English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Anomic aphasia is characterized by good comprehension and non-word repetition but poor naming. Two sub-types of deficits might be hypothesized: faulty access to preserved phonological representations or preserved access to impaired representations. Phonological errors may occur only when representations are impaired or in post-lexical deficits (conduction aphasia). We analysed the incidence of phonological naming errors of 30 individuals, 25 with anomic aphasia based on poor naming but good repetition and comprehension, and five with conduction aphasia based on poor naming and poor repetition. Individuals with anomic aphasia produced very few phonological errors compared to individuals with conduction aphasia (0–19.1% versus 42–66%). However, six individuals with anomia produced more than 11% phonological errors, suggesting two patterns of deficit: either impaired lexical representations or impaired access to them. The lack of phonological errors in most individuals with anomic aphasia suggests that access to the phonological output lexicon is semantically, not phonologically driven.

An access deficit or a deficit in the phonological representations themselves: What can we learn from naming errors?