Sed on the picture: It really is crowded) six.two.1. Age Markers: Neologisms, Dysfluencies, Off-Topic Comments,

Sed on the picture: It really is crowded) six.two.1. Age Markers: Neologisms, Dysfluencies, Off-Topic Comments, and False Begins Age markers did not differ for H.M. versus the controls. The mean quantity of neologisms was 0.00 per TLC response for H.M. versus a imply of 0.03 for the controls (SD = 0.05), a non-reliable 0.60 SD distinction with Ns also small for meaningful analysis. Dysfluencies (“um”s and “uh”s) were no far more widespread for H.M. than the controls. The imply quantity of “um”s per TLC response was 0.00 for H.M. versus 0.34 for the controls (SD = 0.52), a non-reliable distinction. The mean number of “uh”s per TLC response was 0.10 for H.M. versus 0.48 for the controls (SD = 1.04), a non-reliable 0.37 SD distinction. The mean number of off-topic comments per response was 0.10 for H.M. versus 0.36 for the controls (SD = 0.42), a non-reliable 0.63 SD distinction. False begins or modifications in an ongoing responseBrain Sci. 2013,(excluding error corrections) have been no a lot more common for H.M. than the controls. The imply quantity of false starts per response was 0.ten for H.M. versus 0.06 for the controls (SD = 0.07), a non-reliable 0.86 SD distinction. 6.two.two. Elaborative Repetitions, Stutters, and Unmodified Word String DEL-22379 web repetitions The imply quantity of elaborative repetitions per response was 0.25 for H.M. versus 0.04 for the controls (SD = 0.05), a dependable 4.20 SD distinction. The mean number of stutters per response was 0.1 for H.M. versus 0.24 for the controls (SD = 0.21), a non-reliable 0.67 SD distinction. The mean quantity of unmodified word string repetitions per response was 0.1 for H.M. versus 0.06 for the controls (SD = 0.07), a non-reliable 0.57 SD difference. 6.three. Discussion six.three.1. Minor Retrieval Errors H.M. created no additional minor retrieval errors involving phrases, words, or phonological units than the controls in Study 2C (see also [20,32]). These final results suggest that H.M.’s mechanisms for retrieving and sequencing phrases in sentences, words in phrases, and phonological units in syllables are intact, constant with (a) his undamaged frontal cortex (see [72]), and (b) extensive evidence indicating that retrieval mechanisms are localized in frontal areas, e.g., Chang et al. [73], where incredibly localized higher gamma (HG, 7000 Hz) activity in the prefrontal cortex immediately preceded and PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336546 apparently determined response-related retrieval of particular target phonemes (for further evidence constant with a frontal locus for retrieval mechanisms, see [74]). six.three.2. Age Markers: Neologisms, False Starts, Dysfluencies, and Off-Topic Comments H.M. produced no far more neologisms, false begins, dysfluencies and off-topic comments than memory-normal controls in Study 2C, benefits that rule out exaggerated effects of aging because the basis for H.M.’s communication deficits for the reason that these phenomena enhance reliably with aging (see e.g., [620]). These findings, with each other with H.M.’s typical rate of minor retrieval errors, also rule out aphasia, since left hemisphere aphasics create reliably additional neologisms, dysfluencies, and retrieval errors than standard controls (see e.g., [758]). The close parallels involving H.M.’s deficits in language and visual cognition (see [31]) also render implausible the hypothesis that H.M.’s language deficits reflect incipient or difficult-to-detect left- but not right-hemisphere white matter harm (see [72]). What then from the preliminary observations that raised the question of regardless of whether H.M. exhibits compound category-specific aphasia, with more neo.