Noisy-channel language comprehension in aphasia: A Bayesian mixture modeling approach.

IF 3.2 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Rachel Ryskin, Edward Gibson, Swathi Kiran
{"title":"Noisy-channel language comprehension in aphasia: A Bayesian mixture modeling approach.","authors":"Rachel Ryskin, Edward Gibson, Swathi Kiran","doi":"10.3758/s13423-025-02639-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Individuals with \"agrammatic\" receptive aphasia have long been known to rely on semantic plausibility rather than syntactic cues when interpreting sentences. In contrast to early interpretations of this pattern as indicative of a deficit in syntactic knowledge, a recent proposal views agrammatic comprehension as a case of \"noisy-channel\" language processing with an increased expectation of noise in the input relative to healthy adults. Here, we investigate the nature of the noise model in aphasia and whether it is adapted to the statistics of the environment. We first replicate findings that a) healthy adults (N = 40) make inferences about the intended meaning of a sentence by weighing the prior probability of an intended sentence against the likelihood of a noise corruption and b) their estimate of the probability of noise increases when there are more errors in the input (manipulated via exposure sentences). We then extend prior findings that adults with chronic post-stroke aphasia (N = 28) and healthy age-matched adults (N = 19) similarly engage in noisy-channel inference during comprehension. We use a hierarchical latent mixture modeling approach to account for the fact that rates of guessing are likely to differ between healthy controls and individuals with aphasia and capture individual differences in the tendency to make inferences. We show that individuals with aphasia are more likely than healthy controls to draw noisy-channel inferences when interpreting semantically implausible sentences, even when group differences in the tendency to guess are accounted for. While healthy adults rapidly adapt their inference rates to an increase in noise in their input, whether individuals with aphasia do the same remains equivocal. Further investigation of comprehension through a noisy-channel lens holds promise for a parsimonious understanding of language processing in aphasia and may suggest potential avenues for treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":20763,"journal":{"name":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-025-02639-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Individuals with "agrammatic" receptive aphasia have long been known to rely on semantic plausibility rather than syntactic cues when interpreting sentences. In contrast to early interpretations of this pattern as indicative of a deficit in syntactic knowledge, a recent proposal views agrammatic comprehension as a case of "noisy-channel" language processing with an increased expectation of noise in the input relative to healthy adults. Here, we investigate the nature of the noise model in aphasia and whether it is adapted to the statistics of the environment. We first replicate findings that a) healthy adults (N = 40) make inferences about the intended meaning of a sentence by weighing the prior probability of an intended sentence against the likelihood of a noise corruption and b) their estimate of the probability of noise increases when there are more errors in the input (manipulated via exposure sentences). We then extend prior findings that adults with chronic post-stroke aphasia (N = 28) and healthy age-matched adults (N = 19) similarly engage in noisy-channel inference during comprehension. We use a hierarchical latent mixture modeling approach to account for the fact that rates of guessing are likely to differ between healthy controls and individuals with aphasia and capture individual differences in the tendency to make inferences. We show that individuals with aphasia are more likely than healthy controls to draw noisy-channel inferences when interpreting semantically implausible sentences, even when group differences in the tendency to guess are accounted for. While healthy adults rapidly adapt their inference rates to an increase in noise in their input, whether individuals with aphasia do the same remains equivocal. Further investigation of comprehension through a noisy-channel lens holds promise for a parsimonious understanding of language processing in aphasia and may suggest potential avenues for treatment.

失语症的噪声通道语言理解:贝叶斯混合建模方法。
长期以来,人们都知道患有“语法性”接受性失语症的人在解释句子时依赖语义合理性而不是句法线索。与早期将这种模式解释为语法知识缺陷的解释相反,最近的一项研究认为,语法理解是一种“噪声通道”语言处理的情况,相对于健康成人,输入中的噪声预期增加。在这里,我们研究失语症的噪声模型的性质,以及它是否适应环境的统计。我们首先重复了以下发现:a)健康成年人(N = 40)通过权衡预期句子的先验概率与噪声破坏的可能性来推断句子的预期意义;b)当输入中的错误更多(通过暴露句子进行操纵)时,他们对噪声概率的估计会增加。然后,我们扩展了先前的研究结果,即患有慢性中风后失语症的成年人(N = 28)和年龄匹配的健康成年人(N = 19)在理解过程中类似地参与噪声信道推断。我们使用分层潜在混合建模方法来解释这样一个事实,即猜测率在健康对照和失语症患者之间可能存在差异,并捕捉个体在推断倾向方面的差异。我们表明,失语症患者在解释语义上不合理的句子时,比健康的对照组更有可能得出噪音通道推断,即使在猜测倾向的群体差异被考虑在内。虽然健康的成年人会迅速调整他们的推理率,以适应输入噪音的增加,但失语症患者是否也会这样做,仍然是不确定的。通过噪声通道透镜对理解的进一步研究有望对失语症的语言处理过程有一个简明的理解,并可能为治疗失语症提供潜在的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.90%
发文量
165
期刊介绍: The journal provides coverage spanning a broad spectrum of topics in all areas of experimental psychology. The journal is primarily dedicated to the publication of theory and review articles and brief reports of outstanding experimental work. Areas of coverage include cognitive psychology broadly construed, including but not limited to action, perception, & attention, language, learning & memory, reasoning & decision making, and social cognition. We welcome submissions that approach these issues from a variety of perspectives such as behavioral measurements, comparative psychology, development, evolutionary psychology, genetics, neuroscience, and quantitative/computational modeling. We particularly encourage integrative research that crosses traditional content and methodological boundaries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信