Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T02:26:00.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Computer Simulation in Neurolinguistics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Hans-Jürgen Eikmeyer  and
Ulrich Schade
Hans-Jürgen Eikmeyer
Affiliation:
Universität BielefeldFakultät für Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft, Postfach 100131, D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany; email: [email protected]
Ulrich Schade
Affiliation:
Universität BielefeldFakultät für Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft, Postfach 100131, D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany; email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

As a result of present-day technological standards, the technique of computer simulation is constantly gaining influence in cognitive science. Neurolinguistics is a special branch of this field in which cognitive capacities connected with language are related to the structure and functions of the brain. It is argued that computer simulation is a useful technique for evaluating neurolinguistic models. This is demonstrated with respect to neural network models of the process of language production.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 16 , Special Issue 2: Special issue on NEUROLINGUISTICS , December 1993 , pp. 153 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Berg, T. 1988. Die Abbildung des Sprachproduktionsprozesses in einem Aktivationsfluβmodell. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, T. & Schade, U. 1992. The Role of Inhibition in a Spreading-Activation Model of Language Production. Part 1: The Psycholinguistic Perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 21, 405–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterworth, B. & Howard, O. 1987. Paragrammatisms. Cognition 26, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dell, G. S. 1986. A Spreading-Activation Theory of Retrieval in Sentence Production. Psychological Review 93, 283–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dell, G. S. 1988. The Retrieval of Phonological Forms in Production. Journal of Memory and Language 27, 124–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, G. S. & Reich, P. A. 1980. Toward a Unified Model of Slips of the Tongue. In Fromkin, V. A. (ed.), Errors in Linguistic Performance. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 273–286.Google Scholar
Eikmeyer, H.-J. & Schade, U. 1991. Sequentialization in Connectionist Language Production Models. Cognitive Systems 3, 128–138.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. W. & Young, A. W. 1988. Human Cognitive Neuropsychology. Hilisdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Harley, T. A. 1990. Paragrammatisms: Syntactic Disturbance or Breakdown of Control? Cognition 34, 85–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, D. & Orchard-Lisle, V. 1984. On the Origin of Semantic Errors in Naming: Evidence from the Case of a Global Aphasic. Cognitive Neuropsychology 1, 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1988. The Computer and the Mind. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Leuninger, H. (1989). Nurolinguistik. Opladen: Westdeutcher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, A. G. & Healy, A. F. 1985. The Roles of Phoneme Frequency, Similarity, and Availability in the Experimental Elicitation to Speech Errors. Journal of Memory and Language 24, 717–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKay, D. G. 1987. The Organization of Preception and Action. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, J. L. & Elman, J. L. 1986. The TRACE Model of Speech Perception. Cognitive Psychology 18, 1–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popper, K. C. 1972. Conjectures and Refutations. The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 4th edition.Google Scholar
Ritter, H. & Kohonen, T. 1989. Self-Organizing Semantic Maps. Biological Cybernetics 61, 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. 1986. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Vol. 1: Foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schade, U. 1992. Konnektionismus: Zur Modellierung der Sprachproduktion. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schade, U. & Berg, T. 1992. The Role of Inhibition in a Spreading-Activation Model of Language Production. Part 2: The Simulational Perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 21, 435–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. & Levelt, W. J. M. 1990. Exploring the Time Course of Lexical Access in Language Production. Journal of Memory and Language 29, 86–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. 1987. The Role of Word-Onset Consonants in Speech Planning. In Keller, E. & Gopnik, M. (eds.), Motor and Sensory Process of Language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 17–51.Google Scholar
Stemberger, J. P. 1985. An Interactive Activation Model of Language Production. In Ellis, A. W. (ed.), Progress in the Psychology of Language. London: Erlbaum vol. 1, pp. 143–186.Google Scholar
Waltz, D. L. & Pollack, J. 1985. Massively Parallel Parsing. Cognitive Science 9, 51–74.Google Scholar