasics. Cognition,13, 361393.

Love, T. (2007). The processing of non-canonically ordered constituents inlong distance dependencies by pre-school children: A real-timeinvestigation. Journal Psycholinguistic Research, 36(3), 191206.

Love, T., & Oster, E. (2002). On the categorization of aphasic typologies:The SOAP, a test of syntactic complexity. Journal of PsycholinguisticResearch, 31(5), 503529.

Love, T., & Swinney, D. (1996). Coreference processing and levels ofanalysis in object-relative constructions: Demonstration of antecedentreactivation with the cross-modal priming paradigm. Journal ofPsycholinguistic Research, 25, 524.

Love, T., Swinney, D., & Zurif, E. (2001). Aphasia and the time-course ofprocessing long distance dependencies. Brain and Language, Proceed-ings from the Academy of Aphasia, v(79), 169170.

Mauner, G., Fromkin, V., & Cornell, T. (1993). Comprehension andacceptability judgments in agrammatism: Disruptions in the syntax ofreferential dependency. Brain and Language(3), 340370.

McElree, B., & Griffith, T. (1995). Syntactic and thematic processing insentence comprehension: Evidence for a temporal dissociation. Journalof Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21,134157.

Meyer, D., Schvaneveldt, R., & Ruddy, M. (1975). Loci of contextualeffects on visual word recognition. In P. Rabbit & S. Dornic (Ed.),

Attention and performance (Vol. 5). New York: Academic Press.Mohr, J. P. (1976). Brocas area and Brocas aphasia. In H. Whitaker & H.

A. Whitaker (Eds.).Studies in neurolinguistics (Vol. 1). New York:Academic Press.

Nicol, J., Fodor, J. D., & Swinney, D. (1994). Using Cross-Modal lexicaldecision tasks to investigate sentence processing. Journal of Experi-mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(5),12201238.

Nicol, J., & Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in coreferenceassignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of PsycholinguisticResearch, 18, 519.

Nicol, J., Swinney, D., Love, T., & Hald, L. (2006). The on-line study ofsentence comprehension: examination of dual task paradigms. Journal

of Psycholinguistic Research, Vol. 35(3), 215231.

Pashek, G. V., & Brookshire, R. H. (1982). Effects of rate of speech andlinguistic stress on auditory paragraph comprehension. Journal ofSpeech and Hearing Research, 25, 377382.

Petrides, M. (2006). Brocas area in the human and nonhuman brain. In Y.Grodzinsky & K. Amunts (Eds.), Brocas region. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Pinango, M., Winnick, A., Ullah, R., & Zurif, E. (2006). The time-courseof semantic composition: The case of aspectual coercion. Journal ofPsycholinguistic Research, 35, 233245.

Pinango, M., & Zurif, E. (2001). Semantic operations in aphasiccomprehension: Implications for the cortical organization of language.Brain and Language, 79, 297308.

Pinango, M. (2000). Syntactic displacement in Brocas aphasia. In R.Bastiaanse & Y. Grodzinsky (Eds.),Grammatical disorders in aphasia.London: Whurr.

Poeck, K., & Pietron, H. P. (1981). The influence of stretched speech ontoken test performance of aphasic and right-brain damaged patients.

Neuropsychologia, 19, 133136.Pollard, C., & Sag, I. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Prather, P., Zurif, E. B., Love, T., & Brownell, H. (1997). Speed of lexical

activation in nonfluent Brocas aphasia and fluent Wernickes aphasia.Brain and Language, 59, 391411.

Prather, P. A., Zurif, E., Stern, C., & Rosen, T. J. (1992). Slowed lexicalaccess in nonfluent aphasia: A case study. Brain and Language, 43,334336.

Radeau, M., Morais, J., Mousty, P., & Bertelson, P. (2000). The effect ofspeaking rate on the role of the uniqueness point in spoken wordrecognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 406422.

Satterthwaite, F. E. (1946). An approximate distribution of estimates ofvariance components. Biometric Bulletin, 2, 110114.

Shapiro, L., & Levine, B. (1990). Verb processing during sentencecomprehension in aphasia. Brain and Language, 38, 2147.

Shapiro, L., Gordon, B., Hack, N., & Killackey, J. (1993). Verb-argumentstructure processing in complex sentences in Brocas and Wernickesaphasia. Brain and Language, 45, 423447.

Shelton, J., & Martin, R. (1992). How semantic is automatic semanticpriming? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, andCognition, 18, 11911210.

Smith, E., & Geva, A. (2000). Verbal working memory and its connectionto language processing. In Y. Grodzinsky, L. Shapiro, & D. Swinney(Eds.), Language and the brain: Representation and processing. SanDiego: Academic Press.

Stromswold, K., Caplan, D., Alpert, N., & Rauch, S. (1996). Localizationof syntactic comprehension by position emission tomography. Brainand Language, 52, 452473.

Swinney, D., & Fodor, J. D. (Eds.). (1989). Journal of PsycholinguisticResearch (Special Issue on Sentence Processing), 18(1).

Swinney, D. & Love, T. (1998). Processing rate as a parameter onstructural analysis. In: Proceedings of eleventh annual CUNY confer-ence on human sentence processing, New Brunswick, NJ.

Swinney, D., Love, T., Oliver, R., Bouck, V., & Zurif, E. (1999). Temporal

parameters in language comprehension in aphasia.Paper presented atthe Academy of Aphasia. Venice, Italy.Swinney, D., Onifer, W., Prather, P., & Hirshkowitz, M. (1979). Semantic

facilitation across sensory modalities in the processing of individualwords and sentences. Memory & Cognition, 7, 159165.

Swinney, D., & Osterhout, L. (1990). Inference generation during auditorylanguage comprehension. In A. C. Graesser & G. H. Bower (Eds.).Inference and Text Comprehension: The Psychology of Learning and

Motivation (Vol. 25). San Diego: Academic Press.Swinney, D., Zurif, E. B., & Nicol, J. (1989). The effects of focal brain

damage on sentence processing: An examination of the neurologicalorganization of a mental module. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1,2537.

Swinney, D., Zurif, E., Prather, P., & Love, T. (1996). Neurologicaldistribution of processing resources underlying language comprehen-

sion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 174184.



17/17

Tanenhaus, M., Boland, J., Garnsey, S., & Carlson, G. (1989).Lexical structure in parsing long-distance dependencies. Journal ofPsycholinguistic Research (special issue on sentence processing), 18,3750.

Thompson, C., Shapiro, L., Tait, M., Jacobs, B., & Schneider, S.(1996). Training Wh-question production in agrammatic aphasia:Analysis of argument and adjunct movement. Brain and Language,52, 175228.

Tonkonogy, J. (1986). Vascular aphasia. Cambridge: MIT Press. ABradford Book.

van Heuven, V., & van Zanten, E. (2005). Speech rate as a secondaryprosodic characteristic of polarity questions in three languages. SpeechCommunication, 47(12), 8799.

Vaughan, N., Furakawa, I., Balasingam, N., Mortz, M., & Fausti, S.(2002). Time-expanded speech and speech recognition in older adults.Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 39, 559566.

Vignolo, L. (1988). The anatomical and pathological basis of aphasia. InF. C. Rose, R. Whurr, & M. A. Wyke (Eds.), Aphasia. Amsterdam:North Holland.

Walenski, M., Mostofsky, S. H., & Ullman, M. T. (2007). Speededprocessing of grammar and tool knowledge in Tourettes syndrome.

Neuropsychologia, 45, 24472460.Ziegler, W. (2002). Task-related factors in oral motor control: Speech and

oral diadochokinesis in dysarthria and apraxia of speech. Brain andLanguage, 80(3), 556575.

Zurif, E. (1995). Brain regions of relevance to syntactic processing (seconded.). In L. Gleitman & M. Liberman (Eds.).An invitation to cognitivescience (Vol. 1). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Zurif, E. (2000). The neurological organization of some languageprocessing constituents. In S. Kosslyn & A. Galaburda (Eds.),Languages of the brain. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Zurif, E., Swinney, D., Prather, P., Solomon, J., & Bushel, C. (1993). Anon-line analysis of syntactic processing in Brocas and Wernickesaphasia. Brain and Language, 45, 448464.

Zurif, E. B., Swinney, D., Prather, P., Wingfield, A., & Brownell, H.(1995). The allocation of memory resources during sentence compre-hension: Evidence from the elderly. Journal of PsycholinguisticResearch, 24, 165182.


How left inferior frontal cortex participates in syntactic processing Love 2008.pdf

Documents

Transcript of How left inferior frontal cortex participates in syntactic processing Love 2008.pdf