Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2021; 42(03): 256-274
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1731367
Review Article

Disentangling the Psycholinguistic Loci of Anomia with Cognitive Psychometric Models

Grant M. Walker
1   Department of Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine, California
› Author Affiliations Funding National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders P50 DC014664
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This article reviews advanced statistical techniques for measuring impairments in object naming, particularly in the context of stroke-induced aphasia. Traditional testing strategies can be challenged by the multifaceted nature of impairments that arise due to the complex relationships between localized brain damage and disruption to the cognitive processes required for successful object naming. Cognitive psychometric models can combine response-type analysis with item-response theory to yield accurate estimates of multiple abilities using data collected from a single task. The models also provide insights about how the test items can be challenging in different ways. Although more work is needed to fully optimize their clinical utility in practice, these formal concepts can guide thoughtful selection of stimuli used in treatment or assessment, as well as providing a framework to interpret response-type data.

Keywords

anomia - aphasia - picture naming - response-type analysis - cognitive psychometrics


Publication History

Article published online:
14 July 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Indefrey P, Levelt WJM. The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition 2004; 92 (1-2): 101-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Dell GS, Schwartz MF, Martin N, Saffran EM, Gagnon DA. Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychol Rev 1997; 104 (04) 801-838
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Roelofs A. WEAVER + + and Other Computational Models of Lemma Retrieval and Word-Form Encoding. Aspects of Language Production.. Psychology Press; 2000: 71-114
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Goldrick M, Rapp B. A restricted interaction account (RIA) of spoken word production: the best of both worlds. Aphasiology 2002; 16 (1–2): 20-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rapp B, Goldrick M. Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. Psychol Rev 2000; 107 (03) 460-499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Giahi-Saravani A, Forseth KJ, Tandon N. et al. Dynamic brain interactions during picture naming. eNeuro 2019;6(04ENEURO.0472-18.2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lambon Ralph MA, Sage K, Roberts J. Classical anomia: a neuropsychological perspective on speech production. Neuropsychologia 2000; 38 (02) 186-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 DeLeon J, Gottesman RF, Kleinman JT. et al. Neural regions essential for distinct cognitive processes underlying picture naming. Brain 2007; 130 (Pt 5): 1408-1422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Le Dorze G, Nespoulous JL. Anomia in moderate aphasia: problems in accessing the lexical representation. Brain Lang 1989; 37 (03) 381-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lambon Ralph MA, Moriarty L, Sage K. Anomia is simply a reflection of semantic and phonological impairments: evidence from a case-series study. Aphasiology 2002; 16 (1–2): 56-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Mirman D, Zhang Y, Wang Z, Coslett HB, Schwartz MF. The ins and outs of meaning: behavioral and neuroanatomical dissociation of semantically-driven word retrieval and multimodal semantic recognition in aphasia. Neuropsychologia 2015; 76: 208-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Halai AD, Woollams AM, Lambon Ralph MA. Triangulation of language-cognitive impairments, naming errors and their neural bases post-stroke. Neuroimage Clin 2017; 17: 465-473
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lacey EH, Skipper-Kallal LM, Xing S, Fama ME, Turkeltaub PE. Mapping common aphasia assessments to underlying cognitive processes and their neural substrates. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2017; 31 (05) 442-450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Walker GM. Applications of psychometric methods to neuropsychological models of speech and language. In: McFarland DJ. ed. General and Specific Mental Abilities. Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2019: 412-435
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Preacher KJ, MacCallum RC. Repairing Tom Swift's electric factor analysis machine. Underst Stat 2003; 2 (01) 13-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Mitchum CC, Ritgert BA, Sandson J, Berndt RS, Mitchum CC. The use of response analysis in confrontation naming. Aphasiology 1990; 4 (03) 261-279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Fromkin VA. The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language (Baltim) 1971; 47 (01) 27-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Caramazza A, Hillis AE. Where do semantic errors come from?. Cortex 1990; 26 (01) 95-122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Butterworth B, Howard D, Mcloughlin P. The semantic deficit in aphasia: the relationship between semantic errors in auditory comprehension and picture naming. Neuropsychologia 1984; 22 (04) 409-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Corbett F, Jefferies E, Ehsan S, Lambon Ralph MA. Different impairments of semantic cognition in semantic dementia and semantic aphasia: evidence from the non-verbal domain. Brain 2009; 132 (Pt 9): 2593-2608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Best W. When racquets are baskets but baskets are biscuits, where do the words come from? A single case study of formal paraphasic errors in aphasia. Cogn Neuropsychol 1996; 13 (03) 443-480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Gagnon DA, Schwartz MF, Martin N, Dell GS, Saffran EM. The origins of formal paraphasias in aphasics' picture naming. Brain Lang 1997; 59 (03) 450-472
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Blanken G. Lexicalisation in speech production: evidence from form-related word substitutions in aphasia. Cogn Neuropsychol 1998; 15 (04) 321-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Martin N, Gagnon DA, Schwartz MF, Dell GS, Saffran EM. Phonological facilitation of semantic errors in normal and aphasic speakers. Lang Cogn Process 1996; 11 (03) 257-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Roelofs A. Error biases in spoken word planning and monitoring by aphasic and nonaphasic speakers: comment on Rapp and Goldrick (2000). Psychol Rev 2004; 111 (02) 561-572 , discussion 573–580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Buckingham HW, Buckingham SS. Is recurrent perseveration a product of deafferented functional systems with otherwise normal post-activation decay rates?. Clin Linguist Phon 2011; 25 (11-12): 1066-1073
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Buckingham HW. Introductory essay: perseveration happens!. Aphasiology 2007; 21 (10–11): 916-927
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Schwartz MF, Wilshire CE, Gagnon DA, Polansky M. Origins of nonword phonological errors in aphasic picture naming. Cogn Neuropsychol 2004; 21 (02) 159-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Romani C, Galluzzi C, Olson A. Phonological-lexical activation: a lexical component or an output buffer? Evidence from aphasic errors. Cortex 2011; 47 (02) 217-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Buchwald AB, Rapp B, Stone M. Insertion of discrete phonological units: an articulatory and acoustic investigation of aphasic speech. Lang Cogn Process 2007; 22 (06) 910-948
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Romani C, Olson A, Semenza C, Granà A. Patterns of phonological errors as a function of a phonological versus an articulatory locus of impairment. Cortex 2002; 38 (04) 541-567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ziegler W. Psycholinguistic and motor theories of apraxia of speech. Semin Speech Lang 2002; 23 (04) 231-244
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Buchwald A, Gagnon B, Miozzo M. Identification and remediation of phonological and motor errors in acquired sound production impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2017; 60 (6 Special Issue): 1726-1738
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Galluzzi C, Bureca I, Guariglia C, Romani C. Phonological simplifications, apraxia of speech and the interaction between phonological and phonetic processing. Neuropsychologia 2015; 71: 64-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Bormann T, Kulke F, Wallesch C-W, Blanken G. Omissions and semantic errors in aphasic naming: is there a link?. Brain Lang 2008; 104 (01) 24-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Dell GS, Lawler EN, Harris HD, Gordon JK. Models of errors of omission in aphasic naming. Cogn Neuropsychol 2004; 21 (02) 125-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Chen Q, Middleton E, Mirman D. Words fail: lesion-symptom mapping of errors of omission in post-stroke aphasia. J Neuropsychol 2019; 13 (02) 183-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Foygel D, Dell GS. Models of impaired lexical access in speech production. J Mem Lang 2000; 43 (02) 182-216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Goldrick M. Theory selection and evaluation in case series research. Cogn Neuropsychol 2011; 28 (07) 451-465 , discussion 515–520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Dell GS, Martin N, Schwartz MF. A case-series test of the interactive two-step model of lexical access: predicting word repetition from picture naming. J Mem Lang 2007; 56 (04) 490-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Kittredge AK, Dell GS, Verkuilen J, Schwartz MF. Where is the effect of frequency in word production? Insights from aphasic picture-naming errors. Cogn Neuropsychol 2008; 25 (04) 463-492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Martin N, Dell GS. Maintenance versus transmission deficits: the effect of delay on naming performance in aphasia. Front Hum Neurosci 2019; 13: 406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Walker GM, Hickok G. Bridging computational approaches to speech production: The semantic-lexical-auditory-motor model (SLAM). Psychon Bull Rev 2016; 23 (02) 339-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Walker GM, Fridriksson J, Hickok G. Connections and selections: comparing multivariate predictions and parameter associations from latent variable models of picture naming. Cogn Neuropsychol 2021; 38 (01) 50-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Embretson SE. Multicomponent response models. In: Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. New York: Springer; 1997: 305-321
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Erdfelder E, Auer T-S, Hilbig BE, Aßfalg A, Moshagen M, Nadarevic L. Multinomial processing tree models. J Psychol 2009; 217 (03) 108-124
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Lee MD, Wagenmakers E-J. Bayesian Cognitive Modeling: A Practical Course. 2014 Accessed May 30, 2021 at: http://www.amazon.com/Bayesian-Cognitive-Modeling-Practical-Course/dp/1107018455
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Lord FM, Novick MR. Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Addison-Wesley; 1968
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Rasch G. Studies in Mathematical Psychology: I. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Nielsen & Lydiche; 1960
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Fergadiotis G, Kellough S, Hula WD. Item response theory modeling of the Philadelphia Naming Test. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2015; 58 (03) 865-877
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Maris E. Psychometric latent response models. Psychometrika 1995; 60 (04) 523-547
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Embretson (Whitely) S. A general latent trait model for response processes. Psychometrika 1984; 49 (02) 175-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Bolt DM, Lall VF. Estimation of compensatory and noncompensatory multidimensional item response models using Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Appl Psychol Meas 2003; 27 (06) 395-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Whitely S. Multicomponent latent trait models for ability tests. Psychometrika 1980; 45 (04) 479-494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Matzke D, Dolan CV, Batchelder WH, Wagenmakers E-J. Bayesian estimation of multinomial processing tree models with heterogeneity in participants and items. Psychometrika 2015; 80 (01) 205-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Tutz G. Sequential item response models with an ordered response. Br J Math Stat Psychol 1990; 43 (01) 39-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Embretson SE, Yang X. Multicomponent latent trait models for complex tasks. J Appl Meas 2006; 7 (03) 335-350
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Takane Y, de Leeuw J. On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika 1987; 52 (03) 393-408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Batchelder WH. Cognitive psychometrics: using multinomial processing tree models as measurement tools. In: Embretson SE. ed. Measuring Psychological Constructs: Advances in Model-Based Approaches. American Psychological Association; 2010: 71-93
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Batchelder WH. Multinomial processing tree models and psychological assessment. Psychol Assess 1998; 10 (04) 331-344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Heck DW, Arnold NR, Arnold D. TreeBUGS: an R package for hierarchical multinomial-processing-tree modeling. Behav Res Methods 2018; 50 (01) 264-284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Masters GN. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 1982; 47 (02) 149-174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Samejima F. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychom Monogr Suppl 1969; 34 (04) 100
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Walker GM, Hickok G, Fridriksson J. A cognitive psychometric model for assessment of picture naming abilities in aphasia. Psychol Assess 2018; 30 (06) 809-826
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Plummer M. JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In: Hornik K, Leisch F, Zeileis A. eds. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing (DSC 2003). 2003. Accessed May 31, 2021 at: http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/Conferences/DSC-2003/
    Google Scholar
  • 66 Batchelder WH, Riefer DM. Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. Psychon Bull Rev 1999; 6 (01) 57-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Hu X, Batchelder WH. The statistical analysis of general processing tree models with the EM algorithm. Psychometrika 1994; 59 (01) 21-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Roach A, Schwartz MF, Martin N, Grewal RS, Brecher AR. The Philadelphia Naming Test: scoring and rationale. Clin Aphasiology 1996; 24: 121-133
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Schwartz MF, Dell GS, Martin N, Gahl S, Sobel P. A case-series test of the interactive two-step model of lexical access: evidence from picture naming. J Mem Lang 2006; 54 (02) 228-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Gelman A, Shirley K. Inference from simulations and monitoring convergence. In: Brooks S, Gelman A, Jones G, Meng XL. eds. Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo. CRC Press; 2011: 163-174
    Google Scholar
  • 71 Klauer KC. Hierarchical multinomial processing tree models: a latent-trait approach. Psychometrika 2010; 75 (01) 70-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Tochadse M, Halai AD, Lambon Ralph MA, Abel S. Unification of behavioural, computational and neural accounts of word production errors in post-stroke aphasia. Neuroimage Clin 2018; 18: 952-962
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Bozeat S, Lambon Ralph MA, Patterson K, Garrard P, Hodges JR. Non-verbal semantic impairment in semantic dementia. Neuropsychologia 2000; 38 (09) 1207-1215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Clogg CC, Petkova E, Haritou A. Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. Am J Sociol 1995; 100 (05) 1261-1293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Matti L, Anneli T, Martti J. Modelling anomia by the discrete two-stage word production architecture. J Neurolinguist 1998; 11 (03) 275-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Levelt WJM, Roelofs A, Meyer AS. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behav Brain Sci 1999; 22 (01) 1-38 , discussion 38–75
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Hula WD, Fergadiotis G, Swiderski AM, Silkes JP, Kellough S. Empirical evaluation of computer-adaptive alternate short forms for the assessment of anomia severity. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 63 (01) 163-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Ranganathan P, Pramesh CS, Aggarwal R. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: measures of agreement. Perspect Clin Res 2017; 8 (04) 187-191
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Jacks A, Haley KL, Bishop G, Harmon TG. Automated speech recognition in adult stroke survivors: comparing human and computer transcriptions. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2019; 71 (5-6): 286-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Fergadiotis G, Gorman K, Bedrick S. Algorithmic classification of five characteristic types of paraphasias. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2016; 25 (4S): S776-S787
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar