Box-arrow cognition model is used widely in cognitive psychology. It is based on the concept of fractionation: the idea that certain parts of human brain are responsible for doing certain tasks - opposite to the idea that a single system is responsible for all the cognition. Today, I will discuss the emergence of this model in relation to Psychology of Language by going through the most historically significant case studies.
Aristotle
We don’t normally think of Aristotle as of a psychologist, and yet he had interesting mind theories. Aristotle thought that mind is placed not in the brain but in the heart. His arguments? Well, he could ‘feel’ his thoughts and emotions in his heart but not brain (increased heart rate when experiencing fear, arousal, inspiration...). He considered the brain to be a radiator which would get rid of excess heat generated by the rest of the body. It is true that our head is of a slightly higher temperature than the rest of our bodies of course; however, it is due to all the electrical processes going on in there at a crazy rate, which generate energy. Read more on his ideas here: http://www.princeton.edu/~cggross/Neuroscientist_95-1.pdf
Aristotle was, of course, completely wrong. However, it would be fair to say that the very idea of fractionation started with him as he posed the essential question which still puzzles cognitive psychologists: where is that place where our cognition happens?
We don’t normally think of Aristotle as of a psychologist, and yet he had interesting mind theories. Aristotle thought that mind is placed not in the brain but in the heart. His arguments? Well, he could ‘feel’ his thoughts and emotions in his heart but not brain (increased heart rate when experiencing fear, arousal, inspiration...). He considered the brain to be a radiator which would get rid of excess heat generated by the rest of the body. It is true that our head is of a slightly higher temperature than the rest of our bodies of course; however, it is due to all the electrical processes going on in there at a crazy rate, which generate energy. Read more on his ideas here: http://www.princeton.edu/~cggross/Neuroscientist_95-1.pdf
Aristotle was, of course, completely wrong. However, it would be fair to say that the very idea of fractionation started with him as he posed the essential question which still puzzles cognitive psychologists: where is that place where our cognition happens?
George Combe
Interesting fact about this man – he founded Edinburgh Psychology Department in 1906, where I am studying now! Deserves some praise for this alone.
He is widely known for popularisation of phrenology: pseudoscience based on a concept that mind is situated in a brain, and that there are different sections in the brain responsible for doing different things. His most important input was his ground-breaking report, released back in 1836. Combe was ‘lucky’ to get a patient with severe head damage – so severe, his brain got disposed. Instead of running away from the unknown, Combe... touched it. What he found was that he could provoke certain emotions and even thoughts simply by stimulating a certain area in a brain. Thus, he anticipated transcranial stimulation of the 1940s as well as modern EEG. Most importantly, not only he provided the evidence that thinking happens in the brain, but also – of the fact that different areas of the brain are responsible for accomplishing different tasks. Therefore, it is Combe who was first to provide a scientific base for the concept of fractionation. He also reported visible swelling of the brain (increased blood flow) during mental activity.
Interesting fact about this man – he founded Edinburgh Psychology Department in 1906, where I am studying now! Deserves some praise for this alone.
He is widely known for popularisation of phrenology: pseudoscience based on a concept that mind is situated in a brain, and that there are different sections in the brain responsible for doing different things. His most important input was his ground-breaking report, released back in 1836. Combe was ‘lucky’ to get a patient with severe head damage – so severe, his brain got disposed. Instead of running away from the unknown, Combe... touched it. What he found was that he could provoke certain emotions and even thoughts simply by stimulating a certain area in a brain. Thus, he anticipated transcranial stimulation of the 1940s as well as modern EEG. Most importantly, not only he provided the evidence that thinking happens in the brain, but also – of the fact that different areas of the brain are responsible for accomplishing different tasks. Therefore, it is Combe who was first to provide a scientific base for the concept of fractionation. He also reported visible swelling of the brain (increased blood flow) during mental activity.
Paul Broca
In 1861, Broca reported of his patient ‘Tan’ (not a real name). He was described as having a severe agrammatic aphasia: he was disfluent, had difficulty repeating phrases or naming objects. He still could understand the meaning of the words, however had a huge difficulties comprehending syntax; thus, if you say ‘radio’ he would point to a radio, however something like ‘go and pick up the radio which stands behind that statuette’ would leave him confused.
This patient led Broca to devise the first ever Boxes model, which became the first step on the way to fractionate the process of cognition. It was not thought of as a single processing system any more; instead, he drew two boxes: one responsible for LANGUAGE processing and another – for ALL OTHER cognition.
In 1861, Broca reported of his patient ‘Tan’ (not a real name). He was described as having a severe agrammatic aphasia: he was disfluent, had difficulty repeating phrases or naming objects. He still could understand the meaning of the words, however had a huge difficulties comprehending syntax; thus, if you say ‘radio’ he would point to a radio, however something like ‘go and pick up the radio which stands behind that statuette’ would leave him confused.
This patient led Broca to devise the first ever Boxes model, which became the first step on the way to fractionate the process of cognition. It was not thought of as a single processing system any more; instead, he drew two boxes: one responsible for LANGUAGE processing and another – for ALL OTHER cognition.
Carl Wernicke
In 1874, Wernicke reported of a patient who, unlike Broca’s Tan, could talk just fine, however had problems comprehending the words’ meaning: he had what is called jargon aphasia. Thus, his speech did not make much sense, and others’ speech did not make much sense to him. This patient created another fraction in Broca’s model: the LANGUAGE box could now be split into LANGUAGE PRODUCTION and LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION boxes.
Wernicke designed his own model: the arrows model. Essentially, the arrows are pathways, which transport information (signals) between the brain areas. The first arrows model consisted of one arrow going in (information entering the cognition system; language comprehension) and one going out (language production).
In 1874, Wernicke reported of a patient who, unlike Broca’s Tan, could talk just fine, however had problems comprehending the words’ meaning: he had what is called jargon aphasia. Thus, his speech did not make much sense, and others’ speech did not make much sense to him. This patient created another fraction in Broca’s model: the LANGUAGE box could now be split into LANGUAGE PRODUCTION and LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION boxes.
Wernicke designed his own model: the arrows model. Essentially, the arrows are pathways, which transport information (signals) between the brain areas. The first arrows model consisted of one arrow going in (information entering the cognition system; language comprehension) and one going out (language production).
Ludwig Lichtheim
In 1885, Lichtheim designed a new, quite advanced arrows model. He assumed that there are three systems involved in language cognition, all linked by pathways: A system recognises the speech on auditory level, without making sense of it. Then, two pathways lead from A: one – to system B, another one – to system M; B also sends information to M.
B analyses semantics, meaning of the input, while M system is responsible purely for speech production. It does not ‘care’ whether what it produces makes sense or not. This is why it will work even with the signal coming directly from A, without being semantically processed by B. For example, if I say Paraclamba’ and ask you to repeat it, you will be able to do so even having no idea what it may mean (it doesn't mean anyhting as you may have guessed).
In 1885, Lichtheim designed a new, quite advanced arrows model. He assumed that there are three systems involved in language cognition, all linked by pathways: A system recognises the speech on auditory level, without making sense of it. Then, two pathways lead from A: one – to system B, another one – to system M; B also sends information to M.
B analyses semantics, meaning of the input, while M system is responsible purely for speech production. It does not ‘care’ whether what it produces makes sense or not. This is why it will work even with the signal coming directly from A, without being semantically processed by B. For example, if I say Paraclamba’ and ask you to repeat it, you will be able to do so even having no idea what it may mean (it doesn't mean anyhting as you may have guessed).
Henry Charlton Bastian
In 1898 Bastian reported on a patient who preserved spoken input and output and writing, but had big troubles with reading. Bastian then expressed a theory that there were separate word centres in a brain which were responsible for written speech. He called the one responsible specifically for producing written speech (writing) Cheiro-Kinaesthetic centre (ChK). He argued there was no box for analysing semantics because he thought that language and thought are identical.
Byrom Bramwell
In 1897, he reported of a very interesting case in The Lancet journal. His patient, a 26 years old woman, had a stroke after she gave birth. She was described as having a ‘word meaning deafness’. She was not deaf; she could hear all the sounds perfectly well, and, more importantly, she could recognise those sounds and associate with a right object. For example, hearing the ticking of a clock, she knew it was a clock on the wall ticking. However, when it came to human speech, all she heard was a meaningless noise. She did not lose the ability to understand words: she still spoke well, and understood written words as well as others. What she struggled with, was very specific: comprehending human speech.
Basing on this patient, the following model could be drawn:
Non-speech sounds -->
Spoken words --> SEMANTICS
Non-spoken (written) words -->
In 1897, he reported of a very interesting case in The Lancet journal. His patient, a 26 years old woman, had a stroke after she gave birth. She was described as having a ‘word meaning deafness’. She was not deaf; she could hear all the sounds perfectly well, and, more importantly, she could recognise those sounds and associate with a right object. For example, hearing the ticking of a clock, she knew it was a clock on the wall ticking. However, when it came to human speech, all she heard was a meaningless noise. She did not lose the ability to understand words: she still spoke well, and understood written words as well as others. What she struggled with, was very specific: comprehending human speech.
Basing on this patient, the following model could be drawn:
Non-speech sounds -->
Spoken words --> SEMANTICS
Non-spoken (written) words -->
This is it for now; in the next post I will show how the boxes and arrows model works in practise, in other words, how it can help psychologists to understand where the problem lies with the patients. I will mostly base it on the Bramwill's patient, but will mention couple of other historically important cases as well.