Suzanne M. Miller, PhD, CCC/SLP
Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater MA
American Speech-Hearing-Language Association Annual Convention
San Diego CA, November 17, 2011
Sentence Recall:

Involves automatic linguistic processes and
attentionally limited working memory
 Jeffries, Ralph & Baddeley (2004)

Sentence recall constrained by:
 lexical-level representations (i.e., naming)
 syntactic and semantic representations of the
overall meaning of the sentence
 working memory
 Jeffries, et al, (2004)
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
2
Sentence Recall:
Sentence recall involves the immediate repetition of
auditory sentences (Archibold & Joanisse, 2009).
Sentence imitation tasks are included as subtests in
most adult & pediatric empirical language assessment
measures:
Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination-3 (Goodglass,
Kaplan & Baressi, 2000)
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–4 (CELF4, Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003)
Clinical marker for SLI with sensitivity & specificity at
90% and 85% respectively (Conti-Ramsden, Botting &
Faragher, 2001)
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic
factors influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
3
Working Memory


One must “keep in mind” for some time, an
object or event before executing whatever
action is necessary to carry out the memory
task.
This requires an active “working” memory
system (Aboitiz & Garcia 1997).
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
4
Components of Working Memory (WM):


Baddeley (1996) conceived working memory as a
short-term memory system involved in tasks that
require simultaneous storage and manipulation of
incoming information.
Underlying working memory is a "central executive"
and a collection of modular sensory processing
systems:
◦ phonological loop
◦ visual-spatial sketchpad
◦ episodic buffer
 Baddeley, (1996)
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
5


Central Executive component of working memory is
responsible for:
controlling flow of information through working
memory
controlling actions
involved in planning and goal-directed behaviors
The central executive component of WM is
therefore regarded as the integrator and controller
of actions and activities.
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
6


WM has been implicated in a broad range of
linguistic functions (Cohen-Mimran & Sapir 2007;
De Beni, Borella, & Carretti, 2007; Qualls & Harris,
2003; Hungerford & Gonyo, 2007).
WM operates in conjunction with other
neurocognitive systems.
◦ “working memory is strongly related to the
formation of concepts and ideas and to our
capacity to think” (Aboitiz & Garcia 1997).
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic
factors influencing sentence recall in
normal adults
7
Cognitive Functions & Normal Aging:

Investigations of older adults have reported an agerelated decline in many higher-order cognitive
functions including:
WM capacity: Implicated in a broad range of linguistic
functions including:
 Reading comprehension (Cohen-Mimran & Sapir 2007;
De Beni, Borella, & Carretti, 2007)
 Comprehension of figurative language (Qualls & Harris,
2003)
 Language variables (Hungerford & Gonyo, 2007)
 Generative syntax (Kemper, 1987b; Miller, 2001;
Miller, et al, 2001)
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
8
Age-related changes in central executive
function: (Miller, 2001; Miller, et al., 2009; Fisk &
Sharp, 2004; Kramer, Hahn, & Gopher, D.,1999)
Age-related changes in language functions:
Sentence recall (Kemper, 1987b; Backman &
Nilsson,1985; Gilchrist, Cowan, & Naveh-Benjamin,
2008)
Naming abilities (Au, Joung, Nicholas, Obler, Kass &
Albert, 1995; Barresi, 1996; Nicholas, Obler, Albert,
& Goodglass,1985)
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
9

While there is general agreement that sentence
recall declines with age, an age-related decline in
working memory capacity, measured in chunks,
was suggested to account for deficits seen in
sentence recall tasks performed by normal adults
(Gilchrist, Cowan, & Naveh-Benjamin, 2008).
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
10
Baddeley, Hitch & Allen (2009) suggested that executive
control processes were not crucial for their sentence
repetition task.
Executive control processes include:
 Goal formulation
 Goal-directed behavior (vanDijk, 1980; Nicholas, Sinotte, &
Helm-Estabrooks, 2005)
 Attention (sustained, selective, alternating, inhibition, planning,
monitoring & coding information (Smith & Jonides, 1998)

Age effects:
 Executive control processes (Kramer, Hahn, & Gopher, 1999).
 Executive function (Souchay & Isingrini, 2004)
 RNG task performance (Van der Linden, Beerten, & Pesenti,
1998).
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
11

However, sparse studies regarding:
◦ A possible relationship between central executive
component of WM & sentence recall
◦ Sentence recall that considers the effects of
naming abilities (semantic functions)
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
12

Purpose of the study:
◦ The purpose of the study was to explore
the effects of




age
WM capacity
central executive of WM
word retrieval abilities
◦ on a sentence recall task in three groups
of normal adults.
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
13


Method: The study was designed as a
prospective, nonrandomized, cross-sectional
investigation.
Participants: Three groups of 20 healthy
normal adults all recruited from the
community-at-large, participated in this
study.
◦ 25-35 years of age
◦ 50-60 years of age
◦ 75-85 years of age
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
14

Language Measures:
◦ Boston Naming Test -Shortened Version (BNT-SV)
(Williams, Mack & Henderson, 1989)
◦ Sentence recall task (reported by Kemper,1986):
 16 syntactically complex sentences, 6-9 words in
length
 Clauses were formed by expansion of the predicate.
 (Ex: “I like baking ginger cookies for my grandchildren.”)
 Scoring followed Kemper’s method:
 Verbatim repetitions of grammatical stimuli preserving
both semantic content & syntactic form
 Scored “accurate” or “inaccurate”. Error analysis was not
performed.
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
15
Experimental Measures:
Random number generation task: assesses the central
executive WM (Towse & Neil, 2000).
1.
◦ 50 number sequences generated in random order
◦ Three indices were derived for random number
generation:
 The RgCalc, a computer software analysis program
designed to quantify order in response sequences
(Towse & Neil, 2000) was utilized to obtain these
indices:
 a) RNG (Index of randomness): Measures randomness
◦
(Towse, 1998; Towse & Neil, 1998).
 b) R (Index of informational redundancy): Measures
informational redundancy (Towse & Neil,1998).
 c) RepGap (Repetition Gap): Measure of repetition
performance reflecting the distribution of distances
between items repeated (Towse & Neil, 1998).
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
16
Experimental Measures:
2. n-back lag task (Kwong-See & Ryan, 1995).
Assesses working memory capacity:
 Participants given list of monosyllabic 4-6 unrelated
words
 Asked to repeat word just heard, then repeat the
word heard one back (Lag 1), two back (Lag 2), etc.
 “lag score” computed - Average of 4 conditions
(% correct) (Miller, et al., 2001).
◦ Recent investigation of the convergent validity of the
n-back task suggests that it is significantly correlated
with the Trail Making Test Part A (a neuropsychological
assessment measure of processing speed). (Miller, Price,
Okun, et al, 2009).
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
17
Statistical Analyses: Performed with SPSS
18.0.
◦ Pearson Product-Moment Correlation
◦ Univariate Analysis of Variance
◦ One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
◦ Post Hoc Analyses:
 Tukey HSD
 Assumptions performed with Type I error
rate set at p =.05.
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
18
Results:
 Pearson Product-Moment Correlational Analysis of Sentence
Recall for Total Sample:
 Significant negative correlations:
 Group: (r = -360, p = .005)
 R (Redundancy): (r = -.488, p =.000)
 Significant positive correlations:
 RepGap: (r = .324, p = .012)
 Lagscore (WM capacity): (r =.305, p = .018)
 Naming: (r = .601, p = .000)
 Additionally: Pearson Product-Moment Correlational
Analysis of Naming for Total Sample:
 Group: (r = -.478, p=.000)
 RNG (Index of Randomness): (r = -.388, p = .002)
 Lagscore: (r = .373, p = .003)
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
19
Univariate Analysis of Variance:
 Dependent Variable: Sentence Repetition task score
 Three factors: Group membership
 Independent Variables:
◦ Index of Informational Redundancy
◦ Index of Randomness
◦ Repetition Gap
◦ Boston Naming Test score
◦ n-back lag score (WM capacity measure)
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
20
RESULTS:
1. Univariate Analysis of Variance: (In order to examine the data
for interactions among groups & effects of covariates)
Tests of Between-Subject Effects Significant for:
 RNG (Index of Randomness): (F(1,59) = 4.258, p = .044)
 BNT score: (F(1,59) = 17.288, p = .000)
The interaction (main) effects of one index of the central
executive of WM – the Index of Randomness – and Naming
made the only significant contributions to the model.
Thus, for the model, the data revealed that Index of
Randomness & Naming served as a significant predictors of
sentence recall abilities in normal adults.
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
21
One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
 Sentence Recall by Group:
Test of Between Groups Significant:
(F(2,57) = 6.600, p = .003)
 A significant age-effect was found for
sentence recall.
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
22

Post Hoc Analyses: Comparison of mean scores on
the Sentence Recall Task among the 3 groups:
◦ In order to ascertain which group contributed most to
the obtained difference, Tukey’s HSD test utilized:
 Significance level: .05
◦ No significant difference between Group 1 & 2
(p =.966)
◦ Significant difference between Group 1 & 3 (p =.011)
◦ Significant difference between Group 2 & 3 (p =.005)
◦ Group 3 (75 – 85 yr olds) made the most significant
impact on sentence recall.
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
23
DISCUSSION:
 The present study sought to explore the
relationship and possible predictive value of
measures of WM capacity, central executive
component of WM, & naming to sentence recall
abilities in a 3 groups of normal adults.
 The findings support conclusions from Jeffries et
al. (2004), that sentence recall involves automatic
linguistic processes (i.e., naming).
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
24
DISCUSSION:
 Additionally, the findings from this study indicated
that both linguistic as well as cognitive factors
influenced the younger and older adults’ sentence
recall abilities.
 Normal adults’ sentence recall relied on the
functions of:
the central executive of WM
word retrieval abilities.
 Additionally, there was a significant age effect for
adults’ sentence recall.
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
25
DISCUSSION – COGNITIVE FACTORS:
 The results of this study indicated that the index of
randomness was a significant predictor of sentence recall in
the normal adults in our study.


The random generation of numbers task appears to represent
a significant level of difficulty resulting in its predictive value
regarding sentence repetition.
The demand that the generation of sequences be random
requires the constant intervention of a supervisory attentional
control system (the central executive) to plan and monitor
ongoing productions (Baddeley, 1996).
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
26
DISCUSSION – COGNITIVE FACTORS:
 Specifically, the ability to attend to, conceptualize
and generate a plan to repeat multi-clause
sentences can be predicted by the functional
integrity of the central executive component of
working memory in normal adults.
DISCUSSION – LINGUISTIC FACTORS:
 The significant positive correlation and predictive
value of naming abilities to sentence repetition in
our sample of normal adults suggests that the
integrity of word retrieval abilities were also central
to the accuracy of the sentence repetition task.
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
27
Limitation of the study:
A larger number of participants would
serve to better define control processes
in older adults by providing more
statistical power to the data analyses.
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
28

Conclusion:
◦ The data have contributed to the corpus of
information regarding the role of planning in
adults’ sentence recall abilities.
◦ The data have also contributed new information
regarding the role of naming abilities with
respect to sentence recall.
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
29



In conclusion, the findings of the present study
served to elucidate our current understanding of
adults’ cognitive-linguistic functioning.
Specifically, our findings suggest that sentence
recall relies on the central executive of WM as well
as adults’ word retrieval abilities.
Any discussion of adults sentence recall abilities
should take these variables into consideration.
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
30
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grateful to the participants in this
study for their generosity of time and energy.
Thank you to Patricia Emery and Sandra Ciocci for
editorial assistance.
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
31
References:
Aboitiz, F., & Garcia, RV. (1997). The evolutionary origin of the language areas in the human
brain. A neuroanatomical perspective. Brain Research Reviews 25; 381-396.
Archibald, L.M. D., & Joanisse, M.F., (2009). On the sensitivity and specificity of nonword
repetition and sentence recall to language and memory impairments in children. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, Vol. 52, 899–914.
Au, R., Joung, P., Nicholas, M., Obler, L. K., Kass, R., & Albert, M. L. (1995). Naming ability across
the lifespan. Aging and Cognition, 2, 300-311.
Baddeley, A. D. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology. Vol 49 A(1) 5-28.
Baddeley, A. D., Hitch, G.J., & Allen, R.J. (2009). Working memory and binding in sentence recall.
Journal of Memory and Language 61 (2009) 438–456.
Barresi, B. (1996). Proper name recall in older and younger adults: The contributions of word
uniqueness and reported strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Emerson College,
Boston.
Bowles, N. L., & Poon, L. W. (1985). Aging and retrieval of words in semantic memory. Journal of
Gerontology, 40, 71-77.
Cohen-Mimran R., Sapir S. (2007). Deficits in working memory in young adults with reading J
Commun Disord.40(2):168-83.
Conti-Ramsden, G., Botting, N., & Faragher, B. (2001). Psycholinguistic markers of specific
language impairment. J. Child Psychology & Psychiatry, Vol.42(6), 741-748.
De Beni, R., Borella E., Carretti B. (2007). Reading Comprehension in Aging: The Role of Working
Memory and Metacomprehension. Aging, Neuropsychology & Cognition, Vol. 14(2),
189-212.
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
32
References:
DeDe, G., Caplan, D., Kemtes, K., Waters G. (2004). The Relationship Between Age, Verbal
Working Memory, and Language Comprehension. Psychology and Aging 19, No. 4,
601–616.
Dobbs, AR, Rule, BG (1989). Adult age differences in working memory. Psychology and
aging, 4, 500-503.
Fisk, JE, Sharp, CA (2004). Age-related impairment in executive functioning: Updating,
inhibition, shifting, and access. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology
2004 Oct 26(7):784-90.
Folstein, MF, Folstein, SE, McHugh, PR (1975). "Mini-Mental State": A practical method for
grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research,
12, 189-198.
Gilchrist, A. L., Cowan, N., & Naveh-Benjamin, M. (2008). Working memory capacity for
spoken sentences decreases with adult ageing: Recall of fewer but not smaller chunks in
older adults. Memory, 2008, 16 (7), 773-787.
Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Barresi, B. (2001). The assessment of aphasia and related
disorders (3rd Ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins.
Hungerford, S., Gonyo, K. (2007). Relationships between executive functions and language
variables. Presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Annual
Convention, Boston MA.
Hungerford, S. M. (1989). The syntactic complexity of the language of elderly with and
without dementia in two language sample elicitation conditions. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Jeffries, E., Ralph, M.A.L., & Baddeley, A. (2004). Automatic and controlled processing in
sentence recall: The role of long-term and working memory. Journal of Memory and
Language 51 (2004) 623–643.
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
33
References:
Kemper, S (1987b). Syntactic complexity and the recall of prose by middle-aged
and elderly adults. Experimental Aging Research, 13, 47-52.
Kemper, S (1986). Imitation of complex syntactic constructions by elderly adults. Applied
Psycholinguistics, Vol.7, 277-287.
Kramer, A.F., Hahn, S., Gopher, D. (1999). Task coordination and aging: explorations in executive control
processes in the task switching paradigm. Acta Psychologia, Vol 101(2-3).
Kwong, See ST, Ryan, EB (1995). Cognitive mediation of adult age differences in language performance.
Psychology and Aging, 10(3): 458-68.
Miller, S. (2001). Predicting the complexity of generative syntax from measures of working memory in
younger and older adults. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Emerson College, Boston MA.
Miller, S, Maxwell, D, Satake, E. (2001). Predicting the complexity of generative syntax from measures of
working memory in younger and older adults. Poster presentation at the American Speech-LanguageHearing Association Annual Convention, November 2001, New Orleans, LA.
Miller, S, Maxwell, D, Satake, E. (2009). Aging effects on the central executive of working memory.
Presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Annual Convention, November 20,
2009, New Orleans, LA.
Miller, K. M, Price, C.C., Okun, M. S., Montijo, H., Bowers, D. (2009). Is the n-back task a valid
neuropsychological measure for assessing working memory? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,
24(7),711-717.
Nicholas, M., Obler, L. K., Albert, M. L., & Goodglass, H. (1985). Lexical retrieval in healthy aging. Cortex,
21, 595-606.
Nicholas,M., Sinotte, M.P., & Helm-Estabrooks, N, (2005).Using a computer to communicate: Effect of
executive function impairments in people with severe aphasia. Aphasiology, 2005, 19 (10/11),
1052-1065.
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
34
References:
Qualls, CD, Harri,s JL. (2003). Age, working memory, figurative language type and reading
ability: Influencing factors in African-American adults’ comprehension of figurative
language. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, Vol 12, 92-102.
Rochon, E, Waters, GS, Caplan, D (2000). The relationship between measures of working
memory and sentence comprehension in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, Apr;43(2), 395-413.
Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals,
4th ed. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Smith, EE, Jonide,s J (1999). Storage and executive processes in the frontal lobes. Science.
1999 Mar 12;283(5408):1657-61.
Souchay, C, Isingrini M. (2004). Age-related differences in metacognitive control: role of
executive functioning. Brain and Cognition 2004 Oct; 56(1):89-99.
Towse, N.D. (1998). Analyzing human random generation behavior: A review of methods
used and a computer program for describing performance. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, & Computers, 30 (4), 583-591.
Van der Linden M, Beerten A, Pesenti M (1998). Age-related differences in random
generation. Brain and Cognition; Oct; 38(1):1-16.
vanDijk, T.A. (1980). Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global
structures in discourse, interaction, and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Williams BW, Mack W, Henderson VW (1989). Boston Naming Test in Alzheimer's Disease.
Neuropsychologia, 27, 1073-1079.
Miller S. M. (2011). Cognitive-linguistic factors
influencing sentence recall
in normal adults
35