Semantic Judgement Errors in Parkinson’s Disease: The Role of Priming

  • Malti Patel
  • Paul A. Watters
Conference paper
Part of the Perspectives in Neural Computing book series (PERSPECT.NEURAL)


Recent studies of lexical-semantic performance errors in Parkinson’s Disease have supported the hypothesis that faulty retrieval processes, rather than degraded representations, have the greatest potential to give rise to observed clinical symptoms. In this study, semantic priming is used to demonstrate that providing context to patients is essential for correctly processing semantic information. Successful resolution of lexical ambiguity in a model semantic system is demonstrated at high levels of lateral inhibition, in the presence of semantically related target words, by activating less-dominant target word senses. It was found that 15 epochs of priming were required for a reduction in observed response latency and the correct word sense to be selected (i.e., a complete reversal of symptoms).


Target Word Lateral Inhibition Semantic Memory Semantic Feature Semantic Processing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Behring B, Beuche W, Kretzschmar H. Progressive dementia with parkinsonism in corticobasal and brainstem degeneration with neuronal inclusions. Neurology 1998;51:285–288.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Javoy-Agid F, Agid Y. Is the mesocortical dopaminergic system involved in Parkinson’s disease? Neurology 1980; 30:1326–1330.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braak H, Braak E, Yilmazer D, de Vos RA, Jansen EN, Bohl J. Pattern of brain destruction in Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases. J Neural Transm 1996; 103:455–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robbins T. Cognitive deficits in schizophrenia and Parkinson’s Disease: Neural basis and the role of dopamine. In Willner P, Scheel-Kurger J (eds) The mesolimbic dopamine system: From motivation to action. Wiley, Chichester, 1991, pp 497–528.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hammen VL, Yorkston KM. Speech and pause characteristics following speech rate reduction in hypokinetic dysarthria. J Commun Disord 1996; 29:429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Illes J, Metter EJ, Hanson W, Iritani S. Language production in Parkinson’s Disease: Acoustic and linguistic considerations. Brain Lang 1988; 33:146–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Small JA, Lyons K, Kemper S. Grammatical abilities in Parkinson’s disease: Evidence from written sentences. Neuropsychologia 1997; 35:1571–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Geyer HL, Grossman M. Investigating the basis for the sentence comprehension deficit in Parkinson’s Disease. Journal of Neurolinguistics 1994; 8:191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beatty W, Monson N. Lexical processing in Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 1989; 2:145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gurd JM. Frontal dissociations: Evidence from Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Neurolinguistics 1995;9:55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gurd JM, Bessell N, Watsom I, Coleman J. Motor speech versus digit control in Parkinson’s disease: A cognitive neuropsychology investigation. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics in press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gurd JM. Word search in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Neurolinguistics 1996; 9:207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spicer KB, Brown GG, Gorell J. Lexical decision in Parkinson Disease: Lack of evidence for generalized bradyphrenia. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1994; 16:457–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Spaendonck KP, Berger HJ, Horstink MW, Borm GF, Cools AR. Memory performance under varying cueing conditions in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychologia 1996; 34:1159–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McDonald C, Brown G, Gorell J. Impaired set-shifting in Parkinson’s disease: New evidence from a lexical decision task. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1996; 18:793–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Watters P, Gurd, JM. A review of cognitive and neurolinguistic deficits in Parkinson’s disease. South Pacific Journal of Psychology, 10: Asia-Pacific Language Research Special Issue.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gurd JM, Oliveira RM. Competitive inhibition models of lexical-semantic processing: Experimental evidence. Brain Lang 1996; 54:414–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cohen JD, Servan-Schreiber D. Context, cortex and dopamine: A connectionist approach to behavior and biology in schizophrenia. Psychol Rev 1992; 99:45–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Patel M. Using neural nets to investigate lexical analysis. In: Foo N, Goebel, R (eds) Lecture notes in artificial intelligence 1114. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coltheart M, Curtis B, Atkins P, Haller M. Models of reading aloud: dual-route and parallel-distributed-processing approaches. Psychol Rev 1993; 100:589–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Green CD. Are connectionist models theories of cognition? Psycoloquy 1998; 9:04.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Watters PA, Tolhurst DJ. Comparing variance distribution in orthogonal and sparse-coding models of simple cell receptive fields in mammalian visual cortex. J Physiol 1998; 506.P:91PGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Watters PA. Cognitive theory and neural model: The role of local representation [Commentary on Green on Connectionist-Explanation]. Psycoloquy 1998; 9:20.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Twilley LC, Dixon D, Taylor D, Clark K. University of norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs. Mem Cognit 1994; 22:111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miller GA, Beckwith R, Fellbaum C, Gross D, Miller KJ. Introduction to WordNet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography 1990; 3:235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Collins AM, Quillian MR. Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 1969; 8:240–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wilkins A. Conjoint frequency, category size, and categorisation time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 1971; 10:382–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Komatsu L. Recent reviews of conceptual structure. Psychol Rev 1992; 112:500–526.Google Scholar
  29. Watters P, Patel M. Modelling lexical-semantic processes using WordNet. GLOT International 1998, 3.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chertkow H, Bub D, Seidenberg M. Priming and semantic dementia in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Lang 1989; 36:420–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Watters PA, Patel M. Modelling semantic processing errors in dopaminergic disorders using a competitive neural network. Technical Report C/TR 98–01, Department of Computing, Macquarie University, 1998.Google Scholar
  32. Wheeldon L. Competition between semantically related words in speech production. Paper presented to the Experimental Psychology Society, London, January 6th, 1989.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Watters PA, Patel M. A neural network model of semantic processing errors in Parkinson’s Disease. Neural Processing Letters in press.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    de Witt R. Vagueness, semantics, and the language of thought. Psyche 1993, 1:1.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gogolitsin YL, Nechaev VB. Correlates of lexical processing in the activity of neuronal populations of the human brain. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 1990; 54:163–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malti Patel
    • 1
  • Paul A. Watters
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ComputingMacquarie UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations