Five theories of spoken word production that differ along the discreteness-interactivity dimension are evaluated. Specifically examined is the role that cascading activation, feedback, seriality, and interaction domains play in accounting for a set of fundamental observations derived from patterns of speech errors produced by normal and brain-damaged individuals. After reviewing the evidence from normal speech errors, case studies of 3 brain-damaged individuals with acquired naming deficits are presented. The patterns these individuals exhibit provide important constraints on theories of spoken naming. With the help of computer simulations of the 5 theories, the authors evaluate the extent to which the error patterns predicted by each theory conform with the empirical facts. The results support a theory of spoken word production that, although interactive, places important restrictions on the extent and locus of interactivity.

Producing written words requires “central” cognitive processes (such as orthographic long-term and working memory) as well as more peripheral processes responsible for generating the motor actions needed for producing written words in a variety of formats (handwriting, typing, etc.). In recent years, various functional neuroimaging studies have examined the neural substrates underlying the central and peripheral processes of written word production. This study provides the first quantitative meta-analysis of these studies by applying activation likelihood estimation (ALE) methods (Turkeltaub et al., 2002). For alphabet languages, we identified 11 studies (with a total of 17 experimental contrasts) that had been designed to isolate central and/or peripheral processes of word spelling (total number of participants = 146). Three ALE meta-analyses were carried out. One involved the complete set of 17 contrasts; two others were applied to subsets of contrasts to distinguish the neural substrates of central from peripheral processes. These analyses identified a network of brain regions reliably associated with the central and peripheral processes of word spelling. Among the many significant results, is the finding that the regions with the greatest correspondence across studies were in the left inferior temporal/fusiform gyri and left inferior frontal gyrus. Furthermore, although the angular gyrus (AG) has traditionally been identified as a key site within the written word production network, none of the meta-analyses found it to be a consistent site of activation, identifying instead a region just superior/medial to the left AG in the left posterior intraparietal sulcus. These meta-analyses and the discussion of results provide a valuable foundation upon which future studies that examine the neural basis of written word production can build.

No abstract

We report on a brain-injured subject, LAT, who made phonologically plausible errors in word spelling (e.g., "bouquet" spelled as BOUKET). Although many of his errors are phonologically plausible they contained low-frequency (yet lexically correct) spellings (/ei/ spelled as ET in BOUK ET). Because these errors are phonologically plausible they do not appear to have been generated by the lexical process, yet because they contain low probability, lexically correct elements they do not appear to be have been generated by the sublexical process. We present analyses that specifically support the conclusion that many of LAT's phonologically plausible responses to word stimuli consist of the integrated output of elements generated by both the lexical and sublexical processes. This evidence constitutes strong support for the notion that lexical and sublexical processes share information during the course of spelling a familiar word.

No abstract

IntroductionTranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been recently shown to improve language outcomes in primary progressive aphasia (PPA) but most studies are small and the influence of PPA variant is unknown.MethodsThirty-six patients with PPA participated in a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind, within-subject crossover design for 15 daily sessions of stimulation coupled with written naming/spelling therapy. Outcome measures were letter accuracy of treated and untreated words immediately after and at 2 weeks and 2 months posttreatment.ResultstDCS treatment was more effective than sham: gains for treated words were maintained 2 months posttreatment; gains from tDCS also generalized to untreated words and were sustained 2 months posttreatment. Different effects were obtained for each PPA variant, with no tDCS advantage for semantic variant PPA.DiscussionThe study supports using tDCS as an adjunct to written language interventions in individuals with logopenic or nonfluent/agrammatic PPA seeking compensatory treatments in clinical settings.

This research is directed at charting the neurotopography of the component processes of the spelling system by using fMRI to identify the neural substrates that are sensitive to the factors of lexical frequency and word length. In spelling, word frequency effects index orthographic long-term memory whereas length effects, as measured by the number of letters, index orthographic working memory (grapheme buffering). Using the task of spelling to dictation in the scanner, we found a highly differentiated neural distribution of sensitivity to the factors of length and lexical frequency, with areas exhibiting sensitivity to length but not frequency and vice versa. In addition, a direct comparison with the results of a previous study [Rapp, B., & Lipka, K. The literate brain: The relationship between spelling and reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1180-1197, 2011] that used a very different spelling task yielded a converging pattern of findings regarding the neural substrates of the central components of spelling. Also, with regard to relationship between reading and spelling, we replicated previous functional neuroimaging studies that have shown overlapping regions of activation in the left posterior inferior frontal gyrus and midfusiform gyrus for word reading and spelling.

No abstract