Artificial grammar learning in individuals with severe aphasia

One factor in syntactic impairment in aphasia might be damage to general structure processing systems. In such a case, deficits would be evident in the processing of syntactically structured non-linguistic information. To explore this hypothesis, we examined performances on artificial grammar learning (AGL) tasks in which the grammar was expressed in non-linguistic visual forms. In the first experiment, AGL behavior of four aphasic participants with severe syntactic impairment, five aphasic participants without syntactic impairment, and healthy controls was examined. Participants were trained on sequences of nonsense stimuli with the structure A(n)B(n). Data were analyzed at an individual level to identify different behavioral profiles and account for heterogeneity in aphasic as well as healthy groups. Healthy controls and patients without syntactic impairment were more likely to learn configurational (item order) than quantitative (counting) regularities. Quantitative regularities were only detected by individuals who also detected the configurational properties of the stimulus sequences. By contrast, two individuals with syntactic impairment learned quantitative regularities, but showed no sensitivity towards configurational structure. They also failed to detect configurational structure in a second experiment in which sequences were structured by the grammar A(+)B(+). We discuss the potential relationship between AGL and processing of word order as well as the potential of AGL in clinical practice.

[1]  W. Fitch,et al.  Computational Constraints on Syntactic Processing in a Nonhuman Primate , 2004, Science.

[2]  L R Squire,et al.  The information acquired during artificial grammar learning. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? , 2002, Science.

[4]  A study of syntactic processing in aphasia I: Behavioral (psycholinguistic) aspects , 2004, Brain and Language.

[5]  Randi C. Martin,et al.  The neuropsychology of sentence processing: Where do we stand? , 2006, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[6]  Ingmar Visser,et al.  Individual strategies in artificial grammar learning. , 2009, The American journal of psychology.

[7]  Kenneth I Forster,et al.  DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[8]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Artificial grammar learning meets formal language theory: an overview , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[9]  Ivan Toni,et al.  Communicating without a functioning language system: Implications for the role of language in mentalizing , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

[10]  N. Chater,et al.  Transfer in artificial grammar learning : A reevaluation , 1996 .

[11]  Rita Sloan Berndt,et al.  Comprehension of reversible sentences in “agrammatism”: a meta-analysis , 1996, Cognition.

[12]  Jacques Mehler,et al.  Do Humans Really Learn AnBn Artificial Grammars From Exemplars? , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[13]  Vitor C. Zimmerer,et al.  Individual behavior in learning of an artificial grammar , 2011, Memory & cognition.

[14]  Richard N Aslin,et al.  Category induction via distributional analysis: Evidence from a serial reaction time task. , 2010, Journal of memory and language.

[15]  E. Pothos.  Theories of artificial grammar learning. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

[16]  R. Berndt,et al.  How “Regular” Is Sentence Comprehension in Broca's Aphasia? It Depends on How You Select the Patients , 1999, Brain and Language.

[17]  M. Just,et al.  A capacity approach to syntactic comprehension disorders: making normal adults perform like aphasic patients , 1994 .

[18]  D. Caplan,et al.  Syntactic determinants of sentence comprehension in aphasia , 1985, Cognition.

[19]  Peter Ford Dominey,et al.  Training with cognitive sequences improves syntactic comprehension in agrammatic aphasics , 2003, Neuroreport.

[20]  J Druks,et al.  Verbs and nouns—a review of the literature , 2002, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

[21]  P. Hagoort,et al.  Thematic role assignment in patients with Broca's aphasia: Sentence–picture matching electrified , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[22]  G. Waters,et al.  Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[23]  Stephen C. Want,et al.  Severe Impairment in Grammar Does Not Preclude Theory of Mind , 2001, Neurocase.

[24]  J. Pujol,et al.  Cerebral lateralization of language in normal left-handed people studied by functional MRI , 1999, Neurology.

[25]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Hierarchical artificial grammar processing engages Broca's area , 2008, NeuroImage.

[26]  A. Reber.  Implicit learning of artificial grammars , 1967 .

[27]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Agrammatic Broca's Aphasia Is Not Associated with a Single Pattern of Comprehension Performance , 2001, Brain and Language.

[28]  Rosemary Varley,et al.  Algebra in a man with severe aphasia , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[29]  Ian A. Apperly,et al.  Intact first- and second-order false belief reasoning in a patient with severely impaired grammar , 2006, Social neuroscience.

[30]  H. Kolk,et al.  On-line Sensitivity to Subject-Verb Agreement Violations in Broca′s Aphasics: The Role of Syntactic Complexity and Time , 1994, Brain and Language.

[31]  Myrna F. Schwartz,et al.  Semantic Influences on Thematic Role Assignment: Evidence from Normals and Aphasics , 1998, Brain and Language.

[32]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Sequential Expectations: The Role of Prediction-Based Learning in Language , 2010, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[33]  Peter M. Vishton,et al.  Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. , 1999, Science.

[34]  Karl Magnus Petersson,et al.  Artificial syntactic violations activate Broca's region , 2004 .

[35]  Christopher M. Conway,et al.  Neurocognitive Basis of Implicit Learning of Sequential Structure and Its Relation to Language Processing , 2008, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[36]  A. Anwander,et al.  The brain differentiates human and non-human grammars: Functional localization and structural connectivity , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[37]  Y. Grodzinsky.  The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca's area , 2000, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[38]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Statistical Learning and Language: An Individual Differences Study , 2012 .

[39]  Mark Blades,et al.  Language and spatial reorientation: evidence from severe aphasia. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[40]  Pierre Perruchet,et al.  Synthetic grammar learning: Implicit rule abstraction or explicit fragmentary knowledge? Journal of , 1990 .

[41]  Alan D. Baddeley,et al.  Visual patterns test: a test of short-term visual recall , 1997 .

[42]  R. A. Carlson,et al.  A case of syntactical learning and judgment: How conscious and how abstract? , 1984 .

[43]  Pienie Zwitserlood,et al.  Syntactic structure and artificial grammar learning: The learnability of embedded hierarchical structures , 2008, Cognition.

[44]  S. Pinker,et al.  The faculty of language: what's special about it? , 2005, Cognition.

[45]  Timothy J. O'Donnell,et al.  Evolutionary Linguistics: A New Look at an Old Landscape , 2007 .

[46]  M. Just,et al.  Aphasic Sentence Comprehension as a Resource Deficit: A Computational Approach , 1997, Brain and Language.

[47]  P. Hagoort,et al.  What artificial grammar learning reveals about the neurobiology of syntax , 2012, Brain and Language.

[48]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Neural circuits of hierarchical visuo-spatial sequence processing , 2009, Brain Research.

[49]  Myrna F. Schwartz,et al.  Sensitivity to grammatical structure in so-called agrammatic aphasics , 1983, Cognition.

[50]  Peter Ford Dominey,et al.  Neurological basis of language and sequential cognition: Evidence from simulation, aphasia, and ERP studies , 2003, Brain and Language.

[51]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Impaired artificial grammar learning in agrammatism , 2010, Cognition.

[52]  K. Harris,et al.  Dual Processing of Open- and Closed-Class Words , 1997, Brain and Language.

[53]  Michael Siegal,et al.  Agrammatic but numerate. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[54]  A. Friederici.  Syntactic and semantic processes in aphasic deficits: The availability of prepositions , 1982, Brain and Language.

[55]  A. Rey,et al.  Does the mastery of center-embedded linguistic structures distinguish humans from nonhuman primates? , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[56]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Dissociation of algorithmic and heuristic processes in language comprehension: Evidence from aphasia , 1976, Brain and Language.

[57]  M. Hauser,et al.  Grammatical pattern learning by human infants and cotton-top tamarin monkeys , 2008, Cognition.

[58]  Y. Grodzinsky,et al.  A new empirical angle on the variability debate: Quantitative neurosyntactic analyses of a large data set from Broca’s Aphasia , 2006, Brain and Language.