Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Review Article
Chips, cheeks and carols: A review of recurrent perseveration
in speech production
Melanie S. Moses
The University of Sydney, and Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Lyndsey A. Nickels
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Christine Sheard
The University of Sydney, Australia
Background: Recurrent perseverative errors involve either the complete or partial
repetition of a prior response to a new stimulus. They are commonly produced by
speakers with aphasia and are difficult to remediate.
Aims: This paper reviews research on recurrent perseverative errors with a focus on
different theoretical accounts.
Main Contribution: Comparisons are drawn between the literature on perseveration in
the non-language-impaired population and in aphasia. In addition, theories that relate
perseverative errors to underlying levels of language processing breakdown are
described and contrasted with those that propose that they are primarily caused by
impaired inhibition of recent memory traces.
Conclusions: Most recent studies have demonstrated systematic links between patterns
of recurrent perseverative errors and underlying levels of language-processing breakdown in individual speakers with aphasia. For the comprehensive investigation of
recurrent perseverative errors the examination of both whole word (i.e., total) and
phonological (i.e., blended) perseverations is important, as is the use of case series rather
than group designs.
RECURRENT PERSEVERATION
961
this example, Mavis, a woman with aphasia, was attempting to describe the Cookie
Theft Picture from the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (Goodglass &
Kaplan, 1983).
This is a chi .. a chip, with a collar with a chee collar and this is a rack and a rack, a car
and a car and a carol. What do you call that? And a carol . and hes got a cheek and a
chi chi cheek.
962
RECURRENT PERSEVERATION
963
the initial inhibition of persistent activation, which serves to prevent the immediate
reselection of a prior target.
Wheeldon and Monsell (1994) demonstrated that naming semantically related
primes slowed naming of a target picture presented after two intervening (unrelated)
items (i.e., at a lag of 2). However, responses were slowed to a lesser degree when
participants named pictures immediately preceded by the semantically related prime
(i.e., at lag 0). Wheeldon and Monsell proposed that prior naming of a semantically
related prime has both a facilitatory and inhibitory effect on subsequent picture
naming but the time course of each effect differs. They suggested that due to overlap
of conceptual features between prime and target, the semantically related prime
initially facilitates production of the immediately following item. However, this
facilitatory effect is very brief and rapidly decays, after which the semantically
related prime actively competes and impairs the subsequent naming of a picture.
While Vitkovitch and Humphreys (1991) proposed that the locus of competition
from the prime is in the links between semantics and phonology, Wheeldon and
Monsell (1994) proposed that the locus of the competition is more specifically at the
level of lemma selection.1 Hence, while the studies by Wheeldon and Monsell (1994)
and Vitkovitch and Humphreys (1991) both found less interference from a
semantically related prime at lag 0 (few perseverative errors and reduced slowing
of reaction time), their accounts differed. Wheeldon and Monsell (1994) inferred an
additional short-lasting facilitatory effect which cancels out some of the
competition from the semantically related prime, while Vitkovitch and Humphreys
(1991) argued for post-selection inhibition (see Dell, 1986, for a similar account).
Although the studies discussed so far have observed effects of priming by
semantically related items on subsequent picture naming, a few studies have also
examined these effects when participants perform other tasks (Arbuthnott, 1996;
Campbell & Clark, 1989). Campbell and Clark (1989) examined a group of
unimpaired participants answering multiplication problems under response deadlines. They found that participants made errors involving the reproduction of
answers to preceding trials up to a lag of 10. After this, the effect (referred to as error
priming, Campbell & Clark, 1989, p. 920) was less consistent. Campbell and Clark
found that error priming from the immediately preceding trial was significantly
below chance rate. Like Vitkovitch and Humphreys (1991), Campbell and Clark
suggested that this was due to a short-lasting self-inhibitory effect, which counteracted the competition from previous trials to current trials, to avoid immediate
reselection (see also Arbuthnott, 1996). They concluded that both competitive
(referred to as excitatory) and self-inhibitory factors differentially influence the
overall amount of activation that is received from prior trials. Like Wheeldon and
Monsell (1994), Campbell and Clark (1989) proposed that the competitive influences
of the prime have a differential effect on retrieval of the target over a longer lag
period. They hypothesised that this process probably underlies error priming in other
tasks that require retrieval from associative or semantic memory.
An automatic self-inhibitory process was also proposed by Arbuthnott (1996) to
explain why unimpaired participants did not perseverate on the immediately
preceding solutions to mathematical problems. Answers were facilitated (in speed
1
Wheeldon and Monsell (1994) used the term lemma to refer to a level of lexical-semantic and
syntactic information intervening between concepts and phonological forms (Levelt, 1989). The brief
facilitatory effect was argued to be localised at a semantic level.
964
RECURRENT PERSEVERATION
965
selected node) before gradually decaying over time. Schwartz et al. (1994) proposed
that a previously selected unit is a source for perseveration in the interval after the
rebound has occurred but before the excitation has died away. Although competition
is said to be particularly strong in the case of semantically related words, activation
from competing nodes is proposed to overcome that of target representations at
any stage in word production when language-processing efficiency is compromised
(Dell et al., 1997). Cohen and Dehaene (1998) also discussed how perseverative
errors can occur in normal language production due to compromised language
processing and normally existing amounts of persistent activation at any level of
language processing. This results in perseveration of either words or phonological
fragments of previous words. That activation can persist at a phonological
encoding level, as at any other processing level, was also acknowledged by Levelt
(1989). In contrast to proposals from priming studies, perseverative errors are
argued to occur at any stage in word production where language processing is
compromised, enabling normally existing amounts of persisting activation to
overcome that of a weakened target representation (Cohen & Dehaene, 1998; Dell,
1986, Dell et al., 1997).
Consistent with these accounts, Moses, Nickels, and Sheard (2004a) elicited
perseverative errors in 44 unimpaired participants in reading aloud and picture
naming under speeded response deadlines. Different patterns of perseverative errors
were produced across these tasks, reflecting each tasks language-processing
demands and the overall patterns of non-perseverative errors produced in each
task. Moses et al. found that the majority of non-perseverative and perseverative
errors produced in picture naming were semantically related to their targets,
reflecting lexical processing difficulties. In contrast, in reading aloud most nonperseverative and perseverative errors were phonologically related to their targets,
reflecting phonological encoding difficulties. It was also found that participants
produced greater proportions of perseverative relative to non-perseverative errors in
picture naming, the task eliciting most errors overall compared to reading aloud.
Moses et al. (2004a) argued that the perseverative errors reflected both the level and
degree to which language-processing efficiency was compromised by the response
deadline in each task. They argued that the role of semantics in the production of
perseverative errors has previously been overestimated, proposing that future studies
should attempt to induce various levels of language-processing impairment to more
accurately reflect the variety of impairment seen in speakers with aphasia.
966
RECURRENT PERSEVERATION
967
968
RECURRENT PERSEVERATION
969
Summary
Early accounts proposed that perseveration in aphasia was primarily caused by a
problem inhibiting prior activation, irrespective of task or modalities. However,
there is a growing body of literature providing evidence of more specific links to
3
As Martin et al. (1998) only examined lexical errors, their conclusions are limited to levels of lexical
representation.
970
RECURRENT PERSEVERATION
971
review, these errors have been referred to as blended perseverative errors, consistent
with research conducted by Santo-Pietro and Rigrodsky (1982, 1986). The exclusion
of blended perseverations in previous studies has, no doubt, been partly due to the
difficulty in defining and tracing the source of these errors, which is often less
obvious than in the case of total perseverative errors (Martin et al., 1998). While
advocating for their inclusion in analysis, Cohen and Dehaene (1998) recognised that
the identification of blended perseverative errors may not always be evident on
subjective inspection of the data. However, in an attempt to produce a detailed and
rigorous analysis of the blended perseverative errors produced by their group of
participants, Santo-Pietro and Rigrodsky (1982) used strict coding criteria shown
below (Santo-Pietro & Rigrodsky, 1982, p. 187):
a) Initial consonant repetition occurring within 5 responses of the original utterance
b) Final consonant repetition occurring within 3 responses of the original
c) Vowel repetition occurring on the consecutive responses.
972
REFERENCES
Albert, M. L., & Sandson, J. (1986). Perseveration in aphasia. Cortex, 22, 103115.
Allison, R. S., & Hurwitz, L. J. (1967). On perseveration in aphasics. Brain, 90, 429448.
Arbuthnott, K. D. (1996). To repeat or not to repeat: Repetition facilitation and inhibition in sequential
retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 261283.
Buckingham, H. W. Jr. (1980). On correlating aphasic errors with slips of the tongue. Applied Linguistics,
1, 199220.
RECURRENT PERSEVERATION
973
974
Neisser, A. (1895). Krankenvorstellung (Fall von Asymbolie). Allgemeine Zeitschrift Fur Psychiatrie, 51,
10161021.
Papagno, C., & Basso, A. (1996). Perseveration in two aphasic patients. Cortex, 32, 6782.
Ramage, A., Bayles, R., Helm-Estabrooks, N., & Cruz, R. (1999). Frequency of perseveration in normal
subjects. Brain and Language, 66, 329340.
Saffran, E. M. (1982). Neuropsychological approaches to the study of language. British Journal of
Psychology, 73, 317337.
Sandson, J., & Albert, M. L. (1984). Varieties of perseveration. Neuropsychologia, 22, 715732.
Sandson, J., & Albert, M. L. (1987). Perseveration in behavioural neurology, Neurology, 37, 17361741.
Santo-Pietro, M. J., & Rigrodsky, S. (1982). The effects of temporal and semantic conditions on the
occurrence of the error response of perseveration in adult aphasics. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 25, 184192.
Santo-Pietro, M. J., & Rigrodsky, S. (1986). Patterns of oral-verbal perseveration in adult aphasia. Brain
and Language, 29, 117.
Schwartz, M. F., Saffran, E. M., Bloch, D. E., & Dell, G. (1994). Disordered speech production in aphasic
and normal speakers. Brain and Language, 47, 5288.
Vitkovitch, M., & Humphreys, G. W. (1991). Perseverant responding in speeded naming of pictures: Its in
the links. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17, 664680.
Vitkovitch, M., Humphreys, G. W., & Lloyd-Jones, T. (1993). On naming a giraffe a zebra: Picture
naming errors across different object categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory and Cognition, 19, 243259.
Vitkovitch, M., Kirby, A., & Tyrrell, L. (1996). Patterns of excitation and inhibition in picture naming.
Visual Cognition, 3, 6180.
Vitkovitch, M., & Rutter, C. (2000). The effects of response stimuli interval on error priming in sequential
object naming. Visual Cognition, 7, 645670.
Wepman, J. M. (1972). Aphasia therapy: A new look. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 37,
203214.
Wheeldon, L. R., & Monsell, S. (1994). Inhibition of spoken word production by priming a semantic
competitor. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 332356.
Yamadori, A. (1981). Verbal Perseveration in aphasia, Neuropsychologia, 19, 591594.