Models of Attention and Dual-Task Performance as Explanatory Constructs in Aphasia
Abstract
Aphasia has traditionally been viewed as a loss or impairment of language. However, evidence is presented suggesting that language mechanisms are fundamentally preserved and that aphasic language behaviors are instead due to impairments of cognitive processes supporting their construction. These processes may be understood as a linguistically specialized attentional system that is vulnerable to competition from other processing domains. We present two models of attention that focus on competition for central processing and discuss findings from dual-task studies of normal and aphasic performance. First, competing language and nonlanguage tasks appear to share limited-capacity, parallel processing resources. Second, aphasic individuals demonstrate slowed central processing that could be due to a reduction in processing capacity or ability to allocate that capacity. Third, the attention models discussed bear a coherent relationship to current models of language processing. Clinical implications of a cognitive processing account of aphasia are also considered.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A strand of research has found evidence that cognitive mechanisms such as attention may underlie linguistic mechanisms, though the extent of this influence remains contentious.
“A strand of research has found evidence that cognitive mechanisms, such as attention, may underlie linguistic mechanisms, however, the extent of this influence remains contentious (Murray 2012;Hula & McNeil, 2008).”
From “Giving yourself some breathing room…”: an exploration of group meditation for people with aphasia (2021) · cites this paper as Hula & McNeil, 2008
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 79 · Cited by 196
- Authors
- Hula, W., & McNeil, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- ORCID
- Hula, William
- Venue
- Seminars in Speech and Language
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2008-08
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 03
- Pages
- 169-187
- ISSN
- 0734-0478 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-9056
- OpenAlex
- W2060142135
- Cited by
- 196
- References
- 79
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 2.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Seminars in Speech and Language (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Keywords
- aphasia, attention, dual-task performance, language processing, parallel computing, attentional competition
- MeSH terms
- Aphasia, Attention, Brain, Cognition Disorders, Humans, Reaction Time, Refractory Period, Psychological
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review