Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Perception of lexical stress by brain-damaged individuals: Effects on lexical–semantic activation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2006

AMEE P. SHAH
Affiliation:
School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, McGill University, Montreal
SHARI R. BAUM
Affiliation:
School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, McGill University, Montreal

Abstract

A semantic priming, lexical-decision study was conducted to examine the ability of left- and right-brain damaged individuals to perceive lexical-stress cues and map them onto lexical–semantic representations. Correctly and incorrectly stressed primes were paired with related and unrelated target words to tap implicit processing of lexical prosody. Results conformed with previous studies involving implicit perception of lexical stress, in that the left-hemisphere damaged individuals showed preserved sensitivity to lexical stress patterns as indicated by priming patterns mirroring those of the normal controls. An increased sensitivity to the varying stress patterns of the primes was demonstrated by the right-hemisphere damaged patient group, however. Results are discussed in relation to current theories of prosodic lateralization, with a particular focus on the nature of task demands in lexical stress perception studies.

Type
Articles
Copyright
2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Baum S. 1997. Phonological, semantic, and mediated priming in aphasia. Brain and Language, 60, 347359.Google Scholar
Baum S. 1998. The role of fundamental frequency and duration in the perception of linguistic stress by individuals with brain damage. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 41, 3140.Google Scholar
Baum S. 2002. Word recognition in individuals with left and right hemisphere damage: The role of lexical stress. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 233246.Google Scholar
Baum S., Kelch Daniloff J., Daniloff R., & Lewis J.1982. Sentence comprehension by Broca's aphasics: Effects of some suprasegmental variables. Brain and Language, 17, 261271.Google Scholar
Baum S., & Pell M.1999. The neural bases of prosody: Insights from lesion studies and neuroimaging. Aphasiology, 13, 581608.Google Scholar
Blumstein S., Burton M., Baum S., Waldstein R., & Katz D.1994. The role of lexical status on the phonetic categorization of speech in aphasia. Brain and Language, 46, 181197.Google Scholar
Boyczuk J., & Baum S.1999. The influence of neighborhood density on phonetic categorization in aphasia. Brain and Language, 67, 4670.Google Scholar
Brådvik B., Dravins C., Holtås S., Rosen I., Ryding E., & Ingvar D.1991. Disturbances of speech prosody following right hemisphere infarcts. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 84, 114126.Google Scholar
Brookshire R. H., & Nicholas L. E.1993. Discourse Comprehension Test. Minneapolis, MN: BRK Publishers.
Caplan D.1992. Language: Structure, process, and disorders. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Caplan D., & Aydelott-Utman J.1994. Selective acoustic–phonetic impairment and lexical access in an aphasic patient. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 512517.Google Scholar
Connine C. M., Clifton C. Jr., & Cutler A.1987. Effects of lexical stress on phonetic categorization. Phonetica, 44, 133146.Google Scholar
Cutler A., & Norris D.1988. The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 113121.Google Scholar
Emmorey K. 1987. The neurological substrates for prosodic aspects of speech. Brain and Language, 30, 305320.Google Scholar
Folstein M. F., Folstein S. E., & McHugh P. R.1975. “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189198.Google Scholar
Francis W. N., & Kucera H.1982. Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Gandour J., Dzemidzic M., Wong D., Lowe M., Tong Y., Hsieh L., et al. 2003. Temporal integration of speech prosody is shaped by language experience: An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 84, 318336.Google Scholar
Geigenberger A., & Zeigler W.2001. Receptive prosodic processing in aphasia. Aphasiology, 15, 11691188.Google Scholar
Goodglass H., & Kaplan E.1983. The assessment of aphasia and related disorders. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
Grosjean F., & Gee, J. P. 1987. Prosodic structure and spoken word recognition. Cognition, 25, 135155.Google Scholar
Heuven V. J. van1985. Perception of stress pattern and recognition: Recognition of Dutch words with incorrect stress position. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 78 S21.Google Scholar
Kaplan E.Goodglass H., &. Weintraub S.1983. Boston Naming Test. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
Kimelman M. D. Z.1999. Prosody, linguistic demands and auditory comprehension in aphasia. Brain and Language, 69, 212221.Google Scholar
Kimelman M. D. Z., & McNeil M.1987. An investigation of emphatic stress comprehension in adult aphasia: A replication. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 295300.Google Scholar
Lehtihalmes M., & Latvala K.1993. Comprehension of prosody after brain infarction. Poster auf der 3. Tagung der International Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics Association, Helsinki.
Lindfield K. C., Wingfield A., & Goodglass H.1999. The contribution of prosody to spoken word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 395405.Google Scholar
Mattys S. L., & Samuel A. G.1997. How lexical stress affects speech segmentation and interactivity: Evidence from the migration paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 87116.Google Scholar
McQueen J. M., Norris D., & Cutler A.1994. Competition in spoken word recognition: Spotting words in other words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 621638.Google Scholar
Mertus J.1989. BLISS user's manual. Providence, RI: Brown University.
Milberg W., Blumstein S., & Dworetzy B.1988. Phonological factors in lexical access: Evidence from an auditory lexical decision task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 305308.Google Scholar
Nelson D. L., McEvoy C. L., & Schreiber T. A.1998. The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Retrieved from http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation.
Norris D., McQueen J., & Cutler A.1995. Competition and segmentation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 12091228.Google Scholar
Pell M. D.1998. Recognition of prosody following unilateral brain lesion: Influence of functional and structural attributes of prosodic contours. Neuropsychologia, 36, 701715.Google Scholar
Poeppel D. 2001. Pure word deafness and the bilateral processing of the speech code. Cognitive Science, 25, 679693.Google Scholar
Slowiaczek L. M. 1990. Effects of lexical stress in auditory word recognition. Language and Speech, 33, 4768.Google Scholar
Swinney D. A., Zurif E., & Cutler A.1980. Effects of sentential stress and word class upon comprehension in Broca's aphasia. Brain and Language, 10, 132144.Google Scholar
Taft L. A.1984. Prosodic constraints and lexical parsing strategies. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts.
Tyler L. K., Cobb H., & Graham N.1992. Spoken language comprehension: An experimental approach to disordered and normal comprehension. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Van Lancker D. 1980. Cerebral lateralization of pitch cues in the linguistic signal. Papers in Linguistics, 13, 201277.Google Scholar
Van Lancker D., & Sidtis J.1992. The identification of affective-prosodic stimuli by left- and right-hemisphere-damaged subjects: All errors are not created equal. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 963970.Google Scholar
Walker J. P., Fongemie K., & Daigle T.2001. Prosodic facilitation in the resolution of temporary syntactic ambiguities in subjects with left and right hemisphere damage. Brain and Language, 78, 169196.Google Scholar
Wayland S., Wingfield A., & Goodglass H.1989. Recognition of isolated words: The dynamics of cohort reduction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 475487.Google Scholar
Weintraub S., Mesulam M. M., & Kramer L.1981. Disturbances in prosody: A right-hemisphere contribution to language. Archives of Neurology, 38, 742744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiig E., & Secord W.1989. Test of language competence—Expanded edition (TLC-E). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wilson B., Cockburn J., & Halligan P.1987. Behavioural Inattention Test (BIT). Thames: Thames Valley Test Company.
Wingfield A., Goodglass H., & Lindfield K.1997. Word recognition from acoustic onsets and acoustic offsets: Effects of cohort size and syllabic stress. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 85100.Google Scholar
Wunderlich A., Ziegler W., & Geigenberger A.2003. Implicit processing of prosodic information in patients with left and right hemisphere stroke. Aphasiology, 17, 861879.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 18
Total number of PDF views: 84 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 16th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-77fc7d77f9-n279q Total loading time: 0.308 Render date: 2021-01-16T10:15:08.794Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Sat Jan 16 2021 09:53:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": true, "languageSwitch": true, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Perception of lexical stress by brain-damaged individuals: Effects on lexical–semantic activation
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Perception of lexical stress by brain-damaged individuals: Effects on lexical–semantic activation
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Perception of lexical stress by brain-damaged individuals: Effects on lexical–semantic activation
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *