Comprehension of lexical ambiguity in healthy aging, mild cognitive impairment, and mild Alzheimer's disease

Two experiments examined processing of lexical ambiguity in healthy older control (HC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) participants. In Experiment 1, groups of HC, MCI and AD participants took part in an ERP study in which they read lexically ambiguous items presented in a subordinate context and primed by the same item presented in a dominant context. Ambiguous items were homonyms (e.g., bank), metaphorical polysemes (e.g., star), or metonyms (e.g., rabbit). All participants exhibited smaller N400s for items preceded by a related prime. In addition, HC participants exhibited a smaller N400 for metonyms than for metaphorical polysemes or homonyms; this effect was diminished in MCI and AD participants. In Experiment 2, HC and MCI participants completed a primed lexical decision task where targets related to the subordinate meaning/sense of ambiguous items were preceded by primes biasing the dominant meaning/sense (e.g., financial-bank-river). In contrast to the results of Experiment 1, both HC and MCI participants showed priming for metonymic items, but not homonyms or metaphorical polysemes. These results suggest that basic knowledge of multiple senses of metonyms is preserved in MCI, but the processing advantage conveyed by this semantic richness is diminished in MCI and AD.

[1]  R. Cann,et al.  The Cognitive Basis of Polysemy , 2007 .

[2]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses ☆ , 1990 .

[3]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The Generative Lexicon , 1995, CL.

[4]  Michael Wilson.  MRC Psycholinguistic Database , 2001 .

[5]  Michael C. Doyle,et al.  A comparison of the electrophysiological effects of formal and repetition priming. , 1996, Psychophysiology.

[6]  P Rhodes,et al.  Publication. , 1983, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology.

[7]  S. Geisser,et al.  On methods in the analysis of profile data , 1959 .

[8]  M. Kutas,et al.  Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. , 1980, Science.

[9]  E. Tangalos,et al.  Mild Cognitive Impairment Clinical Characterization and Outcome , 1999 .

[10]  Morton Ann Gernsbacher,et al.  Inhibitory Control during Sentence Comprehension in Individuals with Dementia of the Alzheimer Type , 1997, Brain and Language.

[11]  G. Nunberg.  The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy , 1979 .

[12]  Yasushi Hino,et al.  The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number-of-features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[13]  R. Petersen,et al.  Mild cognitive impairment , 2006, The Lancet.

[14]  K. Rayner,et al.  Contextual Strength and the Subordinate Bias Effect: Comment on Martin, Vu, Kellas, and Metcalf , 1999, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[15]  E. Walker,et al.  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , 2013 .

[16]  Robert A. Bornstein,et al.  The Wechsler Memory Scale—Revised , 1990 .

[17]  P. Holcomb.  Automatic and attentional processing: An event-related brain potential analysis of semantic priming , 1988, Brain and Language.

[18]  S. Folstein,et al.  "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. , 1975, Journal of psychiatric research.

[19]  J. Morris,et al.  Current concepts in mild cognitive impairment. , 2001, Archives of neurology.

[20]  J. Cummings,et al.  The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A Brief Screening Tool For Mild Cognitive Impairment , 2005, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[21]  Max Coltheart,et al.  The MRC Psycholinguistic Database , 1981 .

[22]  Thomas A. Schreiber,et al.  The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[23]  Shari R. Baum,et al.  Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words , 2007, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

[24]  Ekaterini Klepousniotou.  The Processing of Lexical Ambiguity: Homonymy and Polysemy in the Mental Lexicon , 2002, Brain and Language.

[25]  B. Murdoch,et al.  The resolution of lexical ambiguity with reference to context in dementia of the Alzheimer's type. , 1998, International journal of language & communication disorders.

[26]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

[27]  M. Folstein,et al.  Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease , 1984, Neurology.

[28]  P. Dixon,et al.  University of Alberta norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[29]  D. Swinney.  Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects , 1979 .

[30]  M. N. Mitruchina.  Rey Auditory-Verbal Learning Test , 1999 .

[31]  Sonja A. Kotz,et al.  Neurolinguistic evidence for bilingual language representation: a comparison of reaction times and event-related brain potentials , 2001 .

[32]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Evidence for Multiple Stages in the Processing of Ambiguous Words in Syntactic Contexts. , 1979 .

[33]  Ronda Ann Bakerink.  Semantic memory in Alzheimer's Disease , 1988 .

[34]  Dc Washington.  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Ed. , 1994 .

[35]  Lee Osterhout,et al.  Event-related brain potentials and human language , 1997, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[36]  Terence W. Picton,et al.  Effects of Attention on Neuroelectric Correlates of Auditory Stream Segregation , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[37]  Robert D. Nebes,et al.  The Effect of Contextual Constraint on Semantic Judgments by Alzheimer Patients , 1991, Cortex.

[38]  On the use of word association norms in aging research. , 1983, Experimental aging research.

[39]  K. Rayner,et al.  Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity , 1986, Memory & cognition.

[40]  Ellen Bialystok,et al.  Handbook of Neurolinguistics , 1998 .

[41]  M J Pickering,et al.  The processing of metonymy: evidence from eye movements. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[42]  K. Rayner,et al.  Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[43]  S. Powers,et al.  A pilot study of one-session biofeedback training in pediatric headache , 2001, Neurology.

[44]  Marta Kutas,et al.  Electrophysiological analysis of context effects in Alzheimer's disease. , 2003, Neuropsychology.

[45]  Vanessa Taler,et al.  Language performance in Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment: A comparative review , 2008, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[46]  E. Tangalos,et al.  CME Practice parameter: , 2022 .

[47]  D. Burke,et al.  Word associations in old age: evidence for consistency in semantic encoding during adulthood. , 1986, Psychology and aging.

[48]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading , 1988 .

[49]  M. Kutas,et al.  Absent event-related potential (ERP) word repetition effects in mild Alzheimer's disease , 2006, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[50]  Susan A. Duffy,et al.  Effects of Prior Encounter and Global Discourse Bias on the Processing of Lexically Ambiguous Words: Evidence From Eye Fixations , 1994 .

[51]  Howard Chertkow,et al.  Mild cognitive impairment , 2002, Current opinion in neurology.

[52]  M. Kutas,et al.  Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[53]  D. Howard,et al.  Category norms: a comparison of the Battig and Montague (1969) norms with the responses of adults between the ages of 20 and 80. , 1980, Journal of gerontology.

[54]  Liina Pylkkänen,et al.  The Representation of Polysemy: MEG Evidence , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[55]  David A. Balota,et al.  Semantic priming effects, lexical repetition effects, and contextual disambiguation effects in healthy aged individuals and individuals with senile dementia of the Alzheimer type , 1991, Brain and Language.

[56]  Alex Martin,et al.  Word production and comprehension in Alzheimer's diseáse: The breakdown of semantic knowledge , 1983, Brain and Language.

[57]  D. Titone,et al.  Making sense of word senses: the comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[58]  L. Mansur,et al.  Language and Communication Disorders in Dementia of the Alzheimer Type , 1998 .

[59]  D. Nelson,et al.  The University of South Florida homograph norms , 1980 .

[60]  Vanessa Taler,et al.  On-line lexical processing in AD and MCI: An early measure of cognitive impairment? , 2006, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

[61]  K Rayner,et al.  The processing of homophonic homographs during reading: Evidence from eye movement studies , 1993, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[62]  D P Salmon,et al.  Abnormal verbal event related potentials in mild cognitive impairment and incipient Alzheimer's disease , 2002, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[63]  V. Taler,et al.  Processing of mass/count information in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment , 2004, Brain and Language.

[64]  Marie Bienkowski,et al.  Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[65]  C. Reynolds,et al.  Wechsler memory scale-revised , 1988 .

[66]  G. Murphy,et al.  The Representation of Polysemous Words , 2001 .

[67]  D. Swinney,et al.  Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias , 1981 .