The Complexity Hypothesis:
Research and Ideas for Aphasia Treatment
Syntactic Complexity
Cynthia K. Thompson
Ralph and Jean Sundin Professor
Departments of Communication Sciences and Disorders and Neurology
Cognitive Neurology and Alzheimer’s Disease Center
Northwestern University
Supported by the NIH
R01DC01947-15; R01DC00723-04
Complexity Account of Treatment Efficacy
(CATE)
• Top-down training
• Training complex linguistic structures results in
generalization to less complex structures within
the same linguistic domain
•Computer simulations (Plaut, 1996)
• English as Second Language (Eckman, 1988)
• Phonological development (Gierut, 1998, 1999, 2007)
•Lexical semantics (Kiran& Thompson, 2003)
• Apraxia of speech (Maas et al., 2004)
• Phonological dyslexia (Riley & Thompson, 2011)
•Sentence structure (Thompson et al., 1998, 2003, 2010)
Thompson (2007); Thompson, Shapiro, Kiran, &Sobecks (2003)
Syntactic (Structural) Complexity
• Canonicity (word order)
• Distance between critical elements
• Number of verbs in a sentence; number of
propositions
Verb Argument Structure Complexity
• Verbs: core of sentence
• Verbs encode argument structure
– Participant roles; who did what to whom
• Three argument: e.g., “give, donate, put”
– The chorus donated the recordings to the library.
• Two argument: e.g., “fix, follow, carry”
– The coach carried the equipment.
• One argument: e.g., “cry, walk, yawn”
– The baby cried.
Syntactic (Structural) Complexity
Canonical (simple)
Noncanonical (complex)
It was the artist who chased the thief.
It was the artist who the thief chased.
Who chased the thief?
Who did the artist chase?
Wh- (A’) Movement: object cleft structures
and object wh-questions
It was the artist who the thief chased.
The thief chased the artist.
Adger, 2003; Chomsky 1986; 1995 and others
The syntax of noncanonical sentences: Wh(A’) Movement: object wh-questions
theme
The thief chased the artist.
agent
1. Derived from underlyingly representation
Adger, 2003; Chomsky 1986; 1995 and others
The syntax of noncanonical sentences: Wh(A’) Movement: object wh-questions
theme
The thief chased_who_?
agent
1. Derived from underlyingly representation
2. Wh-element replaces theme object
The syntax of noncanonical sentences: Wh(A’) Movement: object wh-questions
theme
Whodid the thief chase_trace_?
agent
1.
2.
3.
4.
Derived from underlyingly representation
Wh-element replaces theme object
Wh- element moves from a post-verbal position
Leave behind atrace at the gap site
CP
C’
Specifier
Who(i)
IP
Complementizer
I’
did(j)
Specifier
VP
Inflection
the thief
t(j)
V
NP
chased
t(i)
Who(i)did(j)the thief t(j)chase t(i)?
The syntax of noncanonical sentences: Wh(A’) Movement: object clefts
theme
It wasthe thief who the artist chased_trace_
agent
IP
I’
SPEC
VP
It
INFL
was
V’
NP
e
V
CP
N
t
C’
Alana (j)
SPEC
who(i)(j)
COMP
IP
I’
SPEC
VP
Object Cleft
Zack
INFL
V’
kissed
t
V
NP
t
t(i)
Comprehension (and production) of
complex syntax (Caplan & Hildebrandt, 1998;
Caramazza & Zurif, 1976; Grodzinsky 2000; Saffran et
al., 1980; Thompson et al., 1995 and others)
Production of verbs (compared to
nouns)(Berndt et al., 1997; Kim &
Thompson, 2000, 2004; Miceli et al., 1984; 1988;
Zingeser & Berndt, 1990)
Production of grammatical
Kussmaul (1877)
morphology (Arabatzi & Edwards, 2000, 2002;
Pick (1913)
Bastiannse 1995; Bastiannse & Thompson, 2002;
Friedman & Grodzinsky, 1997; Miceli &
Caramazza, 1988; Thompson et al., 2002)
Northwestern Assessment of Verbs and
Sentences (NAVS)
Canonical
Actives
The dog watched the cat.
Subj-Wh Who is watching the cat?
SubjRel There’s the dog who is watching the cat.
Noncanonical
Passives The cat was watched by the dog.
Obj-Wh Who is the dog watching?
ObjRel It’s the cat who the dog is watching.
Sentence Comprehension Test (SCT)
int to: It was the bride who the groom carried.
Sentence Production Test (SPT)
The woman was saved by the man.
120
Production
Comprehension
*
100
*
80
60
NFNonfluent
40
F Fluent
20
0
SPPT-canonical
Aphasia Type
SPPT-noncanonical
SCT-canonical
SCT-noncanonical
Number
Years PostOnset (M)
Age
(M)
Education
(yrs) (M)
WAB AQ
(M)
Non-Fluent
59 (15 m)
3.84
62
17
77.74
Fluent
57 (18 m)
3.72
64
16
69.8
(Caplan& Hildebrandt, l998; Caramazza&Zurif, 1976; Grodzinsky 2000;
Saffran et al., 1980; Thompson et al., 1995, in press; and others)
http://www.communication.northwestern.edu/dep
artments/csd/research/aphasia/projects.php
Training Noncanonical Sentences
Treatment of Underlying Forms (TUF)
Object Cleft: It was the man who the woman kissed.
kissed
theman
thewoma
n
thewoma
theman
n
kissed
It
was
the
woman
kissed
the
man
who
was
It
the
man
wh
o
the
woman
kissed
It
was
the
man
wh
o
the
woman
kissed
Results
Wh- and NP-Movement
100
80
60
Object Cleft
40
Object-Wh
20
0
1 3
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
100
80
60
Subject Raising
40
Passives
20
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(Ballard & Thompson 1999; Jacobs & Thompson 2000; Thompson & Shapiro, l994;
U of I (2006)Thompson et al., l993; Thompson et al. 1997).
Prominent Generalization Pattern
Complexity
It was the senator who the reporter attacked ___.
Who did the reporter attack ___.
(Thompson et al., 1998; Thompson et al., 2003; Thompson et al., 2010)
Thompson, Shapiro, Kiran, &Sobecks (2003).
Journal of Speech, Language, Hearing Research
Thompson, Shapiro, Kiran, & Sobecks (2003).
Journal of Speech, Language, Hearing Research
Sentactics
Computer Automated Complex Sentence
Treatment
Target: It was the man who(m) the woman saved.
Thompson, Holland, Choy, & Cole (2010).
Aphasiology
Thematic Role Training: Simple Active Sentence
Target: It was the man who(m) the woman saved.
Complex Sentence Building
Sentence Constituent Movement
Thompson, Holland, Choy, & Cole (2010).
Aphasiology
Verb Argument Structure Complexity
Argument Structure Complexity
Hypothesis (ASCH)
1. Verbs with complex argument structure are more
difficult for agrammatic aphasic individuals to produce
as compared to those with less complex lexical entries
2. Complexity encompasses
1. the number of θ-roles entailed within the verb’s lexical
entry
2. type of argument structure information contained within
the verb’s lexical entry
Thompson (2003). Journal of Neurolinguistics
Northwestern Assessment of Verbs and
Sentences: Verb Naming Test
One- two- and three-argument verbs
Video Clips of One- and Two-Argument
Verbs
2 sec. video naming
OneArgument
TwoArgument
Thompson, Riley, Meltzer-Asscher, den Ouden, &Lukic (submitted)
Production by Number of θ-roles
Kim & Thompson, 2000; 2004; Thompson et al., 1997
• Alzheimer’s Disease -- no
argument structure
hierarchy
• Agrammatic aphasic -argument structure
hierarchy
1-arg >2-arg > 3-arg
(deBlesser&Kauschke, 2003; Dragoy&Batiaanse, 2010; Jonkers&Bastiaanse, 1996; Kiss
2000; Luzzatti et al. 2002; Thompson et al., in press)
Approaches to Verb Treatment
• Word-level approaches
– Strengthening of semantic and/or phonological
associations/access
(e.g. Marshall et al., 1998; Raymer& Ellsworth, 2002; Wambaugh et al., 2002, 2004;
Fink et al., 1992; Conroy et al., 2009; Raymer et al., 2007; Rodriguez et al., 2006)
• Sentence context approaches
– Training verbs in simple active sentences
(e.g. Bastiaanse et al., 2006; Conroy et al., 2009; Edwards & Tucker, 2006; Fink et
al., 1997; Reichman-Novak &Rochon, 1997)
– Sometimes emphasizing argument structure
(Kim et al. 2007; Webster et al. 2005; Marshall et al. 1997; Schneider &
Thompson, 2003; Edmonds, Nadeau, &Kiran, 2009)
See Faroqi-Shah &Thompson (in press). In: Bastiaanse& Thompson
(Eds.) Perspectives on Agrammatism. Psychology Pressss
Results of Verb Treatment Studies
• Improved production of trained items
• Little or no generalization to untrained verbs
• However:
– Training of 3-argument verbs improves untrained
3-argument verbs (Marshall et al. 1997)
– Training argument structure improves sentence
production (Edmonds, Nadeau &Kiran, 2009; Kim
et al. 2007; Schneider & Thompson, 2003)
See Faroqi-Shah &Thompson (in press). In: Bastiaanse&
Thompson (Eds.) Perspectives on Agrammatism. Psychology Press
Training Verbs in Argument Structure
Context
• Train production of three-argument verbs
• Test generalized production of one- and twoargument verbs
• CATE (Thompson et al., 2003)
• ASCH (Thompson, 2003)
Thompson, Riley, Meltzer-Asscher, den Ouden, &Lukic (under review)
Treatment
• Stimuli
– Active sentences and
corresponding pictures
– Sentence template
• Procedure
– Identify arguments
– Name action
– Thematic role training, with
word cards
the apple
is giving
To the teacher
the boy
Treatment
the apple
is giving
To the teacher
the boy
Treatment
the boy
is giving
the apple
To the teacher
Behavioral Results
• Treated, but not
control, participants
improved
• Verb naming
• Sentence production
• Argument structure
production
• Generalization to
untrained verbs and
sentences
Naming
Sentence
Production
Arg.
StxProduction
Conclusions and Clinical Implications
• Training complex sentences results in
generalization to less complex, linguistically
related structures
• Training verbs with greater argument
structure density (in sentence contexts)
results in generalization to verbs (and
sentences) with simpler argument structure
Conclusions and Clinical Implications
• Testing verb and sentence deficits
– Northwestern Assessment of Verbs and Sentences
– Available by the end of the year
• Treatment of verb and sentence deficits
consider
– Syntactic complexity
• Generalization can be expected to less complex sentences
that are linguistically related
– Verb argument structure
• Generalization can be expected to verbs with less complex
argument structure
– Materials available at:
www.communication.northwestern.edu/departments/c
sd/research/aphasia/
Aphasia and Neurolinguistics Research Laboratory
Northwestern University
http://www.communication.northwestern.edu/csd/research/aphasia/
• Principal Investigator
Cynthia K. Thompson, Ph.D.
• Postdoctoral Fellows
Jennifer Mack, Ph.D.
Aya Meltzer-Asscher, Ph.D.
Ellyn Riley, Ph.D.
• Doctoral candidates
Soojin Cho
Jyeon Lee
• Doctoral students
Eduardo Europa
Chien Hsu
SladjanaLukic
Julia Schuchard
• Research Staff
NIH R01DC01948, R01DC007213,
R01DC008899, R21DC010036
Mary Cosic
Sarah Dove
Ted Jenkins
Additional Acknowledgements
Contributors to the work presented
Collaborators
Ron Cole
Susan Edwards
Audrey Holland
M. MarselMesulamr
Lewis P. Shapiro
David Swinney
Wayne Ward
Sandra Weintraub
Doctoral
Students/Research
Assistants
Jirrie Ballard
JungWon (Janet) Choy
Naomi Hashimoto
Beverly J. Jacobs
Mikyong Kim
SwathiKiran
Sandra Schneider
YasmeenFaroqi-Shah
Post Doctoral Fellows
BornaBonakdarpour
Dirk den Ouden
Michael Walsh Dickey
Stephen Fix
Miseon Lee
Lisa Milman
Thank you