排序方式： 共有24条查询结果，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
2.
Bob Brecher 《Res Publica》2002,8(1):105-109
Instructions for Authors
Instructions for Authors 相似文献3.
4.
5.
Bob Brecher 《Res Publica》2003,9(1):95-100
Instructions for Authors
Instructions for Authors 相似文献6.
Bob Brecher 《Res Publica》2002,8(3):301-306
Instructions for Authors
Instructions for Authors 相似文献7.
Walker GM Schwartz MF Kimberg DY Faseyitan O Brecher A Dell GS Coslett HB 《Brain and language》2011,117(3):110-122
Semantic errors in aphasia (e.g., naming a horse as “dog”) frequently arise from faulty mapping of concepts onto lexical items. A recent study by our group used voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping (VLSM) methods with 64 patients with chronic aphasia to identify voxels that carry an association with semantic errors. The strongest associations were found in the left anterior temporal lobe (L-ATL), in the mid- to anterior MTG region. The absence of findings in Wernicke’s area was surprising, as were indications that ATL voxels made an essential contribution to the post-semantic stage of lexical access. In this follow-up study, we sought to validate these results by re-defining semantic errors in a manner that was less theory dependent and more consistent with prior lesion studies. As this change also increased the robustness of the dependent variable, it made it possible to perform additional statistical analyses that further refined the interpretation. The results strengthen the evidence for a causal relationship between ATL damage and lexically-based semantic errors in naming and lend confidence to the conclusion that chronic lesions in Wernicke’s area are not causally implicated in semantic error production. 相似文献
8.
9.
10.
Dell, Schwartz, Martin, Saffran, and Gagnon (DSMSG; 1997) presented a computational analysis of aphasic naming that, among other things, purports to explain why some error types correlate with naming severity while others do not. It does so in terms of chance response opportunities, which differ among error types and which come into play particularly when activation levels are small. The present study looks at error frequencies in relation to severity at two points in time: at study entry and after a period of partial recovery. Results support the model's distinction between severity-sensitive errors (nonwords. formal paraphasias, and unrelated errors) and those that are severity insensitive (semantic; mixed). Additionally, we show that the degree of target overlap in nonwords is sensitive to severity but various measures of monitoring and error correction are not. While these results generally support DSMSG, effects at the level of individual patients underscore the difficulties that their model encounters in explaining some pure error dissociations. 相似文献