Multimodal measures of sentence comprehension in agrammatism.

Agrammatic or asyntactic comprehension is a common language impairment in aphasia. We considered three possible hypotheses about the underlying cause of this deficit, namely problems in syntactic processing, over-reliance on semantics, and a deficit in cognitive control. We tested four individuals showing asyntactic comprehension on their comprehension of syntax-semantics conflict sentences (e.g., The robber handcuffed the cop), where semantic cues pushed towards a different interpretation from syntax. Two of the four participants performed above chance on such sentences indicating that not all agrammatic individuals are impaired in structure-based interpretation. We collected additional eyetracking measures from the other two participants, who performed at chance on the conflict sentences. These measures suggested distinct underlying processing profiles in the two individuals. Cognitive assessments further suggested that one participant might have performed poorly due to a linguistic cognitive control impairment while the other had difficulty due to over-reliance on semantics. Together, the results highlight the importance of multimodal measures for teasing apart aphasic individuals' underlying deficits. They corroborate findings from neurotypical adults by showing that semantics can strongly influence comprehension and that cognitive control could be relevant for choosing between competing sentence interpretations. They extend previous findings by demonstrating variability between individuals with aphasia-cognitive control might be especially relevant for patients who are not overly reliant on semantics. Clinically, the identification of distinct underlying problems in different individuals suggests that different treatment paths might be warranted for cases who might look similar on behavioral assessments.

Variation in how cognitive control modulates sentence processing.

Prior research suggests that cognitive control can assist the comprehension of sentences that create conflict between interpretations, at least under some circumstances. However, the mixed pattern of results suggests that cognitive control may not always be necessary for accurate comprehension. We tested whether cognitive control recruitment for language processing is systematically variable, depending on the type of sentential ambiguity or conflict, individual differences in cognitive control, and task demands. Participants completed two sessions in a web-based experiment. The first session tested conflict modulation using interleaved Stroop and sentence comprehension trials. Critical sentences contained syntax-semantics or phrase-attachment conflict. In the second session, participants completed three cognitive control and three working memory tasks. Exploratory factor analysis was used to index individual differences in a cognitive control factor and a working memory factor. At the group level, there were no significant conflict modulation effects for either syntax-semantics or phrase-attachment conflict. At the individual differences level, the cognitive control factor correlated with offline comprehension accuracy but not online processing measures for both types of conflict. Together, the results suggest that the role of cognitive control in sentence processing may vary according to task demands. When overt decisions are required, individual differences in cognitive control may matter such that better cognitive control results in better language comprehension performance. The results add to the mixed evidence on conflict modulation and raise questions about the situations under which cognitive control influences online processing.