Lecturer's Précis - McCarthy and
Warrington (1984)
Copyright Notice: This material was
written and published in Wales by Derek J. Smith (Chartered Engineer). It forms
part of a multifile e-learning resource, and subject only to acknowledging
Derek J. Smith's rights under international copyright law to be identified as
author may be freely downloaded and printed off in single complete copies
solely for the purposes of private study and/or review. Commercial exploitation
rights are reserved. The remote hyperlinks have been selected for the academic
appropriacy of their contents; they were free of offensive and litigious
content when selected, and will be periodically checked to have remained so. Copyright © 2003-2018, Derek J. Smith.
|
First published online 10:35 GMT 11th December 2003,
Copyright Derek J. Smith (Chartered Engineer). This version [2.0 - copyright] 09:00 BST 8th July
2018.
Although this paper is reasonably self-contained, it is primarily designed to be read as a subordinate file to our e-paper on "Speech Errors, Speech Production Models, and Speech Pathology". |
McCarthy and
Warrington's (1984) "A Two-Route Model of Speech Production"
The authors begin with a description of the speech production deficits typically seen in aphasic patients, and then home in on the "two route" model of speech production first clearly expounded by Lichtheim (1885). With reference to the layout of Lichtheim's famous "house" diagram, and, using Lichtheim's own shorthand, the two routes in question are the B-M route, which conveys the main flow of willed and meaningful language production (failure of which results in what is known as a "transcortical motor aphasia"), and the A-M route, which generally bypasses the higher conceptual system, and is used in simple repetition tasks (failure of which results in what is known as a "conduction aphasia"). The authors then report two cases "in whom there was a very marked deficit in speech production in repetition tasks but whose spontaneous speech was relatively well preserved" (p464), and another "in whom the opposite pattern of deficits was observed". Here are the relevant case details .....
Case 1 - ORF, Conduction Aphasic: ORF was a 59-year-old left-handed farmer, who had suffered a right parieto-temporal haemorrhagic stroke in November 1981.
After three weeks his verbal IQ was recorded at 99, and his vocabulary and
comprehension were generally good, as was his spontaneous speech. However, he
performed extremely poorly on the digit span test, and "was quite unable
to repeat three digits forwards" (p465). He also performed weakly on
naming-from-description tasks, and had a marked deficiency"
in repeating words. The authors summarise his deficits as "typically
associated with dysfunction of the posterior areas of the dominant
hemisphere".
Case 2 - RAN, Conduction Aphasic: RAN was a 51-year-old right-handed plumber, who had suffered a left
parietal thrombotic stroke in January 1982. When tested after five weeks, he
displayed "clear word-finding difficulties" but made negligible
phonemic errors. He also suffered "a severely impaired short-term memory
and a speech production deficit in repeating single polysyllabic words in the
context of relatively preserved spontaneous speech" (p467).
Case 3 - ART, Transcortical Motor Aphasic: ART was a 58-year-old right-handed school lecturer,
who had suffered a left parietal infarct in August 1982. When tested over the
next three months, he displayed severe word finding difficulties, and had a "marked
speech production deficit". "His comprehension of written and spoken
single words was excellent and his ability to repeat was significantly better
than his ability to produce words in reading, naming, or spontaneous
speech" (p469).
Guided by these initial profiles, a number of more exploratory tests were then carried out on the three cases (although not all on all), as now summarised .....
Experiments 1 and 6 - Single Word Repetition and Reading: In Experiment 1, ORF and RAN were tested with a
carefully selected set of single word stimuli presented (a) for repetition when
spoken by the researcher, or (b) for reading out loud from a row-and-column
matrix. In Experiment 6, the same tests were carried out on ART. The stimuli
varied in frequency of use and syllable length. Here are the results for the
repetition test [HF = High-Frequency Words; LF = Low-Frequency Words]. Note the
effect of word frequency upon accuracy.
Subject |
1-Syllable |
2-Syllable |
3-Syllable |
|||
HF |
LF |
HF |
LF |
HF |
LF |
|
ORF |
90 |
66 |
73 |
33 |
70 |
20 |
RAN |
93 |
53 |
80 |
40 |
73 |
46 |
ART |
85 |
85 |
90 |
90 |
90 |
95 |
Experiment 2 - Repeating Nonsense Syllables: When required to repeat nonsense syllables ORF had severe
difficulty, but could nonetheless make same/different phonemic judgements from
one stimulus to the next. This pattern of impairment suggests that the low
frequency problems seen in Experiment 1 above cannot simply be attributed to
defective short-term memory.
Experiments 3 and 7 - Repeating Cliché Sentences: There have been many reports of automatic speech
being preserved in patients suffering with Broca's
type aphasia, back to, and including, Broca's (1861)
own patient, Leborgne. To help explain this
phenomenon, it is often suggested that clichés - multiple word phrases such as
"he put the cart before the horse" - have a single lexical entry
despite consisting of a number of separate words. Both ORF and RAN [Experiment
3] were therefore asked to repeat a carefully selected set of 40 clichés, and
both scored worse on that sort of material than with normal sentences matched
for length and complexity. ORF scored 85% on sentences, against 50% on clichés,
and RAN 45% against 18%. When the test was repeated on ART [Experiment 7], he
scored 53% on sentences and 73% on clichés, that is to say, the opposite
pattern.
Experiment 4 - Sentence Context:
ORF's repetition ability was tested with probe words either (a) as the last
word in a natural sentence, or (b) in isolation. Spoken and written versions of
the test were administered. Performance on the single word auditory condition
was worst (at 40% accuracy), followed by the sentence auditory condition (at
50% accuracy), followed by the two reading conditions
(at 65% and 63% respectively).
Experiments 5 and 8 - Enforced Semantic Processing: ORF and RAN were tested with sentence stimuli, each
one ending with a low frequency three-syllable test word, and either containing
or not containing a "nonsensible" word. The subjects had to carry out
two tasks with each sentence, namely (1) to repeat it, and (2) to indicate by
nodding or shaking their head whether they thought it made sense or not. The
second task thus forced the patients to process the test material at semantic
level. Both patients repeated the test word better in the enforced semantic
processing condition, suggesting that there are TWO phonological encoding
processes, one working on auditory inputs and one working on semantic
inputs [as shown in boxes D and C respectively in the figure below].
McCarthy and Warrington conclude as follows .....
"We
have thus shown that the locus of the speech production deficits observed in
these three cases does not arise in speech perception, comprehension, or
short-term storage. We would argue that the deficits lie in the transcoding of
information between input and output systems." (p480; italics
original)
They then put forward the following diagram as a "description of the double dissociations which we have obtained" (p481) .....
McCarthy and
Warrington's (1984) "Two-Route" Speech Production Model: Diagram (a) shows McCarthy and Warrington's
"functional model" of the speech production process. This shows two
optional routes between an input process A [top, yellow] and an output
process E [bottom, mauve]. The left hand route down the diagram transcodes
without going through the comprehension process B [top right, green], and
damage here results in conduction aphasia (typified by repetition defects).
This is therefore the pathway believed to be dysfunctional in ORF and RAN.
The right hand route down the diagram understands at B, before transcoding at
C, and damage here results in a transcortical motor aphasia (typified by
spontaneous speech defects). Technically speaking, Diagram (a) is a five-box
box-and-arrow dataflow diagram at about the second level of functional
decomposition. The master (or "level zero") diagram would have been
cognition as an unanalysed whole, fed by inputs and producing outputs, and
the first level of decomposition would have introduced three fundamental
sub-processes, namely perceptual processing, higher processing, and motor
processing. We may therefore cross-map the five processes shown in Diagram
(a) onto the three processes shown in the Lichtheim
diagram, in order to show their historical provenance, and we do this in
Diagram (b) [Lichtheim's House is the half
transparent inner triangle], and what we might therefore (by extension) term
"McCarthy and Warrington's House" is the image superimposed
thereon]. If this diagram fails to load automatically,
it may be accessed separately at |
Diagram (a) redrawn from a black-and-white original in McCarthy and Warrington (1984, p481; Figure 4). Diagram (b) ours. This combination graphic Copyright © 2003, Derek J. Smith. For instructions on how to build technically elegant DFDs, see our e-tutorial on "How to Draw Cognitive Diagrams". |