Content uploaded by Eva Soroli
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eva Soroli on Sep 30, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
For Peer Review Only
Event processing in agrammatic aphasia : Does language
guide visual processing and similarity judgments ?
Journal:
Aphasiology
Manuscript ID
APH-AB 18-158.R2
Manuscript Type:
Abstract
Date Submitted by the Author:
n/a
Complete List of Authors:
SOROLI, Efstathia; Universite de Lille 3 UFR Humanites,
Keywords:
Motion events, Categorization, Eye tracking, Agrammatism, Similarity
judgments, Visual attention
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/paph Email: c.f.s.code@exeter.ac.uk
Aphasiology
For Peer Review Only
Event processing in agrammatic aphasia: Does language guide visual processing and similarity
judgments ?
Efstathia SOROLI
University of Lille, CNRS, UMR 8163 « Savoirs, Textes, Langage » Lab
Rue du Barreau, 59653 Villeneuve d’Ascq, FRANCE
efstathia.soroli@univ-lille3.fr
Background
The widespread idea that people with agrammatic aphasia (PWA) have a selective vulnerability in
morphosyntactic processing (Bradley, Garrett & Zurif, 1980), irrespective of language, has been
questioned by many cross-linguistic studies (e.g., Soroli, Sahraoui & Sacchett, 2012). Researchers
show that ‘same’-syndrome people with aphasia perform very differently from one language to
another (Bates, Wulfeck & MacWhinney, 1991). In the domain of motion events, languages vary
morphosyntactically thus constraining lexicalization options (Talmy, 2000): some (mostly
Romance languages, ie. French) invite speakers to lexicalize Path information leaving Manner
optional; whereas others (Germanic, ie. English) systematically priviledge Manner verbs together
with Path adjuncts.
Aims
The question of whether such cross-linguistic differences have deep effects on cognitive processing
(e.g., visual attention, categorization) has recently become of great interest for aphasia. The aim of
the present study is to collect real-time indications of how online and offline spatial processing
operates (ie. through similarity-judgment tasks and Eye-tracking (ET)), and to investigate the role
typological (language-related) vs. language-independent (universal/syndrome-related) factors play
in agrammatic aphasia.
Method and Procedure
20 English, 20 French and two PWA (1 of each language) were tested in three ET experiments: (I)
a Non-Verbal similarity-judgment; (II) a Verbal similarity-judgment; and (III) a Production
experiment.
In experiment I, participants saw a target-video showing a motion event performed in a certain
Manner and along a Path (a). The target was followed by two variants: one Manner-congruent (b)
and one Path-congruent (c). Participants had to choose the variant that looked most like the target.
Experiment II was exactly the same, except that the target video was replaced by a sentence. In
Experiment III, participants were asked to describe the video-clips.
a. Target video/sentence: A woman riding a scooter out of a building
b. Manner-congruent Video: A woman riding a scooter into a building
c. Path-congruent Video: A woman roller-skating out of a building
The experiments were presented in a fixed order: first Experiment I (that involved no linguistic input),
then Experiment III (in order for subjects’ descriptions not to be influenced by the sentences presented
during experiment II), and at the end Experiment II.
The analysis was focused on what participants expressed, with which linguistic means, within which
event-types, how they performed similarity judgments, how fast, as well as their gaze patterns
(fixation-counts, visit-durations, gazepaths) to specific areas-of-interest (AOI) (Figures 1-2). A mixed
ANOVA to examine the effect of Language as between-subject factor (English, French) with Event-
Page 1 of 4
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/paph Email: c.f.s.code@exeter.ac.uk
Aphasiology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
type and AOI-type as within-subject factors was conducted on several dependent variables (raw PM-
scores, M-choices, M-fixations, etc.).
1
Figure 1 . Example of manner–congruent (m) and path–con gruent (p) AOIs in the variants presented during the similarity-jud gment tasks
Figure 2. Example of a ‘INTO’ event presented in Experiment III as divided in different AOIs: Source (S), Goal (G), Path (P), and Manner
(P+/-M))
Results
The results confirm the impact of typological differences. PWA did not differ in performance from
their respective language control-group. Participants not only privileged the lexicalization patterns of
their language (experiment III), they also categorized and shifted attention based on language-specific
features (e.g., more Path-choices/more and longer Path fixations by French participants as opposed to
English) in both verbal (experiment II) and non-verbal similarity judgments (experiment I). However,
in this last case, when verbal input was not explicit, overt attention to specific components differed in
fixation counts but not in visit-durations.
Conclusion
The findings suggest that there is a close relation between language and cognitive processing.
Language plays an important role in most non-verbal measures and a massive role whenever explicit
linguistic processing is involved. From these findings it is clear that linguistic constraints cannot be
neglected in aphasia research, assessment or treatment procedures. In future research, the use of
1
In order to analyze statistically the scores of PWA and because of their small number, we used the method proposed by Crawford &
Garthwaite (2007) that treats the statistics of the analogous control group as sample statistics.
Page 2 of 4
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/paph Email: c.f.s.code@exeter.ac.uk
Aphasiology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review Only
multiple methodologies and the account for multiple factors will be essential in order to deeper
investigate what is the relative weight of language- and syndrome-related factors for cognitive
processing in aphasia.
References
Bates, E., Wulfeck, B. & MacWhinney, B. (1991). Crosslinguistic research in aphasia. An overview.
Brain and Language
,
41, 123-148.
Bradley, D., Garrett, M., & Zurif, E. (1980). Syntactic deficits in Broca's aphasia. In D. Caplan (Ed.),
Biological studies of
mental processes
. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Crawford, J. R., & Garthwaite, P. H. (2007). Comparison of a single case to a control or normative sample in
neuropsychology: Development of a Bayesian approach.
Cognitive Neuropsychology
, 24, 343-372.
Soroli, E., Sahraoui, H. & Sacchett, C. (2012). Linguistic encoding of motion events in English and French: Typological
constraints on second language acquisition and agrammatic aphasia.
Language, Interaction & Acquisition
, 3 (2): 261–287.
Talmy, L. (2000).
Toward a cognitive semantics
. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Page 3 of 4
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/paph Email: c.f.s.code@exeter.ac.uk
Aphasiology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
