Abstract
Abstract Two severely aphasic patients were taught logographic symbols as an alternative medium of communication. The question of interest was whether logographic symbol communication would provide a superior medium relative to their residual natural language abilities. The natural language abilities of each patient were investigated in three different transcoding tasks—oral reading, writing to dictation and aural-visual matching—and the cognitive processes available to each patient in these tasks were identified. The learning of logographic symbols mirrored each patient's natural language performance and was consistent with the use of the spared cognitive processes identified as available for natural language processing. It was concluded that logographic symbols provided no communicative advantage to these patients compared with their processing of alphabetically written language.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
