Search

Background: In recent years some critical voices have been raised in regard to the significance of cognitive neuropsychology (CNP) to the study of brain and mind. Given the central role of language disorders in CNP research, it is time to consider the relevance of this research approach in aphasiology. Aims: We analyse the main points of criticism raised against the CNP research approach, evaluate the significance of this approach to the study of acquired language disorders, and make some suggestions concerning further development of the field. Main Contribution: The main points of criticism against CNP (reliance on single-case studies; single-minded hunt for dissociations; emptiness of theorising) have been important long-term concerns but do not take into account the fact that, during its history of circa four decades, the CNP approach has diversified. There are thus CNP studies that rely on case series analyses, focus on error analyses rather than mere dissociations, or employ computational modelling rather than the “boxes-and-arrows” models of the mental architecture. The CNP approach to cognition and its disorders is thus applicable to different research questions and theoretical stances, providing experimental rigour to single-case patient studies. With regard to clinical applications in aphasia diagnostics and treatment, the CNP approach provides a richer view on the strengths and weaknesses of a patient's cognitive-linguistic abilities. Conclusions: We believe that CNP case studies continue to be an important source of information for generating hypotheses and providing converging evidence for research on the mind and on the brain. However, there is a need for further research development especially in computational modelling of language processes, their impairments, and recovery. This research is expected to provide further benefit to clinical diagnostics and treatment of aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response by the authors of the article "Cognitive neuropsychology has been, is, and will be significant to aphasiology," is presented.

Background: Novel word learning of persons with aphasia is little studied, even though a better understanding of learning processes would inform development of effective treatment strategies. Recent evidence suggests some remaining verbal learning capacity in persons with aphasia. Long-term maintenance of newly learned active vocabulary has not been reported previously in persons with aphasia. Aims: To explore learning and long-term maintenance of novel words in persons with aphasia. Methods & Procedures: Two English-speaking males with chronic anomic aphasia and two age-matched controls were taught novel names of 20 unfamiliar objects. Half of the words were taught with semantic information (definition) and half without. Participants were instructed to learn the names. The experiment included four training sessions, one post-training test and four follow-up tests administered 1 week, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 6 months post-training. We tested explicit learning of the new names through visual confrontation naming. In addition, incidental learning of semantic information was probed over the follow-up period. Outcomes & Results: The two participants with aphasia learned 6-8 of the 20 novel names during the training. However, this new vocabulary dissipated during the 6-month follow-up. As expected, the controls showed better performance both in acquisition and in maintenance of the new vocabulary over the follow-up period. As regards the accuracy of semantic information, the aphasic participant with semantic impairment demonstrated worse incidental learning of semantic information than controls and the participant with intact lexical semantics. Conclusions: Some new vocabulary can be acquired even in chronic aphasia but the ability to spontaneously retrieve the newly learned words gradually dissipates over the weeks following learning. Our results also indicate an interaction between the level of lexical-semantic processing skills and incidental learning of new lexical-semantic knowledge in aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]