Research
Application of Current Theoretical Models to Bilingual Aphasia Rehabilitation Pt 2
-
University:
Boston University -
Course:
CAS LX 250 | Introduction to Linguistics Academic year:
2019
-
Views:
183
Pages:
19
Author:
larbiwxcvbn
Research in bilingualism
Language control: how the target language is activated Models of language control
Selective attention to the target language
Inhibition of the non-target language Bilingual lexical retrieval
Adapted from Costa, La Heij, & Navarette, 2006 Selective attention to the target language
According to Costa et al., 1999; Finkbeiner et al., 2006; there
is activation in the non-target language but this activation is
controlled by an attentional mechanism that effectively ignores
competitors that are not from the target language.
` Inhibitory control model
In contrast, the Control Activation and Resource Model (Green,
1986; 1998) assumes that all activated alternatives potentially
compete for selection
A specified inhibitory mechanism eventually resolves the
competition by inhibition of candidates in the non-target language.
Figure 3. Inhibitory Control model. Reprinted from
"Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic
system," by D. Green, 1998, Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition 1, p. 69. Copyright 1998 by
Cambridge University Press. Road Map
Understand the nature of bilingual language processing
Understand the nature of language impairment in bilingual
aphasia
Understand the different types of language therapy for
bilingual aphasia What does this mean for bilingual
aphasia?
Studies that explore language
impairment:
• Lexical access (Edmonds & Kiran, 2006;
Kiran & Lebel, 2007; Kiran & Tuchtenhagen,
2005; Lalor & Kirsner, 2001),
• Syntactic processing (Hernandez et al., 2008;
Kambanaros et al., 2012; Tschirren et al.,
2011),
• Orthographic processing (Raman & Weekes,
2005; Weekes, 2005, 2012;Yin et al., 2005;
Zhang et al., 2009).
Studies that explore control
impairment:
• Pathological switching (Fabbro et al. 2000;
Ansaldo et al. 1997),
• Green et al. (2010),
• Verreyt et al. (2013),
• Gray & Kiran (under review). What does this mean for bilingual
aphasia?
Studies that explore language
impairment:
• Lexical access (Edmonds & Kiran, 2006;
Kiran & Lebel, 2007; Kiran & Tuchtenhagen,
2005; Lalor & Kirsner, 2001),
• Syntactic processing (Hernandez et al., 2008;
Kambanaros et al., 2012; Tschirren et al.,
2011),
• Orthographic processing (Raman & Weekes,
2005; Weekes, 2005, 2012;Yin et al., 2005;
Zhang et al., 2009). Lexical semantic access in bilingual
aphasia
Normal Bilingual Adults: N = 12; Bilingual Aphasia Adults N = 13
(all participants Spanish-English speakers)
Task:
Boston Naming Test
Category Naming Test Picture set of 60 semantically related picture pairs
Category generation task (animals, food, clothing) (Spanish/English)
Dependent measures
Percent naming accuracy- BNT
Average percent naming accuracy across two semantically related sets
Results: bilingual patients with aphasia exhibit lexical retrieval deficits,
but the underlying mechanism supporting lexical retrieval on naming
tasks for bilingual patients with aphasia still mirrors bilingual language
processing utilized by healthy bilinguals. Language impairment vs Proficiency
19 Spanish-English bilingual adults with aphasia (mean age
63.1, SD 17.82); 11 females
Bilingual Aphasia Test (BAT): English and Spanish + Part C
Boston Naming Test (BNT): English and Spanish
Pyramids and Palm Trees (PPT): Picture Version
Language Use Questionnaire (Kiran, Peña, Bedore, & Sheng,
2010) Framework of bilingual language
procesing
.51
Comprehension
English
.74
.68 .59
Word
Recognition
Sp
Eng
.71
Comprehension
Spanish
.48
.58
Semantics
English
.67
.57
Word
Recognition
Eng
Sp
.80
.68
.65
.58
Semantics
Spanish
.57
.47
Semantics
Non-linguistic
Expression
English
.55
.62
Expression
Spanish
.67
Translation
Sp
Eng
.65
.86
Translation
Eng
Sp Language impairment vs. Proficiency What does this mean for bilingual
aphasia?
Studies that explore language
impairment:
• Lexical access (Edmonds & Kiran, 2006;
Kiran & Lebel, 2007; Kiran & Tuchtenhagen,
2005; Lalor & Kirsner, 2001),
• Syntactic processing (Hernandez et al., 2008;
Kambanaros et al., 2012; Tschirren et al.,
2011),
• Orthographic processing (Raman & Weekes,
2005; Weekes, 2005, 2012;Yin et al., 2005;
Zhang et al., 2009).
Studies that explore control
impairment:
• Pathological switching (Fabbro et al. 2000;
Ansaldo et al. 1997),
• Green et al. (2010),
• Verreyt et al. (2013),
• Gray & Kiran (under review). What does this mean for bilingual
aphasia?
Studies that explore control
impairment:
• Pathological switching (Fabbro et al. 2000;
Ansaldo et al. 1997),
• Green et al. (2010),
• Verreyt et al. (2013),
• Gray & Kiran (under review). Language control: pathological
switching and mixing
Language switching: e.g., I want water. Tengo sed. [I am thirsty]
Language mixing:e.g., I want the hombre [man] to move.
(Adrover-Roig et al., 2011)
In bilingual aphasia, it has been documented that patients can have
problems controlling their two languages (Abutalebi, Miozzo, &
Cappa, 2000; Aglioti & Fabbro, 1993; Aglioti, Beltramello,
Girardi, & Fabbro, 1996; Ansaldo & Marcotte, 2007; Ansaldo,
Saidi, & Ruiz, 2000; Fabbro, Peru, & Skrap, 1997; Fabbro, Skrap,
& Aglioti, 2000; Goral et al., 2006; Keane & Kiran, in press; for a
review see Ansaldo, Marcotte, Scherer, & Raboyeau, 2008). Green et al. (2010)
2 bilingual adults with aphasia (L1 Spanish/L1 French, L2
English)
Parallel recovery/impairment
12 healthy non-native English bilingual controls
14 healthy native English monolingual controls
Tasks
Results
Patient 1:
Patient 2:
Linguistic Task
Eng
lexical decision
Stroop
Linguistic Task
Eng
lexical decision X Stroop
lexical decision X Stroop
Non-Linguistic Task
L1
Eng
Flanker
Non-Linguistic Task
L1 Eng
X
X Flanker ok
ok ok Flanker X Verreyt et al. (2013)
1 French (L1) - Dutch (L2) bilingual adult with aphasia
Differential language impairment (L1 is stronger than L2)
Tasks
Task
General lexical decision
Selective French lexical decision
Selective Dutch lexical decision
Flanker
Stimuli in each lexical decision task:
30 Dutch-French cognates
30 Dutch noncognates
30 French noncognates
90 non-words
Results
Task
Result
General lexical decision
cognate facilitation
Selective French lexical decision no effect of cognate facilitation
cognates identified with less accuracy
Selective Dutch lexical decision than Dutch non-cognates
Flanker
impaired control Gray & Kiran (under revision)
10 Spanish-English bilingual adults with aphasia
30 Spanish-English, age matched neurologically healthy
bilingual adults
Experimental Paradigms:
Linguistic Task
Semantic judgment
Translation (Tr)
Semantic (S)
Unrelated (un)
Semantic Translation (STr)
Unrelated Translation (UnTr)
Non-Linguistic Task
Flanker Road Map
Understand the different types of language therapy for
bilingual aphasia
Application of Current Theoretical Models to Bilingual Aphasia Rehabilitation Pt 2
of 19
Report
Tell us what’s wrong with it:
Thanks, got it!
We will moderate it soon!
Free up your schedule!
Our EduBirdie Experts Are Here for You 24/7! Just fill out a form and let us know how we can assist you.
Take 5 seconds to unlock
Enter your email below and get instant access to your document