# A computational investigation of sources of variability in sentence comprehension difficulty in aphasia

## TL;DR

This study uses a computational model to evaluate three hypotheses about sentence comprehension deficits in aphasia, revealing individual variability and supporting the role of slowed processing, intermittent deficiency, and resource reduction.

## Contribution

It provides a quantitative implementation and empirical evidence for three sources of comprehension deficits in aphasia using the ACT-R model.

## Key findings

- Controls have less variable parameter values than IWA.
- More IWA individuals show low goal activation, high noise, and slow processing.
- All three deficit sources contribute to comprehension difficulties.

## Abstract

We present a computational evaluation of three hypotheses about sources of deficit in sentence comprehension in aphasia: slowed processing, intermittent deficiency, and resource reduction. The ACT-R based Lewis and Vasishth (2005) model is used to implement these three proposals. Slowed processing is implemented as slowed default production-rule firing time; intermittent deficiency as increased random noise in activation of chunks in memory; and resource reduction as reduced goal activation. As data, we considered subject vs. object rela- tives whose matrix clause contained either an NP or a reflexive, presented in a self-paced listening modality to 56 individuals with aphasia (IWA) and 46 matched controls. The participants heard the sentences and carried out a picture verification task to decide on an interpretation of the sentence. These response accuracies are used to identify the best parameters (for each participant) that correspond to the three hypotheses mentioned above. We show that controls have more tightly clustered (less variable) parameter values than IWA; specifically, compared to controls, among IWA there are more individuals with low goal activations, high noise, and slow default action times. This suggests that (i) individual patients show differential amounts of deficit along the three dimensions of slowed processing, intermittent deficient, and resource reduction, (ii) overall, there is evidence for all three sources of deficit playing a role, and (iii) IWA have a more variable range of parameter values than controls. In sum, this study contributes a proof of concept of a quantitative implementation of, and evidence for, these three accounts of comprehension deficits in aphasia.