ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025
Noisy-channel language comprehension in aphasia: A Bayesian mixture modeling approach.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Constraints on Exchange Edits During Noisy-Channel Inference.Cognitive science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Individuals with "agrammatic" receptive aphasia have long been known to rely on semantic plausibility rather than syntactic cues when interpreting sentences. In contrast to early interpretations of this pattern as indicative of a deficit in syntactic knowledge, a recent proposal views agrammatic comprehension as a case of "noisy-channel" language processing with an increased expectation of noise in the input relative to healthy adults. Here, we investigate the nature of the noise model in aphasia and whether it is adapted to the statistics of the environment. We first replicate findings that a) healthy adults (N = 40) make inferences about the intended meaning of a sentence by weighing the prior probability of an intended sentence against the likelihood of a noise corruption and b) their estimate of the probability of noise increases when there are more errors in the input (manipulated via exposure sentences). We then extend prior findings that adults with chronic post-stroke aphasia (N = 28) and healthy age-matched adults (N = 19) similarly engage in noisy-channel inference during comprehension. We use a hierarchical latent mixture modeling approach to account for the fact that rates of guessing are likely to differ between healthy controls and individuals with aphasia and capture individual differences in the tendency to make inferences. We show that individuals with aphasia are more likely than healthy controls to draw noisy-channel inferences when interpreting semantically implausible sentences, even when group differences in the tendency to guess are accounted for. While healthy adults rapidly adapt their inference rates to an increase in noise in their input, whether individuals with aphasia do the same remains equivocal. Further investigation of comprehension through a noisy-channel lens holds promise for a parsimonious understanding of language processing in aphasia and may suggest potential avenues for treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.