Sed on the image: It’s crowded) six.two.1. Age Markers: Neologisms, Dysfluencies, Off-Topic Comments, and False Starts Age markers did not differ for H.M. versus the controls. The imply quantity of neologisms was 0.00 per TLC response for H.M. versus a mean of 0.03 for the controls (SD = 0.05), a PBTZ169 chemical information non-reliable 0.60 SD distinction with Ns also tiny for meaningful analysis. Dysfluencies (“um”s and “uh”s) were no extra frequent for H.M. than the controls. The imply number of “um”s per TLC response was 0.00 for H.M. versus 0.34 for the controls (SD = 0.52), a non-reliable difference. The imply 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 difference. The imply quantity 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 difference. False begins or adjustments in an ongoing responseBrain Sci. 2013,(excluding error corrections) have been no a lot more popular for H.M. than the controls. The imply variety of false starts per response was 0.10 for H.M. versus 0.06 for the controls (SD = 0.07), a non-reliable 0.86 SD difference. six.two.2. Elaborative Repetitions, Stutters, and Unmodified Word String Repetitions The mean number of elaborative repetitions per response was 0.25 for H.M. versus 0.04 for the controls (SD = 0.05), a reputable 4.20 SD difference. The imply 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 difference. The imply 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 distinction. six.three. Discussion six.3.1. Minor Retrieval Errors H.M. created no a lot more minor retrieval errors involving phrases, words, or phonological units than the controls in Study 2C (see also [20,32]). These results suggest that H.M.’s mechanisms for retrieving and sequencing phrases in sentences, words in phrases, and phonological units in syllables are intact, consistent with (a) his undamaged frontal cortex (see [72]), and (b) substantial proof indicating that retrieval mechanisms are localized in frontal places, e.g., Chang et al. [73], exactly where exceptionally localized high gamma (HG, 7000 Hz) activity in the prefrontal cortex straight away preceded and PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336546 apparently determined response-related retrieval of certain target phonemes (for further proof consistent having a frontal locus for retrieval mechanisms, see [74]). six.3.2. Age Markers: Neologisms, False Begins, Dysfluencies, and Off-Topic Comments H.M. created no much more neologisms, false begins, dysfluencies and off-topic comments than memory-normal controls in Study 2C, results that rule out exaggerated effects of aging as the basis for H.M.’s communication deficits due to the fact these phenomena improve reliably with aging (see e.g., [620]). These findings, with each other with H.M.’s regular rate of minor retrieval errors, also rule out aphasia, for the reason that left hemisphere aphasics create reliably additional neologisms, dysfluencies, and retrieval errors than typical 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 query of whether or not H.M. exhibits compound category-specific aphasia, with more neo.