Interactions Between Knowledge Sources in a Dual-route Connectionist Model of Spelling

  • David W. Glasspool
  • George Houghton
  • Tim Shallice
Part of the Workshops in Computing book series (WORKSHOPS COMP.)

Abstract

It is now standard in the psychological literature to assume that the functional architecture for the system involved in spelling a word from memory uses two routes, a phonological route and a lexically based route. We describe a modular connectionist model based on this dual route architecture. Both routes in the model, tested in isolation, are able to simulate important aspects of the relevant psychological data. Some progress has been made towards combining the two routes into a single system. In attempting a coherent connectionist account, however, we are forced to address from first principles the difficult problem of the synchronisation and integration of information from each route into an output which combines the capabilities of both.

We believe that the interactions between cognitive modules may be more difficult to model than the modules themselves, and that connectionist approaches, by forcing these interactions to be addressed at a basic level, may help to focus attention on difficult problems of psychological modelling which might otherwise not be addressed.

Keywords

Tate Rote Ambi Dysgraphia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structures. Mouton: The Hague. 1957Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shallice, T. Phonological agraphia and the lexical route in writing. Brain 1981; 104, 413–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beauvois, M., F., & Derouesne, J. Lexical or orthographic agraphia. Brain 1981; 104, 21–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morton, J. The logogen model and orthographic structure. In Frith, U. (Ed.), Cognitive approaches in spelling. London: Academic Press. 1980Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shallice, T. From neuropsychology to mental structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kreiner, D.S., & Gough, P.B. Two ideas about spelling: Rules and word-specific memory. Journal of Memory and Language 1990; 29, 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alegría, J., & Mousty, P. On the development of lexical and non-lexical spelling procedures of French-speaking, normal and disabled children. In Brown, G. D. A., & Ellis, N. C., (eds.), Handbook of Spelling: Theory, Process and Intervention. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. 1994Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frith, U. Unexpected spelling problems. In Frith, U. (ed.), Cognitive Processes in Spelling. London: Academic Press. 1980Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wing, A.M., & Baddeley, A.D., Spelling errors in handwriting: A corpus and a distributional analysis. In Frith, U. (ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling. London: Academic Press. 1980Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Caramazza, A., Miceli, G., Villa, G. & Romani, С. The role of the graphemic buffer in spelling: evidence from a case of acquired dysgraphia. Cognition 1987; 26, 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caramazza, A. & Miceli, G. The structure of graphemic representations. Cognition 1990; 37, 243–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Houghton, G., Glasspool, D., & Shallice, T. Spelling and serial recall: Insights from a competitive queueing model. In Brown, G. D. A., & Ellis, N. C., (eds.), Handbook of Spelling: Theory, Process and Intervention. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. 1994Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Houghton, G. The problem of serial order: A neural network model of sequence learning and recall. In Dale, R., Mellish, C., & Zock, M.(Eds.), Current Research in Natural Language Generation. London: Academic Press. 1990Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Houghton, G. Some formal variations on the theme of competitive queueing. Internal Technical Report, UCL-PSY-CQ1. (May, 1994). Dept. of Psychology, University College London. 1994Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jonsdottir, M., Shallice, T., & Wise, R. Language-specific differences in graphemic buffer disorder. (Submitted)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. Simulating a skilled typist: a study of skilled cognitive-motor performance. Cognitive Science 1982; 6, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barry, С & Seymour, P. H. K. Lexical priming and sound-to-spelling contingency effects in nonword spelling. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1988; 40A (1)5–40Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Campbell, R. Writing nonwords to dictation. Brain and Language 1983; 19, 153–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zorzi, Houghton & Butterworth. Two routes or one in reading aloud? A connec-tionist “dual-process” model. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Caramazza, A. & Olson, A. Lesioning a connectionist model of spelling. A talk given at Venice III: Cognitive Neuropsychology and Connectionism. October 1988, Venice.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sejnowski, T. J., & Rosenberg, C. R. NETtalk: A parallel network that learns to read aloud. In Anderson, J. A., & Rosenfeld, E. (eds.) Neurocomputing: foundations of research. 663–672. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1988Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hartley, Т., & Houghton, G. A linguistically constrained model of short-term memory for nonwords. (In submission).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Venezky, R. L. The structure of English orthography. Paris: Mouton. 1970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Quinlan, P. T. The Oxford Psycholinguistic Database. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1993Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    McCloskey, M., Badecker, W., Goodman-Shulman, R., & Aliminosa, D. The structure of graphemic representations in spelling: Evidence from a case of acquired dysgraphia. Cognitive Neuropsychology 1994; 11, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behaviour. Center for Human Information Processing (Technical Report No. 99). 1980. Reprinted in revised form in Davidson, R. J., Schwartz, G. E., & Shapiro, D. (Eds.) Consciousness and self-regulation (Vol. 4). New York: Plenum Press. 1986Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miikkulainen, R. Subsymbolic natural language processing: an integrated model of scripts, lexicon, and memory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • David W. Glasspool
    • 1
  • George Houghton
    • 1
  • Tim Shallice
    • 1
  1. 1.University College LondonUK

Personalised recommendations