Learning spatial sequences in unilateral neglect

Brain-damaged patients with unilateral spatial neglect ignore aspects of the world located on the side opposite their lesion. In the present study we examined the performance of unilateral neglect patients (UN) on an SRT task in which a hybrid repeating sequence (21313) was used. We analyzed the patients' performance for each location separately as a function of the target's location in the trial preceding the response. The UN patients were severely limited in their learning of the sequence when compared to normal controls. In particular, they appeared to learn unique associations (21 and 13) but not ambiguous ones (31 and 32). We discuss two possible explanations for this phenomenon. The first is that UN patients show a deficit similar to that of normal subjects in dual task situations. The second is that the learning deficit is unique to spatial processing impairments of UN patients and is not directly related to research with normal population. We outline future research that may distinguish between these two explanations.     

Comparing Computational Power

It is common practice to compare the computational power ofdifferent models of computation. For example, the recursivefunctions are strictly more powerful than the primitive recursivefunctions, because the latter are a proper subset of the former(which includes Ackermann's function). Side-by-side with this"containment" method of measuring power, it is also standardto base comparisons on "simulation". For example, one says thatthe (untyped) lambda calculus is as powerful—computationallyspeaking—as the partial recursive functions, because thelambda calculus can simulate all partial recursive functionsby encoding the natural numbers as Church numerals. The problem is that unbridled use of these two distinct waysof comparing power allows one to show that some computationalmodels (sets of partial functions) are strictly stronger thanthemselves! We argue that a better definition is that modelA is strictly stronger than B if A can simulate B via some encoding,whereas B cannot simulate A under any encoding. We show thatwith this definition, too, the recursive functions are strictlystronger than the primitive recursive. We also prove that therecursive functions, partial recursive functions, and Turingmachines are "complete", in the sense that no injective encodingcan make them equivalent to any "hypercomputational" model.¹     

Processing of basic speech acts following localized brain damage: a new light on the neuroanatomy of language

We examined the effect of localized brain lesions on processing of the basic speech acts (BSAs) of question, assertion, request, and command. Both left and right cerebral damage produced significant deficits relative to normal controls, and left brain damaged patients performed worse than patients with right-sided lesions. This finding argues against the common conjecture that the right hemisphere of most right-handers plays a dominant role in natural language pragmatics. In right-hemisphere damaged patients, there was no correlation between location and extent of lesion in perisylvian cortex and performance on BSAs. By contrast, processing of the different BSAs by left hemisphere-damaged patients was strongly affected by perisylvian lesion location, with each BSA showing a distinct pattern of localization. This finding raises the possibility that the classical left perisylvian localization of language functions, as measured by clinical aphasia batteries, partly reflects the localization of the BSAs required to perform these functions.     

Effects of Right- and Left-Hemisphere Damage on Understanding Conversational Implicatures

Processing of implicatures was examined in 27 right-brain-damaged (RBD) and 31 left-brain-damaged (LBD) stroke patients with focal lesions using a new implicatures battery (IB) as part of an exploration of the neural basis and modularity of natural language pragmatics. Following Grice, we sampled implicatures of Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner. Verbal implicatures consisted of two-sentence conversational vignettes which are literally problematic. Nonverbal implicatures consisted mostly of famous paintings that are literally problematic (e.g., Magritte's "Le Domain d'Arnheim"). The patient has to identify and solve the problem. To compare with performance on the IB, patients also received a Hebrew adaptation of Gardner and Brownell's Right Hemisphere Communication Battery, a new test of basic speech acts (verbal and nonverbal assertions, questions, requests, and commands), a Hebrew version of the Western Aphasia Battery, and standardized neuropsychological tests. Both LBD and RBD patients were significantly impaired in implicature processing relative to age-matched normal controls. In general, both patient groups showed weak correlations of implicatures with extents of lesions in left perisylvian language area or its right-hemisphere (RH) homolog. However, performance of LBD and RBD patients on the IB revealed different patterns of correlations with other pragmatic, language, and nonlanguage tests. In LBD patients, there was a greater association between performance on verbal and nonverbal implicatures and between performance on implicatures and basic speech acts than in RBD patients. Given the different modes in which right-and left-hemisphere (LH) damage affect the processing of conversational implicatures, it remains to be discovered how the two hemispheres interact to process natural language pragmatics in the normal brain in real time.