Transcript Neurological disorders of embodied conversation

Neurological disorders of
embodied and multimodal
communication
Elisabeth Ahlsén
Department of Linguistics & SSKKII Center for
Cognitive Science, Göteborg University
ZiF Center for Interdisciplinary Research,
Bielefeld University
1
Contents
• What types of models and frameworks are used in work
with communication disorders today and what are the main
assumptions behind them?
• What are the present views of embodied communication
like? - some frameworks and trends, models
and findings
• What are the consequences of applying these views of
communication to communication disorders? What can be
questioned, changed/revised, replaced, removed or
introduced?
2
Frameworks for working with
communication disorders today?
Some examples:
- Classical serial production and perception models (still
very popular)
- Classical structuralist systems of categories
- Frameworks for aphasia classification (Boston, Luria)
To some extent also:
- Cognitive linguistics (to some extent)
- Conversation Analysis (to some extent)
- Pragmatics: Speech act theory etc (to some extent)
3
Assumptions, except for
pragmatic/social part
• Serial production and perception processes in
humans (e.g. Levelt 1989 model)
(although many features of comm.disorders point
to more integrated processing models as more
adequate)
• ”Symbol manipulation” ideas, units such as
inventories of phonemes and morphemes
important
• More or less simplified localization models (made better and worse by neuroimaging studies)
4
Embodied communication trends and ideas
- Alignment in communication (Pickering &
Garrod)
- Mirror neurons (Rizzolatti et al) (Arbib) (Gallese
& Lakoff) - extensions of this …
- Coupling (Barresi)
- Resonance, Entrainment, Contagion…
- Importance of imitation and pantomime
- Automatic processing
- Evolutionary models revisited (Deacon)
- Levels or degrees of conscious control
5
Embodied communication different aspects
The role of embodiment in communication and its
importance for
phylogenetic, as well as
ontogenetic development, possibly also for
microgenesis (i.e. the unfolding of a communicative
contribution) and
macrogenesis (i.e. conventionalization of communication
in society) is attracting an increased interest.
This interest is to some extent caused by hypotheses and
findings concerning mirror neurons (cf Arbib, 2005.
Gallese & Lakoff 2005).
6
Arbib
Broca’s area developed atop mirror neuron system
for grasping
Role of imitation (simple, complex)
Language - change from action-object frames to
verb-argument structures
(Cf. McNeilage: Frame-Content - speech directly)
Link to cognitive grammar (construction
grammar)
Close relation aphasia-apraxia
7
Gallese & Lakoff
Concepts are the elementary units of reason and linguistic meaning. They are
conventional and relatively stable. As such, they must somehow be the result of neural
activity in the brain. The questions are:Where? and How?
A common philosophical position is that all concepts—even concepts about action and
perception—are symbolic and abstract, and therefore must be implemented outsidethe
brain’s sensory-motor system.
We will propose that the sensory-motor system has the right kind of structure to
characterise both sensory-motor and more abstract concepts. Central to this picture are
the neural theory of language and the theory of cogs, according to which,
Brain structures in the sensory-motor regions are exploited to characterise the socalled “abstract”concepts that constitute the meanings of grammatical
constructions and general inference patterns.
8
Pickering and Garrod
• Alignment - Routines - Imitation
• Includes alignment of same person as speaker and listener
• Priming basic
• Speech and gestures
• Relation speech/language - praxis
• What is more automatized - more controlled
9
Feedback subproject - ZiF
• What is face-to-face communication like?
10
Data analysis (ongoing)
30 interacting pairs of students,
systematically varied with respect to sex
and mutual acquaintance
Task to find out as much as possible about
each other within 3 min
Self-reported rapport
L (00:00:13): Bist du im ersten Semester $
R (00:00:15): Ich bin eigentlich im fünften Semester aber die ersten
zwei hab ich nicht wirklich was gemacht und dann // $
L (00:00:18): aha $
R (00:00:20): jetzt bin ich im dritten $
L (00:00:23): Zoologie oder Botaniker oder was $
R (00:00:26): entweder Anthro oder Zoologie das weiss ich noch nicht
so genau $
L (00:00:28): aha die Anthropologen sind viel besser $
L (00:00:33): mhm /// hast du schon den Seidler gemacht $
R (00:00:35): ja $
….
11
Feedback
Max
Feedback + Max
Outlook
A
B
EVALUATION
KNOWLEDGE
EVALUATION
KNOWLEDGE
VOCAL–VISUAL-SYMBOLIC
VOCAL-VISUAL-DISP LAY
MIRROR
AP PRAISAL
EMOTION
VOCAL-VISUAL-ANALOG
SELFADAP TATION
MIRROR
SELFADAP TATION
AP PRAISAL
EMOTION
Cont rol
Access
Decreasing
12
Communication disorders
Time for reinterpretation:
Perception vs action not strictly posterioranterior - more complex or in some respects
more simple system
Concrete (iconic, indexical) vs abstract
(symbolic) - more focus on relations?
13
Examples of potential
reinterpretations
Example 1) Area F4, F5 - Broca’s area: apraxia and
aphasia - link?
Example 2) Area F4, F5 - apraxia and lack of ToM
link?
Example 3) Broca’s area: anomia - concept forming
disorder?
14
Automatic and controlled
processing in communication
- Mirroring - imitation - coactivation - alignment as
central
- Interaction basic - same things activated in both
speakers (close link motor-perc systems)
- Role of context, experience etc crucial
- The whole picture - concrete vs abstract in
semantics (Gallese & Lakoff), grammar (Arbib)
15
The example of Broca’s aphasia
and apraxia
16
Apraxia
• ”Inability to perform voluntary/intended movements, with
(and without) tools, imitation?;
• either loss of idea of movement-inferior parietal area?,
SMA, insula (SPGI- superior tip of the precentral gyrus of the insula)? - or of
performance (motor programs) - premotor area”
• Ideational, Ideomotor/limb apraxia, Oral apraxia
• Verbal apraxia/speech apraxia
17
Apraxia of speech
Darley ”Apraxia of speech - 100 years of
terminological confusion”
Relation to Broca’s aphasia?
Often cooccur - close localization?
Part of Broca’s aphasia?
18
Broca’s aphasia and apraxia
- are we still confused?
Still uncertainty about areas involved and
their roles
Still uncertainty of basic function and basic
disturbance
19
Other relevant theories
• Motor theory of speech perception
(Lieberman)
• Automatic vs ”propositional” speech and
action (Jackson) - in more recent versions
- difference in apraxia and Broca’s aphasia
…
20
Questions
• So what can ideas and findings about embodiment
add to better understanding?
• How should we integrate an analysis of gestures
with reasonable conceptions of apraxias and
Broca’s aphasia, other types of aphasia?
• What is the role of movements/actions? What is
the role of verbs? Relation?
21
Broca’s area - possible functions
Broca’s aphasia and apraxia often cooccur - normal case?
Dissociation
Basic disturbance of action-object frame -> also verbargument frame? Manual, oral and speech gestures?
Imitation disturbed.
Quite automatized processing - production, perception
through simulation?
”Propositional language” - sentences - Verbs?
Broca’s area in complex semantic and syntactic processing LTM access?
22
Combined frameworks - Deacon:
• Associationism and Holism less of two alternatives than
two complementary aspects of a single process
• Both only give description of movement or change of
information in cortical systems, since they fail to recognize
this
• Reformulation - centrifugal and centripetal processes,
cortically and cortex-subcortex - more general
comprehensive model of brain function
• Based on recent neuroanatomical findings
• Basic assumptions - higher-lower functions, forwardbackward direction, input-output will all need to be
reexamined.
23
Combined frameworks
Connectionism:
Anterior cortex: backward connections
Posterior cortex: forward connections
Microgenesis:
Anterior and Posterior systems: in parallel from limbic to
primary areas
Deacon: different cell layers, neurons project differently centrifugal and centripetal laminar patterns
.
24
Tiers - cortex:
- Peripherally specialized areas (P)
- Belt areas (B)
- Association areas (A) centripetal
centrifugal
- Limbic areas (L)
Centripetal: Principal thalamic inputs to layers iii
and iv from the peripheral systems
Centrifugal: Cortical output from layers v and vi to
subcortical sites
Centrifugal: Limbic or intralaminar thalamic inputs
to layers i or vi
25
An integrated perspective?
26