<%BANNER%>

Choosing Remediation Targets for Naming Deficits in Probable Alzheimer Disease: Does Typicality Matter?

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101220_AAAAAO INGEST_TIME 2010-12-20T09:48:12Z PACKAGE UFE0015420_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 85801 DFID F20101220_AAAREC ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH morelli_c_Page_114.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
98b49b915c530207143ec55576d2440b
SHA-1
28149d92e50c1cf9b0ed95c285bd316ea5aff5c4
75301 F20101220_AAARDO morelli_c_Page_084.jpg
f0d8f46ab1305805e5431694b30c6c71
2647c979b32ede8768fd2c566bf7a2e79d82b5d7
107724 F20101220_AAAQYI morelli_c_Page_051.jp2
c30feaf186d353d933c7acc8d8c3fc5f
1392778360a27d191e7c8bc01d5e79ebb26d3c86
84395 F20101220_AAARCZ morelli_c_Page_049.jpg
66c2fa18e5d4d1fb2f26d44ad10d562b
e6e161b56207d8af91a55b9586dd02181c900ff5
84575 F20101220_AAAQXT morelli_c_Page_018.jpg
0dee73e105dbeed1b38ba4d5ac285323
5ff6230d1ae9894a291234c9644c382dcc6ab8e9
86835 F20101220_AAARED morelli_c_Page_118.jpg
a9524658a0feffe9b64171c7bdeee064
022b4322ec407f9a6381f9ed39b29c7299f2ba86
79844 F20101220_AAARDP morelli_c_Page_088.jpg
8ef5fabd78d6696f22fc7b902aa4fc85
af5ca9f0ef7dc2f69226023b79243309520bc25b
12421 F20101220_AAAQYJ morelli_c_Page_109.QC.jpg
a9a1665c927e534cdeb1311ec02fd3b0
3c53b5ad8e5c7650c3780512a692a1006f53fbf9
83594 F20101220_AAAQXU morelli_c_Page_091.jpg
3fb6953b2ce533300132fc30c19f078c
6a6f444e36a684e0842d4753d8bc088db481adb0
90391 F20101220_AAARDQ morelli_c_Page_089.jpg
78ef42aceb4e404dbadd4dd888030b9b
140e8e48b2608832eb3c6a178328693eade136c3
24483 F20101220_AAAQYK morelli_c_Page_055.QC.jpg
997b2106fc5b66cc069bf29e933dfca6
c56da1c181034f640d27d3ffc29a0149b71d8764
1486 F20101220_AAAQXV morelli_c_Page_130.txt
0b864a486614b919e07d937bed584496
293f5be3b09914d6265c2f7ef77337c9231b7be9
87648 F20101220_AAAREE morelli_c_Page_119.jpg
0ad556b6cfcb1b083017edb0a5c5ae37
c7898c9f85fa2924e674837b5ddd70ff4375ffee
74221 F20101220_AAARDR morelli_c_Page_090.jpg
1787a48f9d35f9e2724bbfb60015910f
50ebc60d7dbc573639b8bc10d8ad8e0496a8bbf6
8423998 F20101220_AAAQXW morelli_c_Page_104.tif
42c5a1181aaef30cbd77f18ceaab6710
74ce980d9ab95b88bff3fb4b671854d4ff6f14ec
83580 F20101220_AAAREF morelli_c_Page_122.jpg
6fd2f3950664608ac915487d665abeb6
30f2e06443a58c53b05cb58fb0963239ece10718
51843 F20101220_AAAQZA morelli_c_Page_061.pro
f7fd0794a6f0b2821bc6b23ba8974d1e
347ca07ea939b99f716d4e5c6cf8fa0b9aacdb4f
86985 F20101220_AAARDS morelli_c_Page_092.jpg
24151a5fb53a24952f427a9b0a08ea84
a069cbeb2af456d0e99c839bc151eae5e4cef7e1
46666 F20101220_AAAQYL morelli_c_Page_149.jpg
efbb7cfb7ffe7a237fb5893a636c63ff
6cd5982f5f4a40973d8b0bd63221cbfa3a58148e
6281 F20101220_AAAQXX morelli_c_Page_027thm.jpg
679bf945be78f9aabc35611b95d680de
697751ac6bf1fabc0b66e3ff3c3e0e9b03ef5d14
84424 F20101220_AAAREG morelli_c_Page_123.jpg
b0e4387a7c7bc85b0d4d36451f516af8
beb6584fb4d34e01366331cf52eeca717f1e8a94
49940 F20101220_AAAQZB morelli_c_Page_024.pro
27f8e867f14760b48c261cf871a780e2
ddb7b9e1e7bcaf09920eee1a5f42ce6c6ed56740
77824 F20101220_AAARDT morelli_c_Page_095.jpg
563d9f340052b53286f656a57ac52b0a
d26561de1e343d1138c282f890fd453e8cb4e1ba
6152 F20101220_AAAQYM morelli_c_Page_087thm.jpg
aeca4bb5b6e664ae4725024633ea9155
8dc92aa35a5dbcbf55708eecdf65af6a4499884b
1053954 F20101220_AAAQXY morelli_c_Page_121.tif
540e7a3c028784fe93b72ee9499893e5
875e14da2a43f8b5bd0c582e171a3ba1ef79e3f3
8650 F20101220_AAAREH morelli_c_Page_124.jpg
38eabcc7238aac019274cef42ab2e423
294eba8b16d3bfb2db4c93ddcbb8e713b50da5fd
6401 F20101220_AAAQZC morelli_c_Page_025thm.jpg
25c0737dbdb9f3fe3f9ab89efad2f323
ec787bb3962df38ec03e4da3709820417c724444
52045 F20101220_AAARDU morelli_c_Page_098.jpg
8dcbfcbae49af4b630ee574d9c09ece6
dc9601d46a165648276e78112c18cad07bd04ae7
1937 F20101220_AAAQYN morelli_c_Page_085.txt
3681d74251958a90db1800f10b08a5d0
0c424af927ff1ed518559e12a4760f1cdd5a6f35
210 F20101220_AAAQXZ morelli_c_Page_039.txt
03ef5eba2463d085b52a3583df95a162
bdd30e9dd4cc193bd85dbea4959bcf1e8c089e37
90692 F20101220_AAAREI morelli_c_Page_125.jpg
4b91fc64d0c6e17352873637928cc7de
6bd63a5fd3f5f9851ef83d241b106ab811ff400b
2074 F20101220_AAAQZD morelli_c_Page_102.txt
992224c8bbb513657038e427c5763bf7
d680d3f89c087b8167a25c5e79c65d9efdbbc631
2187 F20101220_AAAQYO morelli_c_Page_127.QC.jpg
76dd46e53f620d6f0ec49afccd5efbd8
d394568582722c5af8360d63a914e9c815f0ab62
35630 F20101220_AAAREJ morelli_c_Page_129.jpg
54d2cad6110874cd6918709435796514
16ad8a60648bdd33cb51b4910772b12fc50d5759
F20101220_AAAQZE morelli_c_Page_054.tif
63e8b37fc445f7d31afa285567cf1c04
9371be015cf4eab9570b1023003fc26f3d8551f9
68356 F20101220_AAARDV morelli_c_Page_099.jpg
a37b8a406a370f376af711a6ccf9bd37
0d7484b191165fb60e3f16e96bc6c54ac858aa7a
2075 F20101220_AAAQYP morelli_c_Page_048.txt
d8ed7b8c8a54fc29bf9b17df664e55bc
3ce6e453999c3f6a3c7d577a5f64f1d0e08e8593
81983 F20101220_AAAREK morelli_c_Page_130.jpg
56e56e6259cc06eb167954b4804fc43c
ade512c960708a273f068b877560a7ada0455445
80031 F20101220_AAAQZF morelli_c_Page_121.jpg
2221c63579f86c2232aba5e2f9bcc5ee
fd352e9cc2a9af7165c97ab9a767430fb62b97ad
84317 F20101220_AAARDW morelli_c_Page_100.jpg
07e39ed7ee3959575aca75b8fb2db365
e6e527b65e264c0bfffe35c1404c7b2fa18d0fea
79072 F20101220_AAAQYQ morelli_c_Page_096.jpg
ad6705ff9ffaa23571a29b8fbf87f408
4921f3af5e53d791acfa8a49b351398c7fb4641d
91945 F20101220_AAAREL morelli_c_Page_135.jpg
7b59fc4a0b7f4dbb87e0908e04c7cb4b
a44385e364929729f7d13371ed3887dbf38cc5f3
105556 F20101220_AAAQZG morelli_c_Page_078.jp2
e6ed0f0a743a279295d0b1de221c6265
84d7882afd8354a870d314cf3e2684a8d2441269
80112 F20101220_AAARDX morelli_c_Page_101.jpg
bd8673b1fcead4fd0c87ae15358aa258
647854fa7037a5fcdd894e19d6a0e96b6da688b0
82942 F20101220_AAAQYR morelli_c_Page_037.jpg
811d8bef7df5775fee919465790fd4db
44507cd35f6df526e25cf8f5a623c9d21f760290
99352 F20101220_AAARFA morelli_c_Page_022.jp2
85e7fa7b13fca191c493615879eff39f
c1b27c159e2a24755c973c348db1dab856de2627
100712 F20101220_AAAREM morelli_c_Page_136.jpg
97c088181115fd50ede6cfb741e0246b
0b847129672a059bd31d5d1f02a3edfa4ef44b80
1998 F20101220_AAAQZH morelli_c_Page_117.txt
01367511d937d6d8b06b917a8fc44190
164b6f7b6fe5420a895176621dd8200ff8245880
58764 F20101220_AAARDY morelli_c_Page_104.jpg
316f2ad326876c3399804d2316f485b0
f228f4e57684e09ec85f6aa44706f378cf11e7ea
F20101220_AAAQYS morelli_c_Page_079.tif
ad2a5cdbe55aa608c9cceddc5c584df7
6ec897a77160f3df47192e3c583eec0d055fb709
107721 F20101220_AAARFB morelli_c_Page_024.jp2
d1a1b0f26974248267fd248a0c1354d0
502f1dedf5489fa8b5a7afcdbbf520f2d4e9422f
104646 F20101220_AAAREN morelli_c_Page_137.jpg
f56ac2d722fe01909afedc58e12e3dfb
cb95d5f99740df045e349c4546d9c1e92ac0348b
105426 F20101220_AAAQZI morelli_c_Page_077.jp2
2e6dd4b22826139ea535b41ea6dcee54
ef1602093107092e13c23f3ee791d688bad4b8d8
70092 F20101220_AAARDZ morelli_c_Page_105.jpg
0edc0129fd414736453f89c786742132
1860750060706e12938af0c3e3531b858976e557
106985 F20101220_AAAQYT morelli_c_Page_050.jp2
0af6ecf180cff3da64ad1be6f7da895d
bc0212782cb2748378ee79e0d5f22f26c3d447dc
108848 F20101220_AAARFC morelli_c_Page_026.jp2
ef0172710146f958a03fd4c453fa8963
0b5e4e09e8a7d5d0d77fd9faecbf7b9df24c3712
106319 F20101220_AAAREO morelli_c_Page_139.jpg
1ba8a39adf519fc117e22b22764ee950
67494bc539419b34a2e83e70c2859ecc97302314
6228 F20101220_AAAQZJ morelli_c_Page_122thm.jpg
2a606284b05394cd2b050479483dc4d2
67e77ef0b759b692f4ec4552d29329af7af0a320
109200 F20101220_AAAQYU morelli_c_Page_005.jp2
021bd3eed04a890d5ca6ed62d9e22435
aca9f52845f6d34ed2a73b7b877403253376ebbd
114999 F20101220_AAARFD morelli_c_Page_028.jp2
6f9b9683e860cdc42eed2f07bb6a7e00
ba212ec55f3ffc4599b948d40af576e843bcdb3c
105740 F20101220_AAAREP morelli_c_Page_142.jpg
095e72acbd6e7d447c5b005eea4acce9
1e3fd9bb922f7ec66d4c0e19ce54833ef3f9fb5c
51481 F20101220_AAAQZK morelli_c_Page_037.pro
92f4c70574b43c74e416082f0594a4a6
a669ada791961afe1c22bdc68a7b77c6a5efa726
1926 F20101220_AAAQYV morelli_c_Page_050.txt
977cfea8786ae2ec739cb289b956a16a
9775eca7997ba888cb368c75ee38e3795ecf4f72
110246 F20101220_AAARFE morelli_c_Page_030.jp2
801d9872ff845f37f96866d160115012
23175c1e920a362ba007cf1a95f70a7fddbebec3
108930 F20101220_AAAREQ morelli_c_Page_147.jpg
298f66a474750bb8ba145abb47fcdd99
93db2e9b5daea909858824b0d6db2eef6170aa0f
37898 F20101220_AAAQZL morelli_c_Page_013.pro
9b91f91eeb6df527430ecfda764c924f
7ffa0bc2c8b574758c5a9aa5c94f33e986730334
F20101220_AAAQYW morelli_c_Page_027.tif
a1288a919da4435e14a871d8b2141389
08e67c7081fe7a70d1ca83a0b17fa2d788d903bf
107975 F20101220_AAARFF morelli_c_Page_033.jp2
511f5717284c9fc3070f6438984a9c3c
c52ca62b277dbaeb88bc5acdb2172de28f251cd2
72472 F20101220_AAARER morelli_c_Page_148.jpg
6a2f8b769c8929c016364b4c5baaaced
414dd8288db6057410dd9e2aedf92361b2ece5fc
1983 F20101220_AAAQYX morelli_c_Page_017.txt
be38612e1fcfbc6c91f331ddf23d40f8
e74d84360542bde94ada5909f313e4aff13005eb
110815 F20101220_AAARFG morelli_c_Page_035.jp2
a00a1b3db20119cb1d5ea80c93f173e9
25cf35a34141d7bc14cd8b93781281d35554bf57
25980 F20101220_AAARES morelli_c_Page_001.jp2
8fe4eaf5da204f703cdd00b1e7875d89
60863e6499bd5c2cf5c320b738e304acf8cd3989
26851 F20101220_AAAQZM morelli_c_Page_047.QC.jpg
2289d9ccafae50ccdf6e4387aab29a47
78954215c5b335fb8b6b9ce480cb2bda170a417a
2150 F20101220_AAAQYY morelli_c_Page_089.txt
3acabf7ecbdf4552c05e487dbf463b29
59b6f3df70c610ececa8fc35997bbc05984fc910
107014 F20101220_AAARFH morelli_c_Page_036.jp2
078817eaba0eff8e1ffdecdf80fda93f
fc87c4cd81faeec9a180338de2f7497df2fe59c0
1051969 F20101220_AAARET morelli_c_Page_009.jp2
3b4d1ef31adabc069dcc8a29e5169fc7
a31c349c5232f5ab54e4c12c6adb5a424769dce2
26045 F20101220_AAAQZN morelli_c_Page_052.QC.jpg
a2bbd14abb30ab3d3e89a3fc6a52150a
781df14ff02d416fdeca08d21ac107f790a4aea8
95660 F20101220_AAAQYZ morelli_c_Page_144.jpg
30d84e0707da580be31415555a0eac34
e3997b62493544d79a57b3ec91306bd4f8ed7cad
107419 F20101220_AAARFI morelli_c_Page_037.jp2
c30fd4b7450359570bab3cefab20afb0
643872d19ab88fb5322f426174520c0ecd330d02
1051977 F20101220_AAAREU morelli_c_Page_011.jp2
3a6ecf4bedc17d95e653f46799fe5ddb
a99165a482c3690825c006e8f206b7333323dadf
31313 F20101220_AAAQZO morelli_c_Page_129.pro
96cd41fd51b9b6514a6a98144fcceab0
7ea1aa7efe31fde07e1756e2c448b7eaf03607ed
112695 F20101220_AAARFJ morelli_c_Page_038.jp2
8880678321fbc25a2d665a4441b42c31
bf0775fee03bc4593c2f342728014a864f65bde0
84370 F20101220_AAAREV morelli_c_Page_013.jp2
f60bb7e512bb055be18f6d38d8ef0e8b
b13dfeb5c8ed585d19703cd813f6ccbea5e66b23
604 F20101220_AAAQZP morelli_c_Page_021.txt
7bb9f37cd599659d5a64c409bb9f79f7
7c8e0a15114e09ecf60bc481718efac81944ec8b
102460 F20101220_AAARFK morelli_c_Page_043.jp2
9023e37fd2e49187efb476de53feba8d
b0e12a94f5571e460aaaf2f5b53aa668286aa5e1
F20101220_AAAQZQ morelli_c_Page_013.tif
a8516ff4fe187cabee69c0ae8542f904
f9686421b1d704cbeb525d219323784b0688ea80
108750 F20101220_AAARFL morelli_c_Page_045.jp2
393919531608ce7dac91998dfa69fe67
4ab64174dd37cccf0a6a6413e297c06c8d96580f
108312 F20101220_AAAREW morelli_c_Page_016.jp2
8383582e2e831f7eb64d22043889f25a
a9fe99d07ccc8d604757fa6a864e00694884c813
F20101220_AAAQZR morelli_c_Page_147.tif
026c493410df9348c83a7bc6ce7a0cb1
40f7b1bb5b4ebb1ee3c257da85dbf9162748bf4a
87058 F20101220_AAARGA morelli_c_Page_086.jp2
c096c34abb8a1d396bac1de84508e3ae
6fd3ed6c4c064a59f8848ffe33627fec7f770cfc
108970 F20101220_AAARFM morelli_c_Page_046.jp2
5f6c326f4cb8c54f4a5912649145e686
9676847d2260502eb43ec5961bcb2acf1bee994c
111777 F20101220_AAAREX morelli_c_Page_018.jp2
39504783924bece4fbe0b4c1360ee594
af1b0981db26176177511feb5285cea862db922d
25534 F20101220_AAAQZS morelli_c_Page_069.QC.jpg
5ca1a659fefd6ea1e604e918234da773
40828f4b7a587af43fc0a93b652c118fa58a06c0
108106 F20101220_AAARGB morelli_c_Page_087.jp2
1cccf43d76a9180fb6247212282996af
f55a71830d77ba0f38fc6019b3a5ecb956a5201a
111549 F20101220_AAARFN morelli_c_Page_047.jp2
15f90a4a95c77be03d869dc8b6eb9b9d
3227aced4dbbb2a35e5b61706f1d9fa6180ac362
108176 F20101220_AAAREY morelli_c_Page_019.jp2
9421ad7300510725061f011c89c0953b
c3cc09c9fe3ff024d941ffb1b583a48d21df7d07
1756 F20101220_AAAQZT morelli_c_Page_040.txt
95ef3f04bdfdfd72fa778e0c114afc90
d5d4b17c4612fc549082440fc87977e948831c86
104155 F20101220_AAARGC morelli_c_Page_088.jp2
0b0399d5929b978c0cfce2a3c883c787
66abb493554ff0cdf9e849a7aa799ac26c268a9f
114833 F20101220_AAARFO morelli_c_Page_057.jp2
083d458144a309be0553331575083857
88376e88f086eef6335de38002b88230691a6fa1
110489 F20101220_AAAREZ morelli_c_Page_020.jp2
6e2d8a82287b722da61f7695558d9a51
6b08b49bb8785768469ca7ae0ace7731c58a0c5e
26334 F20101220_AAAQZU morelli_c_Page_066.QC.jpg
294ac321af509ddcc8d39ebeef343013
98bea102ff0ffe18b4d2f6a6339c564d7b85da4f
95451 F20101220_AAARGD morelli_c_Page_090.jp2
90b3cdc9367db326464e61c5bdfa42d5
37c57bee000a4305b0b85d67613bd21c1db76ca7
112053 F20101220_AAARFP morelli_c_Page_060.jp2
65a0435d183484545cbf96d686c814e6
9e85add54e32c3e87f9e9d51ac985eeedde8fc18
84717 F20101220_AAAQZV morelli_c_Page_031.jpg
dc839411c7c29e4b606ef8da3646bce9
38ece9284eb8593ab9f8bf32027fb48466af28c3
111232 F20101220_AAARGE morelli_c_Page_092.jp2
5b33e2c4357abb87fb4b2bda2981cdd5
6f76508adc0e35ab61c4258efec018f9f7d31306
111340 F20101220_AAARFQ morelli_c_Page_061.jp2
fa0532b96357f97bc4bc5296c95ebd2a
853665d73042e620faaaca10c1adafbb805fbf70
75610 F20101220_AAAQZW morelli_c_Page_110.jpg
3891ff8796c8c0a86122ca3785a844ab
0e05af477374a12a6e738b38881908eeeef17fbf
105014 F20101220_AAARGF morelli_c_Page_095.jp2
8c8e608257a4f28b73575550270d0ce0
331c6d178adefc8b9f7e164349bd50f0e5397e48
115290 F20101220_AAARFR morelli_c_Page_063.jp2
0c0eedbe56c549867c0647deea2ff6aa
debcb05ff97a14cb4ee7f1b12365b5ed32ad71c5
1785 F20101220_AAAQZX morelli_c_Page_082.txt
3ebe7a3dd3bc7bd93069eb37c3a532b6
5ade20b02d5521b664c3a2579152f1947da98df7
98488 F20101220_AAARGG morelli_c_Page_097.jp2
50474b435c82cc9fc7e7deb3c4f9e353
451b52c1b071f8ed801d971bcd4723e520bc3bc2
111423 F20101220_AAARFS morelli_c_Page_065.jp2
12fc6f996f52230004c23130a0d58df8
a8c8031ec9d860e53ea43292e27e34580cfc2850
25484 F20101220_AAAQZY morelli_c_Page_017.QC.jpg
d2524c333786ca175f431df4eeacfd7f
d36a236a420820af8a7112ebad52e4c5ab21b802
108542 F20101220_AAARGH morelli_c_Page_100.jp2
e97c3dcfbf61c8e05cafc59a2539ba6f
ea6f6c229875e6b89c722a4d92e713b706db0d45
111652 F20101220_AAARFT morelli_c_Page_066.jp2
3dfda6cab88795fe544f9466a6130144
cb419bd630a833d2eb0aecf5c4124eab30f44a60
88790 F20101220_AAAQZZ morelli_c_Page_023.jpg
3cde32800e5d005aba8b27442cb563f4
e2d842f55c6b1e3cc2cd1fc29428710ad59ab2bb
102440 F20101220_AAARGI morelli_c_Page_101.jp2
1bde83ead88292429c6892ce4799dd94
eb510646d2236360a3168831219b398e9af5cf14
110586 F20101220_AAARFU morelli_c_Page_068.jp2
ccfc38259a4f8eec9e429a4840894ba9
5b52f50810f8f24076065553a93754d4a38d9afc
111074 F20101220_AAARGJ morelli_c_Page_102.jp2
6bc226b2957bddd43e8f3b289001376c
abc32ddd936f00255afe28dfe9142400c5897f0c
108071 F20101220_AAARFV morelli_c_Page_069.jp2
3213ed855b2d475c4dd527acfb734db9
3ea35d49ab7c7a88a030cd75488972ecde40e996
733115 F20101220_AAARGK morelli_c_Page_104.jp2
0a5af548f082995a8fbd3c4c675dc2c1
0501f62856b77e6dbb303937137f06423c1304d4
111212 F20101220_AAARFW morelli_c_Page_073.jp2
18cad6dd8f91999d659523bf23501797
3b823067a386062cbbc3c732788ebb3e97cd5533
863449 F20101220_AAARGL morelli_c_Page_105.jp2
bdabc5c4083f1804dc65eb49dbd3515b
e48ec872bc5d93a9d7bb17fa08327ce4cf99d6b3
108706 F20101220_AAARGM morelli_c_Page_106.jp2
2a419a912bf4535b6ffba89c0c3f65a4
a7b61dbba0fa4416014cf2ca8aafc1e0e2713093
94783 F20101220_AAARFX morelli_c_Page_081.jp2
df25348a11fac1fcfdc280e822131caa
8721018810b5a83bfd83e63cb20f5d1f5f01a23c
134476 F20101220_AAARHA morelli_c_Page_138.jp2
63a0eca82950dfaf6b68a244c072106b
7bb57609dc074bbb805d6b3a385b89c2f8cd56d1
112830 F20101220_AAARGN morelli_c_Page_107.jp2
4126bb1cc324428f909fd881bb521691
384e22ffb568421935d9cacb915d5327347e7eb7
93361 F20101220_AAARFY morelli_c_Page_082.jp2
5a7d373ba568a9661f395443580426fe
6f2fd80be0ff82799f8409807d9894f17240dae3
131800 F20101220_AAARHB morelli_c_Page_139.jp2
e70cd4f06d067455bd41061aa3173a14
4ff774cbb09803f692e8839a80879641385dd536
98837 F20101220_AAARGO morelli_c_Page_110.jp2
3d830848701c9207ef3185aad4015b46
9d4d866bf2af37db5b9eae6eee98bf5930b79ee2
15380 F20101220_AAARFZ morelli_c_Page_083.jp2
e13deb08a2b3993a7b5aa3905fd95136
f4d46445d92506be12cbdb3ec0a5fa24233246a0
123246 F20101220_AAARHC morelli_c_Page_141.jp2
9bd03cd86747f57575b0c5778fa6cee6
6a955242867a4a936e3dbbe88d2ab9af96bd96d7
107753 F20101220_AAARGP morelli_c_Page_111.jp2
fcf1eea5bd005f4b1192ae2d1ab2b118
384b80d60d4c5390f093014c5a15de8a263b2fcf
124023 F20101220_AAARHD morelli_c_Page_144.jp2
a1c4f03dec6922befffd795b70ef9a2a
567fdd16890ca71470ce7ccd31e1397bb4402bf3
106601 F20101220_AAARGQ morelli_c_Page_116.jp2
6e131caec2c53aa38e56d24a16c3a42f
7cb726759b7cebd4bfcb5e783e868debc84477bb
60327 F20101220_AAARHE morelli_c_Page_149.jp2
1641d216aba84a957bcd6499f060b37b
732facf32f028480e6df464b90efbbfe90351b44
109473 F20101220_AAARGR morelli_c_Page_122.jp2
5a3345f874bfa23dcb453e9d962b3f3f
018e613f4d49e4f79a0b3ca53136b9eba612da7d
F20101220_AAARHF morelli_c_Page_003.tif
bc8f94ed56f53d8b2ccdae7576579bc8
fa977eaa45b737649ae460433ffa47332ed339ab
111398 F20101220_AAARGS morelli_c_Page_123.jp2
a3c78b61c6fd02c1a4aefd37770f197b
2ce746b446b1f32981ee997a36cf5d13eccb19cb
F20101220_AAARHG morelli_c_Page_004.tif
90cdd83bd86be334bd0bba5dbce60942
756d497c2680f9bb13ccb72856333372fa704f8c
1051980 F20101220_AAARGT morelli_c_Page_126.jp2
c0e0ef7f920b5d9e94606ffe4d5be705
e98df479a0355084f6b033dacea5e46fb383a672
F20101220_AAARHH morelli_c_Page_006.tif
28f8c3deca6ec624c05f30e7b0a6eafb
e68c00727bd9cf3d13e71e1eec8d2b025cebe6d1
7442 F20101220_AAARGU morelli_c_Page_127.jp2
3d4ecafae016316eb909ad32662311ac
895b43366cd1fecb8dc77cb76d64cdfda9046692
F20101220_AAARHI morelli_c_Page_007.tif
61f0e860c1cc630ac6fe3ccf9a6185e0
0a2267202bf3c2bb9b8495a756519362b9f6db36
60924 F20101220_AAARGV morelli_c_Page_128.jp2
d79a09ef2280773ecbecc6bf007d54e1
3c34ef8fa438cdd35196015cf439d907d243c8a4
F20101220_AAARHJ morelli_c_Page_008.tif
d6b49b9e52339f950ad8d09cd2845b75
91b6cf236a84d393a92505b468ac5cbb452ea6e0
79113 F20101220_AAARGW morelli_c_Page_130.jp2
5a5d023b1d81edd837cfd3e57057de72
6984bea4a24504069668eb7be2a2697394c9e00d
25271604 F20101220_AAARHK morelli_c_Page_011.tif
35610726432d92f65bc9e0749309e284
9315ca9441ed0933b65a2addae44a1ebec24bb23
29525 F20101220_AAARGX morelli_c_Page_133.jp2
9e792224f36c1ea4a07a2fcabc4c0a43
4c848178674a1a52477847c3d5e52092fb99f4ff
F20101220_AAARHL morelli_c_Page_012.tif
69b95bc135aef095da704ea76c0c5de6
f9a7460a309625507e3903e689f28190ad0ba023
F20101220_AAARIA morelli_c_Page_040.tif
44df6c15672cfd7f1f6b9c5ebe9c6233
55c07df9822fd061b1c52480a48a584372923fe4
F20101220_AAARHM morelli_c_Page_015.tif
3e6d5d5021c852341915778cd6d22efc
4727c3755714e5f1a8d4a68fba6e8df673fa7c1a
140145 F20101220_AAARGY morelli_c_Page_136.jp2
1dd2d3f1a451313768473ec792dccf23
f4720d701180ad1224d92c80cfd30c44ece2b30d
F20101220_AAARIB morelli_c_Page_042.tif
0f2fe273120ebf4c5cef0cff894104a5
861993ba847ec339ba977f22ea01fbfd65314173
F20101220_AAARHN morelli_c_Page_017.tif
84c9ae7529fd68fd4bec0ce429dab400
7525f588e8e3376bb2de14e8bd513ebcfe24fca7
134106 F20101220_AAARGZ morelli_c_Page_137.jp2
6eea6c06eadd739ec60933f2994c0cbd
8a042f018974e0330a9ca805e1975565ccc4a235
F20101220_AAARIC morelli_c_Page_045.tif
72d20d1aa5ab157b8871a0ec9c456de0
54947270be63fe5e8f3e634961f80e1cbe17529c
F20101220_AAARHO morelli_c_Page_018.tif
de41ce638aa0bb064b9d745b4b3b4c75
cea473af0691ec071930b5f85b79745768a0cc2b
F20101220_AAARID morelli_c_Page_046.tif
d40e839b9af272b7d0fed5c866d848f8
6e380bb368463c8ffa40210571e2609e1f24aea0
F20101220_AAARHP morelli_c_Page_019.tif
b1f8d563349be84d4aad82568bc55187
3303998b94104ad6d0ffe33e7d349fede86f8cc6
F20101220_AAARIE morelli_c_Page_052.tif
406557100f72fc166aa3719e6ca32b68
9e952e2f1d9701e921b96459d761516dd57efeb1
F20101220_AAARHQ morelli_c_Page_023.tif
aa2be9a78ebfdd2390d595dca1fa6e90
508061c0aa4c1ade56519725cafc0d6a1192e28b
F20101220_AAARIF morelli_c_Page_061.tif
e7c2bc7636c732ecec80b3112259591c
9d3cad9297ac36f9e56a21be52e6aa6440aadc79
F20101220_AAARHR morelli_c_Page_025.tif
6bab2ae6041560480563835abd2c5588
8c1a1c7d1beef09ec3eb18d905426d6f09b42bf1
F20101220_AAARIG morelli_c_Page_062.tif
7ad42dc24aad6067a5fd42aec452c07a
cae3f7059e9139db64b59a12461f71a2ba321638
F20101220_AAARHS morelli_c_Page_028.tif
a201155f54d4c18f5f7956ee69dfad69
36a7ba9339ffd78b4b68fd9c11973ef094728201
F20101220_AAARIH morelli_c_Page_065.tif
fffc4c62548b8caa93459a316fd7bf9d
fb8e588ea4c559aff95f6ea2a556b1d51baf203d
F20101220_AAARHT morelli_c_Page_029.tif
4223f1676da79a4e43e2d559ede1967a
66dd524224631f8aa6510c2ac09d48b1b61fe54d
F20101220_AAARII morelli_c_Page_067.tif
9e9aefe9908ff3bb41f34a867105b049
2dfefbe32547c04fd7ca761c85b297680812d0a6
F20101220_AAARHU morelli_c_Page_030.tif
7d8b015e0a0b0d7718f5b335ef4fa12e
89fcfc6405cb113e1e9180017767fad6fa0a206d
F20101220_AAARIJ morelli_c_Page_068.tif
12afbbd433fce6ff802af0ea0650943a
4b1c23a055e3c570d4cf55621a3f5c6cb111e139
F20101220_AAARHV morelli_c_Page_031.tif
3a7af33d66480a5d0ff91bc00243d8eb
eca9bad449c00125f3020b591cbcd6cb4351692c
F20101220_AAARIK morelli_c_Page_069.tif
51e45af256f84596b4ecb5357c9b9e6e
c465a8fb9e0c5203cbaf0669e120ea0a7f83b7fd
F20101220_AAARHW morelli_c_Page_032.tif
494e11dd27400eb4f5b117ae2a509e53
ced4c42ce1cdb3590b3e79765a5ec33b1d42d4be
F20101220_AAARIL morelli_c_Page_070.tif
3dabdd4bac7e307ac769bb817b68e162
f55c2bba2b72f7dc111cc139ee10d701b46e6f61
F20101220_AAARHX morelli_c_Page_035.tif
4d96c632949330b34aee79bcf3529bed
afd7d656015dbbe7c9e4108b13bfc20336a6cf27
F20101220_AAARJA morelli_c_Page_106.tif
120e17d8ac8ccd62a99a795f16602cf5
eddbace1be43efe10725d525bf3edcfc9a718ab5
F20101220_AAARIM morelli_c_Page_071.tif
f97e91e09b67dd6f754cc5d7d5767af8
e887d627246e8cd53ad6d35a4f1913aff34c2884
F20101220_AAARHY morelli_c_Page_038.tif
a09fa26b2fbe37a1ee518e62695d9382
283ce5fe91d7c77d212069cb39dcab56cbde2339
F20101220_AAARIN morelli_c_Page_072.tif
98b82a0fb49b413b97b37d49c507d2c2
f40e4ad8c10f778c41ab5265deec29302d83e77e
F20101220_AAARJB morelli_c_Page_109.tif
c0f37d13249a5cd516c30a5f34fb14d2
03f2aa20091a28c228b356a667e9c62e37c6597d
F20101220_AAARIO morelli_c_Page_073.tif
186881645b48ae86f1f22cc004a4226d
eafce14edb1242a631cb19e455cee0335ebb2ee9
F20101220_AAARHZ morelli_c_Page_039.tif
d76b4be82f0355d86a7ea1505797f400
560892d82accbd788db29a24c85bf486be41ef5b
1442 F20101220_AAAQGA morelli_c_Page_002.QC.jpg
c6f02b56ad7c4948dddad82f2be439b3
2fca49bb42910246d66cd2da802467e4d3a43185
F20101220_AAARJC morelli_c_Page_112.tif
c00b591f78dc224b58e9c00a4902b676
2df2905330d10aa4510ceae0d7280066f020e522
F20101220_AAARIP morelli_c_Page_077.tif
1ad2b88542abc96636c8fd3d90340cb6
a320e2d037196b9f621b0847186114d4a22e641b
85099 F20101220_AAAQGB morelli_c_Page_062.jpg
d3192fe397831889fc70dbf2e3a6093d
11b424146d4269d0d3b3a9f4530f6b5f5c8ca06e
F20101220_AAARJD morelli_c_Page_113.tif
2598e944bb0a9a35ed78145ba3b95908
22921b9b52c5546c7c4acda471ab0e660a18d23e
F20101220_AAARIQ morelli_c_Page_086.tif
d6bff39ffe7068d89882aa010c0c4da7
65e3d3813b3cd0ebcb55e30bb53450a78e067b80
84725 F20101220_AAAQGC morelli_c_Page_058.jpg
98861c3c833fea087d53edef449f0925
ebb1397a863d79b6db12c391cc5467b30e5d35da
F20101220_AAARJE morelli_c_Page_115.tif
eae4e8322160ea0c79828720a277636c
2ecc83d432a9d88765526e632e2d0cdfaa69ded0
F20101220_AAARIR morelli_c_Page_087.tif
aacd06388df0e7336fdef3520ce177fc
1a44a57ea6e7a31652e8952677615e4a7c29eb5e
F20101220_AAAQGD morelli_c_Page_110.tif
9c1445136e9b94a02bd38c903f160f46
52261ab3f782ad95797020e7dfd559b7d83c6313
F20101220_AAARJF morelli_c_Page_116.tif
771974ade1c7b58aaab9a17534f7d820
e13129d7a9d22ddeebd38ebbc7f7dc8281a8f1f0
F20101220_AAARIS morelli_c_Page_088.tif
a3555d923de634cc1f7b0ed18a603dec
87e733011f79500c21d63f89fcb65f89f9156348
75131 F20101220_AAAQGE morelli_c_Page_097.jpg
52f870c561e8ad3104853bd2d4673446
1f9e37402004dba60b03dca392872a560b1880d6
F20101220_AAARJG morelli_c_Page_117.tif
51a5e2ba092732849831f988d94f3e91
88417a27c737ba0310c4c81bc29d47b4de4edc57
F20101220_AAARIT morelli_c_Page_089.tif
a283e33a93352662c799b2173522a6c3
69ca16f05801db5683395476633acfec26a1f4aa
6088 F20101220_AAAQGF morelli_c_Page_019thm.jpg
a915ac7de0c9c58efd83d7a221975447
c871e740488d268988821112e030d566ce5db91d
F20101220_AAARJH morelli_c_Page_119.tif
14c77e8f04805898c47c32bda20addb1
c4fbc9676aa98ac70bac7ca7ba5c53f31e6c68a6
F20101220_AAARIU morelli_c_Page_092.tif
6167bd4c0ac14b9a4a245686501f958d
85a2fbd9c2707ff25f555d5007f21f7d35328533
F20101220_AAAQGG morelli_c_Page_118.tif
624e9d37c1f38d4e24e4b2e5c56ead38
a73575eda37f6ef0fc97c82a77ac58afe7764ff8
F20101220_AAARJI morelli_c_Page_120.tif
232d35dfe847747c089110e145d3fbad
d7cebca31027edb57df5231a12bdaca9c9219e14
F20101220_AAARIV morelli_c_Page_096.tif
e8efe0e0fabb19f0a487affeead62516
be9fc705045bf3df72074d4ef153f9c904ff7ba8
111323 F20101220_AAAQGH morelli_c_Page_041.jp2
d0935ff918078f0e4d056edbc9b7c950
2885366f93d68537bad7dfe01d5e6e81953e33b2
F20101220_AAARJJ morelli_c_Page_122.tif
3e8be4bba2d2b5284b20308c1ab126a6
b17ca9bcf87414e5210b445fb73e3732c84559da
113445 F20101220_AAAQFU morelli_c_Page_059.jp2
cbfb5d108a3cbf4e27f6754dc20b6169
1dc5329e872025b396c79086706670cd0e4b1c53
F20101220_AAARIW morelli_c_Page_098.tif
8f1016b46c292c25c6f593df845e256e
94bd61f6505b4076b247737e47965ee22de37398
27171 F20101220_AAAQGI morelli_c_Page_119.QC.jpg
3faeecd26ba48cb13b9a5fe3b768c43c
414e1cd5166c9504ceffa7faea6665948d59afb5
F20101220_AAARJK morelli_c_Page_126.tif
4443761489f34e78d929aa3fd5a13ee5
a465f3e6bcff51d60bcbbb43a450e78c9cca72bb
15166 F20101220_AAAQFV morelli_c_Page_021.pro
c3890b674335088482aea21a2a0e6b46
f36a442eb6c8698cdbe08bd2194d549d01c32bef
F20101220_AAARIX morelli_c_Page_099.tif
b891530702b59dcd6882120bcb56becd
6035e0a52c91dabf3f97e90810f057a8588f4abc
53110 F20101220_AAAQGJ morelli_c_Page_054.pro
1ca19096ec8b0ac0c706821a54c2f09a
459240fe6681f43b0118d24cf5aa4f29b969d963
F20101220_AAARJL morelli_c_Page_127.tif
b6ccdbec63adad4e5653185056216ce5
0dfbc7d5e60f4b1431bb48ea850e63f4d7aa0e6e
47469 F20101220_AAARKA morelli_c_Page_007.pro
e0a4a731cb7e368e4ee9f023d72ea555
ac7c3659f4f6fc87dd582b233c73cf08d870819c
F20101220_AAAQFW morelli_c_Page_123.tif
a502469a1b0d045f7d5ee660fd023029
57b017811e2ee1dc1e038bdbc88b9f5945a2ce68
F20101220_AAARIY morelli_c_Page_101.tif
ca1a7d17ed4019aa54c3d975c05765c4
a1a4208f4d925865edaab2b3e9f94b8b4c9b8ad5
2602 F20101220_AAAQGK morelli_c_Page_138.txt
3988d9965bcf7bcc701cc9200ec395b0
25b42338094665c3b44e316acc0ab31453defddf
1054428 F20101220_AAARJM morelli_c_Page_128.tif
658dcb6bca9343cb0ac120276f4607a8
da20960eaabf40a055551d530d7f38ce83dc2785
9609 F20101220_AAARKB morelli_c_Page_012.pro
7a37f5dd6528f5608681cedda67b8a2f
3992a551f7877b5d1e26aff65271c3b86dd80c52
111989 F20101220_AAAQFX morelli_c_Page_053.jp2
52c5ced8ce7ca7f94ef71f3a446a56d6
95a0996092c259bff0d34c650fb1d7383fe4cd51
F20101220_AAARIZ morelli_c_Page_102.tif
766d3f027db042ff7535495bfc2634dc
b9e3f0db0ab1227c66e545458fb1872a87a6a014
53027 F20101220_AAAQGL morelli_c_Page_034.pro
97c78f79d344aa716d673761d7b0eb4e
b959f0415f559e0e7a5a5f61ce906fd327c40441
F20101220_AAARJN morelli_c_Page_132.tif
7d465f70fef1f6962829828cef4caa55
1ac45e8fed2b83fd1bf7f8a60e76465252a156ba
45811 F20101220_AAARKC morelli_c_Page_015.pro
2cbb54fef3841ba2c2b53593b267afaa
934da6ead557fdbcf318a479895a3e348be346f0
97591 F20101220_AAAQHA morelli_c_Page_126.jpg
640d51e3915e94ae4a288b66daa4236b
66fe2f42b36e9d6523b9b877c378f2394c1deb45
72485 F20101220_AAAQGM morelli_c_Page_081.jpg
e49332c71330985c9c06fca9ac065a96
86b4821cb9ba7087ca6f452f35a9e2614841ee85
F20101220_AAARJO morelli_c_Page_134.tif
dbb4855675bb2b4887a8887c0e1cc5a2
4960aac23732e53a3bfd878f8edf9f3c9c44b314
48104 F20101220_AAARKD morelli_c_Page_016.pro
e24a53ab886acc18dfa03bc83d86bae8
113a4f35830973f53adb78ce4337005b7941fad5
111578 F20101220_AAAQFY morelli_c_Page_120.jp2
be49c45197d7c9c9a541e990369adb82
96caec83480ccbd5447195ec38ad7f7a882c78b6
126560 F20101220_AAAQHB morelli_c_Page_143.jp2
d09511ce58fa9bec57fe68b6e55d5cc3
55c454a71e324908574c411cc67213b0e4c94a81
125495 F20101220_AAAQGN morelli_c_Page_145.jp2
2874e97fb143c32cb7ce7f551f9b7821
c4594c1ba4df9253c901b58ae65a4e44098b4070
F20101220_AAARJP morelli_c_Page_135.tif
e9a08cdbf7f410dc46b1dec521f828a3
21f66eb32a8aa8ae4de3d7767f0834946524356a
50308 F20101220_AAARKE morelli_c_Page_017.pro
f1b74cc25f652348fee98962b236c194
8bf118690e8be9d2ecb6c3813d2812c910de24a5
24992 F20101220_AAAQFZ morelli_c_Page_077.QC.jpg
de1a99cf8f13d5eb9827e3d8cf5290fe
bc995fd4884f1986774927e046050b685357cbea
2112 F20101220_AAAQHC morelli_c_Page_057.txt
fafc8f2666afe79b76b38f48e962838a
a1f0649244c7d13c33b956c9d2fd91d716f96cbc
101930 F20101220_AAAQGO morelli_c_Page_007.jp2
2899b2c2d208fe594ff4ce804d54745f
b39685ed22f373cd23ea3fe5f69943bb127583ad
F20101220_AAARJQ morelli_c_Page_136.tif
b341fdac3df2a04fcaaef0ffe6ecd87c
af893965cedd2e9afd5bb8d84d241cfef550560a
48499 F20101220_AAARKF morelli_c_Page_019.pro
da0541a125189a0d66b23530415a1caf
c0ccdd3ef4c0e77b673984955b9eb8878aae677a
F20101220_AAAQHD morelli_c_Page_078.tif
aaa74a3bf1ec213c0795989ba2466315
00f9f0d6bed220dc8d16f8e98cd84c895f9c3f65
46324 F20101220_AAAQGP morelli_c_Page_043.pro
ea0e4ace5381e096ab08242790b12d3d
d3b27a10cc53c50bd6c1e9ef1941afed9caa79d5
F20101220_AAARJR morelli_c_Page_137.tif
d10bf13218892afc42ea8e3595019ec2
fe7da5292de20c7fe600d4688148bd022b042ed3
52765 F20101220_AAARKG morelli_c_Page_023.pro
bef025c318d65d92b9533f3c4d91150c
83fe26a5088f555e9b8ec24e14ab3e846687e677
45856 F20101220_AAAQHE morelli_c_Page_004.pro
7f870690703a69c9e80dc8500bafd523
e3aaa0dec5c8496dd1911a00727dc1006af6cdda
25439 F20101220_AAAQGQ morelli_c_Page_037.QC.jpg
94486c145eb15f2077466a4c4bed6672
55c17042c0cb08800cf3dc8a894c56489da5d06b
F20101220_AAARJS morelli_c_Page_138.tif
9b64266314d60c737e31d687052c8dda
076a51a7aa5bd6fc367763f03962303784156a0f
53252 F20101220_AAARKH morelli_c_Page_028.pro
c5659396fe98fff911b59e0d15d1e0b2
8a718982b341bb64a6d5aceb7b6e1dab23fcb33b
78941 F20101220_AAAQHF morelli_c_Page_042.jpg
e9b0cf53043f5206d42e9dab54a5945e
6c90e84a58543a0aeb14796fed9345e6dded8934
113436 F20101220_AAAQGR morelli_c_Page_114.jp2
902871741e570596f9c3ab5bd9fd263f
5464eeefbb98dc4caf63153a22c4632a1677874b
F20101220_AAARJT morelli_c_Page_139.tif
c09a1825b9a74bd878e16296562a5044
4e916ae9bd62c0efdb77e47a685397a53a872f26
51992 F20101220_AAARKI morelli_c_Page_029.pro
dfa20784bc5119ee406138b0a32f4b0b
e541638c2ba74ade30d2d63ca89e34ca149edd5b
F20101220_AAAQHG morelli_c_Page_103.tif
1bffd7dc1c8f2046e9f6b14f30b66814
fc8e4ca1e212c4bf207da96d2658af032af339d4
F20101220_AAAQGS morelli_c_Page_081.tif
db6011ac893ebf569a83ff06198445fe
6256b299ddd43562d4c3bc657334e25c63c5e1d8
F20101220_AAARJU morelli_c_Page_141.tif
fa083ed3562406fdd817ba23133a58ed
a097449570fb72b548cca1fd32dc6cdb253d8df3
52262 F20101220_AAARKJ morelli_c_Page_031.pro
af13770e47f010a08afc23af85c3ea6e
10edb544337c053837629117379e1dbb20fc9ae9
6380 F20101220_AAAQHH morelli_c_Page_091thm.jpg
01e4ae1d4fa285d24021b703bebc586b
5e3aaa0e32a993253ec035e90f5dd527a6967cc0
F20101220_AAAQGT morelli_c_Page_041.tif
e0304037dcbec4301aaa37ddddfb03ce
6bfe49efc27e67e2cf7869b4433489cd51b82b1e
F20101220_AAARJV morelli_c_Page_143.tif
2812c2b5696e09744be0b5cc87366676
6c17b056bd2cf8cc8802f25d0910d9a8d135d6a4
49311 F20101220_AAARKK morelli_c_Page_033.pro
535f3a8ba5bd94c32ec509e251aa3733
59a93084b532101bdc803e978471b21e90f1cffc
F20101220_AAAQHI morelli_c_Page_094.tif
6968c66a78c0b6f8384725e09aaf6e18
d98e0845d49be50fc2718db94ad5b71dab3f5cd3
112352 F20101220_AAAQGU morelli_c_Page_113.jp2
5c36dc20de0245b30511f690e35414e3
220b1cc62c1fb6cd24411271c9c72a07e5ebabdf
F20101220_AAARJW morelli_c_Page_145.tif
a72ae7cc957d3bf14b236b8f5b437607
d27c26f175bfadb549a47d04606219b1f06e44bc
51929 F20101220_AAARKL morelli_c_Page_035.pro
96fb70f2a1437f6ced93bff70c3099f4
99eba15a5a5e384b2c80d57c72e833f68ff91e55
6062 F20101220_AAAQHJ morelli_c_Page_006thm.jpg
63010298faeb48b4ce3d0ddf0f8d4829
a60bfa8741ce53da8ba49856ea31da06407ec4f6
99393 F20101220_AAAQGV morelli_c_Page_103.jp2
f70b6e1edc96697bae774534290abe2d
60ffdc2d0199af67fece425d3a77bdfe6abf625b
F20101220_AAARJX morelli_c_Page_148.tif
862cc40b3ebe2e8cafd98e58ab7699fe
755d95340d06be22e843c91e5f3faee27d942587
52889 F20101220_AAARLA morelli_c_Page_067.pro
51ed4091228cf0db88db75a496310637
a37ec7d8c93830859e61b7d9011c99876f207292
49697 F20101220_AAARKM morelli_c_Page_036.pro
c181d1544ecd638a62d6962451f8699e
0c31fb82461667eca2d5dbc7645d88e42443f9d6
6188 F20101220_AAAQHK morelli_c_Page_026thm.jpg
274b53434bd2ae7bc88372419061eee3
45d2a3f32dd11c5dc42fe82f4ef6bda11915d071
5863 F20101220_AAAQGW morelli_c_Page_095thm.jpg
42e80cc25a738791730a6c537cde49ed
006b39aee16c14ebea94f3f4edb175ba688ca9e5
8971 F20101220_AAARJY morelli_c_Page_001.pro
3e2f75be779bd3f69b5a9d6637f056ad
8464b15e4c71abd3ee6381cce71083b943aabed6
51225 F20101220_AAARLB morelli_c_Page_068.pro
77fcc861c10a8fa9ed5c1079565f641b
40e8c90dff0af5bb0f88d805a4469d3f60f806d7
42251 F20101220_AAARKN morelli_c_Page_040.pro
e0a34f504183f0c5dd8e2696afb3375c
6798f2b823703f21432111fde7ac7e48862e4b9f
63192 F20101220_AAAQHL morelli_c_Page_131.jpg
0e67a7c4b0d18c2f506a2f1770c8df1b
1a37cfc15ff6c3a8264fc7e3f43fb9a1f0dae2cf
36265 F20101220_AAAQGX morelli_c_Page_130.pro
7994a3f5d7c89fb5c47b56ca3ecf010c
9f98405f66df5bc71e993168e967e3aca5779e81
7948 F20101220_AAARJZ morelli_c_Page_003.pro
2a95441e34816586b225931f48e5ed08
e2b5d0a85b7ad8cc59e38848d0fa4446664b3ce6
52107 F20101220_AAARLC morelli_c_Page_070.pro
fcc8e3b410d798561301cdbca60e4541
8f2a5b0660e26ccc838254071e179f77311c1d03
47463 F20101220_AAARKO morelli_c_Page_042.pro
034ad6ab3eb2fff890fe223fde448c7f
454efad2c99493f6c83fd3523da0004494343712
1828 F20101220_AAAQIA morelli_c_Page_022.txt
eca863a33e9ac5c71bb11933ff76c3b8
81a967055c8d7c4e0c2fe816e9a93fa0b485bdd8
86037 F20101220_AAAQHM morelli_c_Page_059.jpg
8d1a1eef38b29d0b53ef83db19fbb5ac
d1be5c1b7efb8fd7c7764006ab8ed5e81c61b299
110983 F20101220_AAAQGY morelli_c_Page_074.jp2
90c3e6b941d5de130c66368090183a17
90eb04f2383947d731173b8bc7195fd638866d7b
50035 F20101220_AAARLD morelli_c_Page_071.pro
94637df6b6a2af388273ca03bfb75373
9ad8f02ef29df8c21c57590744093f487f9836d3
49847 F20101220_AAARKP morelli_c_Page_046.pro
fe897d793f437af9657e147b4ba2be7c
61abc224583942e5b1bfa39be87b52efcf2aa432
23597 F20101220_AAAQIB morelli_c_Page_084.QC.jpg
cf50c67c78100fe35584b2fe1361c750
d7d1101d5dace5afde190164a7790206a6e96a8d
20033 F20101220_AAAQHN morelli_c_Page_010.QC.jpg
d0b6667740b86f89798d6bcf5e1310c7
9ec7d62edab9bb743c8ef8a845ee9c7b692ee79a
52799 F20101220_AAARLE morelli_c_Page_072.pro
54a5fbaba352b21d85bf35392982492d
19b2ac8ce3c0b29061d4faaea1ba467b6f14e814
50043 F20101220_AAARKQ morelli_c_Page_047.pro
e5d62997e8fd1a32584ddc2b105592c0
b33fd470bed4c95f33310ab3d46ff61aebf314ce
49985 F20101220_AAAQIC morelli_c_Page_069.pro
aa45e239de76a91fb60f5e11e64ad7a7
357a9279ee45175ace0d6f01a29f47235a41afaa
2100 F20101220_AAAQHO morelli_c_Page_119.txt
353f8e5bc107c5c81b0c6cd009fafe7b
a07d62ceaad07c58079cf2f91b2396bf159d67bb
106615 F20101220_AAAQGZ morelli_c_Page_076.jp2
efdc703edc9dfd3f4741846fd7ca8f7e
bbaae8148754f05777b76837e9d2a5e11b6116b2
51924 F20101220_AAARLF morelli_c_Page_075.pro
e6cf131ba16758f5a8a77de93b0cac82
2f16552949bbfbd631c88141d4e18706f796d03f
52926 F20101220_AAARKR morelli_c_Page_048.pro
2148af2a0eeca0e46fac8b3f168451c2
f700232294c6fce3825beaadf7f2240a734bb468
F20101220_AAAQID morelli_c_Page_097.tif
43466e6e48d68f42e0e6db64c17cfd20
181a8492da28325eedaa20affa7f9d47f43a6a2f
26415 F20101220_AAAQHP morelli_c_Page_113.QC.jpg
bade7ade157477bf0c8e9084f91852b0
3d32a8944e2eeb86eba6bf4c3893cdfc3a075cc5
49565 F20101220_AAARLG morelli_c_Page_076.pro
c7eab7f2e823631477bf77543362a16e
0194b862d6694e9a66eda207e4505af8f65dd741
48587 F20101220_AAARKS morelli_c_Page_050.pro
5532c811c06fdeda3090d1e23e2cc99a
47613519b69a940e0191df4efd4d47e4d40fa182
6779 F20101220_AAAQIE morelli_c_Page_147thm.jpg
cc5cf4d3d99ca28849a8306ec619d51c
a91477546c75bc1ba8aec77821639ef07c8a000d
1856 F20101220_AAAQHQ morelli_c_Page_084.txt
d9ae664354a6220053f53f27e9c215e4
ce1be9f3e0f864e6e955b488e4ea54af1271d11a
50100 F20101220_AAARLH morelli_c_Page_079.pro
8258944c48f72294c8f306c17a3c6dbb
a368aa8b5d177acf27cb6901cf0ec5c7b7fb44ff
53621 F20101220_AAARKT morelli_c_Page_056.pro
77562690483ce611e475dd2963ff72a1
92675cf5f1be6a051c76c527a31cdd8c3f8a372c
26601 F20101220_AAAQIF morelli_c_Page_031.QC.jpg
015379212da63a8e63dab9d53f37c8cd
104a4e1f499230dfbb2ae2adbb253616c4ef27ab
1826 F20101220_AAAQHR morelli_c_Page_103.txt
5a82acb098359b1a556f4c832a88ef76
4283210917a50aa3cee6f8e2c12e92142f797701
51285 F20101220_AAARLI morelli_c_Page_080.pro
a91aa8003c40130b5a0b8cb8dfe2228b
62c51734cb2d0ec4e677de720ba2c8f3240b781e
53326 F20101220_AAARKU morelli_c_Page_057.pro
a93396fd040ba521ca2935579a550208
2a6d4bc432caf095b4bd6e235b3f8ed74728df13
52821 F20101220_AAAQIG morelli_c_Page_032.pro
a251522f06bda826a355614e53a90a61
01ec05c85483158eca77bbf4e7fa8f4bf07d12d3
26780 F20101220_AAAQHS morelli_c_Page_059.QC.jpg
7df999250e0f120da14f806d80d21687
95863f3f1c2bbec74504f5616810f193931c22d9
42899 F20101220_AAARLJ morelli_c_Page_081.pro
e7d4ae23ac52eefa598143089e33630f
2bb532e953f69d025a279189eafc926b316701a8
52510 F20101220_AAARKV morelli_c_Page_059.pro
248610f42f7695114017cc992a4effd2
d7e62c6cbc16b67023a1b1291eba9bfe1d7d908d
1421 F20101220_AAAQIH morelli_c_Page_104.txt
8102df75029bc6294bfbc5229c0e56ce
cb72a3876ddb995a569fbfa920ee1c79532a7fb6
F20101220_AAAQHT morelli_c_Page_131.tif
bd049c1f13d8c7a6e07f2736ea7ae924
63386adb2c807c25d51c35e5d18771c117210d39
42305 F20101220_AAARLK morelli_c_Page_082.pro
d35a45c070626a0323adff566a028c36
30d93c2680e8839baa3d059d38dc1713ef00634a
51811 F20101220_AAARKW morelli_c_Page_060.pro
04a1ceb62b3c058bce13da2ef6808b8b
40b443462ea22fc5ab663220610848a6b2da42ab
82605 F20101220_AAAQII morelli_c_Page_117.jpg
0c5b02a9b0a260caed0e36dae8a786c7
18c86fec5e49c9d009e655f8a9fe71c5e31e9e06
6530 F20101220_AAAQHU morelli_c_Page_054thm.jpg
fd2fce98060d51d775596953d201b993
19261d62c865347804857b4d6da37d5dcb3ce0be
45177 F20101220_AAARLL morelli_c_Page_084.pro
957a47f83431757443d54de219a5cc54
563e7773c0bc70f1059962c2a533b267dbe320b1
51637 F20101220_AAARKX morelli_c_Page_062.pro
0f9b4ac995e8b391c744604a6966c3e2
593bef84af3edc8529c8e911bb30f705d3d748f1
52568 F20101220_AAAQIJ morelli_c_Page_025.pro
6ebe3b7cfaac98d18a4d4316bbe6dd9c
b2fd08da381f0e66520c67948efe301ca224f093
2022 F20101220_AAAQHV morelli_c_Page_074.txt
f22e4d05fb7f7bc58fc576ecdc011cac
abfc4bc34e4a5652ebfa80bc086a08f2aad06f3a
49603 F20101220_AAARMA morelli_c_Page_115.pro
4cc7f4fd0e777b8324d010f43c2caae2
20698af687a09fbf2dc4117bf4f66aee8c3a2d25
48138 F20101220_AAARLM morelli_c_Page_088.pro
f14619fa9e769dd9b3ce16bca9f782df
03d9e95202ead8082350a71134b1d5a2ae5fb73e
51934 F20101220_AAARKY morelli_c_Page_065.pro
8f52f4b074897385714084345d8deb1b
234287dc8d517b34ad160a9898c4a237001f762d
F20101220_AAAQIK morelli_c_Page_140.tif
e60a8ed09833d67f9291efa47b903744
37b55fb7bd24c27a6f259858f86478b9bfa76d7d
F20101220_AAAQHW morelli_c_Page_085.tif
1ba198d6ecd257d1e3e7e2efa3f8c16a
bcb4b3c1d3f28c6790e1cb5152dfbf0a2a3071e1
53407 F20101220_AAARMB morelli_c_Page_119.pro
62ab0bf41ec80f0cf6765a8832e3f83b
19bcc753d3d760d24b43a23d9f4bf57b00f65920
54618 F20101220_AAARLN morelli_c_Page_089.pro
04b8553f03db3739ebc308f02fff2d25
bbc6c6bbf0cbd0abde955bd33f25253720d8f828
50748 F20101220_AAARKZ morelli_c_Page_066.pro
670b1cd94c5c0adc7076f6cf13b46f2f
881e26bfff457ef3aa6a21f1a8d0beeb7368f673
25580 F20101220_AAAQIL morelli_c_Page_036.QC.jpg
ebdfa5429705555da9fac366542ebb98
36ecf057cc981ed3da8b0c6fec1babf34b14f40a
24170 F20101220_AAAQHX morelli_c_Page_103.QC.jpg
bad194dfb19d5dd475632acc95ef62cd
9c161ff75d79bbdcd4de098900334aa10efab11a
50999 F20101220_AAARMC morelli_c_Page_122.pro
9182adecb13ceb26f026387cc5d14365
850ee406293de6db947663e64497382a9cbeabb9
53445 F20101220_AAARLO morelli_c_Page_092.pro
30b78201fa8806b53c5812989f9f2af8
2233d26ece759bc210b7e7ad3666df55a9c5cc1e
F20101220_AAAQIM morelli_c_Page_142.tif
010e00b2e14879a4ecfd126b6760972c
9e38316d1dc14f93e13fdd946a183c1ae022d215
6225 F20101220_AAAQHY morelli_c_Page_069thm.jpg
f2cda0767307486e5f2c6760e3e6a436
1a99361b16649ba8aa0bf148bd4277264495c995
14895 F20101220_AAAQJA morelli_c_Page_039.jp2
2374cc925b0c31dbb16fef6a20fb5064
21c0dde475fd2ab9cdb75e6d4dd3e487e0c242d8
51581 F20101220_AAARMD morelli_c_Page_123.pro
0a932df26d397e51f132de7204cd8c34
432b9ddd6614ccd36c5c1424a8efc5c3ee3e431e
44825 F20101220_AAARLP morelli_c_Page_097.pro
3726b2dc115ff89d05264b195b06cc34
cbaccd0407a58c58422b86534d60f7a5934691bd
1883 F20101220_AAAQIN morelli_c_Page_007.txt
3c954ad2845344be38c5fe28303ce98a
c5d58c649eb4419c7892a9bdc189dbbda160ee33
27452 F20101220_AAAQHZ morelli_c_Page_032.QC.jpg
e851b5aeb5122aca412328e8e9182bb5
c6eb2d6341f07def76cda0ca7261380ddd1a64bd
2411 F20101220_AAAQJB morelli_c_Page_143.txt
99e95364dbaa95d129ff6af43133fed6
d2f21553ae6a7e674c94813c50ac80684bcfd11b
49634 F20101220_AAARME morelli_c_Page_126.pro
6a77f731a77c9f269fe32c5dc197661a
46589cafbea36eb01447908c3500f280967e664e
29040 F20101220_AAARLQ morelli_c_Page_098.pro
3fcf1a1636a3472c9d89c808d355cbba
b06523893980a7dd497eb641430433cc33fb8aa1
27627 F20101220_AAAQIO morelli_c_Page_092.QC.jpg
c016d1b41532f3cef4baadda9e2b73e3
fb5b6bd6a935ab0a8ef55af2d5d49349721e361b
27065 F20101220_AAAQJC morelli_c_Page_140.QC.jpg
bb415d84dc3bd23b7f047e163216118f
1ccf2adbe66ee637a813b951dcf7aa37b2846ca6
1782 F20101220_AAARMF morelli_c_Page_127.pro
0505573009d62746f06d7d24eb931ae8
700ba09c010a3c277d6d6d1d5f189534ab9cf6b8
50991 F20101220_AAARLR morelli_c_Page_100.pro
c856f256f24baed693f6e4ee794e1a28
df4e9feb25dbcd4e80f47c7911daea10a9b8afb4
1970 F20101220_AAAQJD morelli_c_Page_069.txt
26628596645900ef30cd156114cc1e41
1ba4c32a8f2a1771cfbb2bc5d7c9702d8e0472a2
1668 F20101220_AAAQIP morelli_c_Page_086.txt
bc04c8cd35219f53000ff290c6e76b51
c4eb67fde4766b4e5665158671352af63de9bbea
26789 F20101220_AAARMG morelli_c_Page_128.pro
583be9f7ee6d4247caecd1bc3cb719ff
3a4f4226adfd9b105bb83b8428b8b23e9b1ec7aa
33857 F20101220_AAARLS morelli_c_Page_104.pro
ea32fdd0cbc6935123efc68d59ea13b6
69bbd47fa1b21909cb2a4023104547565b992b76
2066 F20101220_AAAQJE morelli_c_Page_059.txt
f8a57b4613ff0e8452345586a428e3a9
f6120146523f65c021639bd3e4aa6884e45e9f73
5123 F20101220_AAAQIQ morelli_c_Page_039.pro
c3e555986ddc7ec3ed03334b69d5a759
cf50ac62094ffdf93b88eaf496460b33ab59fcf8
51073 F20101220_AAARMH morelli_c_Page_134.pro
709a78e048d0ddbac4be25e54b42f3dc
25951a7ca4eaae8e9ffd3d4a4b649e14193591ea
51592 F20101220_AAARLT morelli_c_Page_106.pro
211c981972454fd79efaccd431048eca
311b989c8eb5fe7fb9c936640c0edfaa5b655d06
53113 F20101220_AAAQJF morelli_c_Page_107.pro
91cbd136b8ada36a975c26a15f0e1a0e
e5adba93799ebc4c6cb091a5d9a26ac6211b8cb5
26416 F20101220_AAAQIR morelli_c_Page_061.QC.jpg
a7079583f163f0930dd88189b6cd606b
fecf58ce8ea8aacc474d5d67dc982e463e1f359e
65074 F20101220_AAARMI morelli_c_Page_136.pro
e3ef09730279af724eed27a4fd0c59a2
79fcbffad40bbbc96cd2d0e2ddd33fb7ef1314e4
34270 F20101220_AAARLU morelli_c_Page_108.pro
29d2b44684124215a35de9da0fe3d185
0a46d741eddc87dbe613b1a08650de947d3c4136
87984 F20101220_AAAQJG morelli_c_Page_057.jpg
037893941f2404f9d7a520316a71cd44
83d4cfc55fe2a4f4aa626b4705a5e88db4577ace
77891 F20101220_AAAQIS morelli_c_Page_015.jpg
008e7805c09e618a7e0157f8dba93e0e
fa93e1410318e67d8a7696b479c1ae13cf3ae223
64278 F20101220_AAARMJ morelli_c_Page_137.pro
cb9857c096704d3ea637fd7258c3a8d8
acfd8e1319da610509d7c2b51f988219448a11f4
22494 F20101220_AAARLV morelli_c_Page_109.pro
f3e597acbc821837d9a3635bdb6ae8cb
bc228a95ffc151ac57b5835c3c38a96b684c8bd1
26383 F20101220_AAAQJH morelli_c_Page_020.QC.jpg
c28c140a659198d024dbb8a4ff2fa9a9
9fbe9b7725df95b6ad914979340f766efc6707ed
473 F20101220_AAAQIT morelli_c_Page_133.txt
9a90feeef0177ff7c1ce9f626adf4f12
61d33402c5d8819027f926dab5d3447284684aab
57741 F20101220_AAARMK morelli_c_Page_141.pro
28d56937951643d5f605b679e12df691
8146d68748395ef9da6019e9e82b4712199af09e
45334 F20101220_AAARLW morelli_c_Page_110.pro
43f507a071ab0786f0f08c3f205ac044
10110300979ac9d9f6f3e1a7bfe22404573ef6e8
50539 F20101220_AAAQJI morelli_c_Page_087.pro
e31a894a421d94c7485ab635b5a79061
4513fd35d305c2cf41a1e8806b154e3dcc6cef8c
6539 F20101220_AAAQIU morelli_c_Page_048thm.jpg
9d8136b80b75ad67eff558c9ecbe98ed
6ef2b002bd8454e5f5bd6ede315347e90d69168d
57789 F20101220_AAARML morelli_c_Page_144.pro
e8f7b987436187d8d38850bf56b054a6
9fe871853b1b29934bd8782034cb2d79c80d6dbe
49792 F20101220_AAARLX morelli_c_Page_111.pro
f462fb1bd9128002e09c5e9a4543291a
30dd9943af0c6c4ff822bfc1eb8af8446dd61ca0
9989 F20101220_AAAQJJ morelli_c_Page_133.QC.jpg
de9eeddce1874427f0c5c22348904114
66dc5d0fc7e4e6e4fd6f8453c0925de94ca1c0ba
1194 F20101220_AAAQIV morelli_c_Page_098.txt
67634ef4d623f7e78626caf73791ee5e
afb4e6a2a17b9d4601874b6031c00f0f86a4449c
2077 F20101220_AAARNA morelli_c_Page_023.txt
4364fae7232b11c82f00d0207d88f2d0
b6b36902cfe4f045ecc5418b485cec6f8ce1daa8
57980 F20101220_AAARMM morelli_c_Page_146.pro
3d39e45cef60a4d8fc68c1952f2f7f91
aa9bbc096964553edb0b5c8882645580ed87c5e0
52142 F20101220_AAARLY morelli_c_Page_113.pro
e4c6edd547440174473498d8af01fc2a
41d210644e4f3ed2510183105fccf6b9f0968de5
27198 F20101220_AAAQJK morelli_c_Page_048.QC.jpg
2508d7176d67bfe1a08b5f086d4d638d
7b50a77257322974498e007d814ab3066a706d0d
2015 F20101220_AAAQIW morelli_c_Page_080.txt
5494476458baa6edd2c93d0ef70316a2
e25f2eafaae488a21a1a78a630f3a030eae6c43f
2064 F20101220_AAARNB morelli_c_Page_025.txt
bc2c8d5380ce85e05390a6d8239f9984
7e332c66d3eb476a895c1fef4680534d6e695669
25997 F20101220_AAARMN morelli_c_Page_149.pro
10702a391bd0448c6a9c9389dc0dc437
f069f535206569455c594488ad5db2f9d3620489
52148 F20101220_AAARLZ morelli_c_Page_114.pro
88992946ae7f6857019bd007ac9301a7
1f0d556da938e59b116f97b00c458ccd7760f4e5
2398 F20101220_AAAQJL morelli_c_Page_141.txt
75f8510f3444a40d8fbf5b6c954036aa
42bcce61f524afb6ce39acc6538dd4f836f4ba30
F20101220_AAAQIX morelli_c_Page_011.txt
bad84c93d50d08e010e02fe6d41a3489
bc7fcf3c7096373d5542c57d10e98e950d17890f
1957 F20101220_AAARNC morelli_c_Page_026.txt
3f1712106f78076c40f1592a2f29d8e2
ae67dd6c171e65b20df31648b7d2287cba9fa077
484 F20101220_AAARMO morelli_c_Page_001.txt
37f5cc316d08d93db4977d41ebaa1c5e
582a0ce7a64f85bf9462446de948ca7b7750c5a7
3677 F20101220_AAAQKA morelli_c_Page_149thm.jpg
d01d4f143e13d7e9dff69d9f1fe3b211
28b0431da31c8f248f321b745deef98240406828
1051974 F20101220_AAAQJM morelli_c_Page_044.jp2
6c17697ae101ad38ed371eecc4207f76
4f9daf56c16301a105dfba8918cd8b2cc88360ca
F20101220_AAAQIY morelli_c_Page_053.pro
a0d93eb5a5e7f5aa418f7765af5e0ced
039500054059bcf2734936e9fac722cb26278769
2026 F20101220_AAARND morelli_c_Page_027.txt
6817116cb41a2e010aa5b68b9ac5f3d0
3049c633667bccc195cb6df76dbfeb4add9b078e
114 F20101220_AAARMP morelli_c_Page_002.txt
3c96613394bb3f7181187a0a582d6f43
379caf3a3b24a0c00301706a230f66145eeaaab5
50336 F20101220_AAAQKB morelli_c_Page_030.pro
500744c546f3a1508cd9af1c9dbfca40
10bd83458c8a72a18a21e34a1dcc450e55800914
F20101220_AAAQJN morelli_c_Page_034.tif
2e8e63f0ef15a7260899357e74efd23f
541c37773989cb967586fc17b555f4ae5aca793f
77435 F20101220_AAAQIZ morelli_c_Page_004.jpg
84dee5203c9a634aecaab57da7ccfc01
e4e8e57124271db0c9fad4343c18585dc6106f30
2089 F20101220_AAARNE morelli_c_Page_028.txt
f3b332710a29c2d402d90b92a5bb4994
8f47de220e21dabc66666b419f7550255ad3ee4c
387 F20101220_AAARMQ morelli_c_Page_003.txt
71af987b011f58eebe9ab78e1eb60330
0ef01e315a8a6344010edbd6cb8bbf42558189e2
47990 F20101220_AAAQKC morelli_c_Page_085.pro
30852c416fd6b76f14f1bdd81b95020a
193220e1bf8a40bfa6459cc78935974cc8800ace
F20101220_AAAQJO morelli_c_Page_107.tif
e46c6372858acb04bb465f97d8825e7b
cba77602bc284a64ddcb521eb8cc857de9d9ee59
2042 F20101220_AAARNF morelli_c_Page_029.txt
2653ab10011151c45cb012856866b06f
f2caa1a025b0e56cc6fdcfc51f67e4b969a65043
1843 F20101220_AAARMR morelli_c_Page_004.txt
ef80071d96b0c88a168a725d73f5dff8
615d730497fc277595fbb5c7e675a7b875935d13
6334 F20101220_AAAQKD morelli_c_Page_051thm.jpg
ae75dfad20d7550f407a72ca95aa4608
aaecd4174070b459fa322a4ad1197b0cfe8ecdc7
2049 F20101220_AAAQJP morelli_c_Page_031.txt
1a7042df8a7675b23f1d8f8518c5f835
9401fa8416dba0063df504dee625745b99c7f4ab
1943 F20101220_AAARNG morelli_c_Page_033.txt
bfa05a3ab0b7a534a160eb89c496c51c
23180d2f16eb0e81ef7c2c55f9d068328a0d1136
1984 F20101220_AAARMS morelli_c_Page_005.txt
fc0beb3de614bef2f1983642aac8c98f
0ebe7558a87972cfa0085620398a255bfb32aa18
F20101220_AAAQKE morelli_c_Page_002.tif
c80a74f5737db472e3b7ce86ed54c0cf
7f1216d6ba0c205b19c80ef91ea0466558226a93
23539 F20101220_AAAQJQ morelli_c_Page_097.QC.jpg
843e097a3115bd2287ba537dda033147
1a02077500f33535cc78b40347c33e1f2e8d760a
F20101220_AAARNH morelli_c_Page_034.txt
0df3e09cb96a26b1b515b504d3b5da28
63e11555ea1e57c986be0d2ec50a37b7035b759c
1886 F20101220_AAARMT morelli_c_Page_006.txt
73d1f77c4ed79eda860786ac352cfc3f
18ed451ce407a87039257262e53a8a60ec536ef3
6309 F20101220_AAAQKF morelli_c_Page_061thm.jpg
696c09f9450ca20d2eadc55a611498ea
5394647564b9a949e074ce1ee1beb8644ab0d435
6611 F20101220_AAAQJR morelli_c_Page_138thm.jpg
c38a4402157e05840c32f11a047fc9bd
420957566846be64e7cd54a902d7301fea8b1a20
F20101220_AAARNI morelli_c_Page_037.txt
1e5f95ea0a7fe61297f4c16d42e02505
6860ba6ea245d70eeedd544db459d9a4724ce5e0
391 F20101220_AAARMU morelli_c_Page_008.txt
ba61828bbb31521e07e083132ae465ae
32c9134875ae98563937df8a1c8132f3ec5aabf2
6428 F20101220_AAAQKG morelli_c_Page_102thm.jpg
179564648bbb17b088586c24de3cee8b
8fd1a6995430a8f7ff4ca7589968f7564ddb3634
26241 F20101220_AAAQJS morelli_c_Page_045.QC.jpg
2010e4fa71f62a9105080e62457bc460
0d3f4da893f3f4498aea511dee068ce8b8b62b3f
2029 F20101220_AAARNJ morelli_c_Page_041.txt
45250846a8288bc8ddbd57bac3fcef7f
23f54ca44e352c57e89d8a21450ea6bca67d83d3
2472 F20101220_AAARMV morelli_c_Page_009.txt
9d25c47537c3a81b8f5599b5cc089074
be59f47b0a8b64051fbc83b5a95e3857600f7f5a
49156 F20101220_AAAQKH morelli_c_Page_112.pro
6130b4e639e154dbb455a80324d1fc05
3a4962c3d00a23835becbec1b81c029dbb3481b7
49681 F20101220_AAAQJT morelli_c_Page_026.pro
b61ec9ba566897d31753635f6d2515bf
5c45eade7dc1f352ca8cd39cb81dff83cf0e2446
1876 F20101220_AAARNK morelli_c_Page_042.txt
e82a5995304705f378fd58c97c4c165f
8b46afd60971b2a717883cd3596a6ba5042e5253
2585 F20101220_AAARMW morelli_c_Page_010.txt
74d61cb8c473079a445d55afe92f80dd
f73179beb8404ef74b7fe66144c4c21c18793b77
F20101220_AAAQKI morelli_c_Page_108.tif
388356442ee4fd6858f58208437796a3
8f8fd551586376ebb3f2388e2cb68f813f9e5315
124647 F20101220_AAAQJU morelli_c_Page_135.jp2
79b7f0abb0409cc58f569e4797ca3d24
ee4f33ecbc155738efb399f1c73111c112bf80f2
1835 F20101220_AAARNL morelli_c_Page_043.txt
7e7db851d92485969e1e4fdb81f0d0d1
73658ea786a26fd8eb32ceb01ffffa4a62ca4bf0
1706 F20101220_AAARMX morelli_c_Page_013.txt
8d44d141f18eb97479c5a0d42ed226fc
b464774e4ad66b2d1c82e28d85829fa765f62002
53383 F20101220_AAAQKJ morelli_c_Page_044.pro
f34c5a11954d3667cb7f187730882a07
f79f793c0a869e584d30466997ee8b360a3570e6
106086 F20101220_AAAQJV morelli_c_Page_085.jp2
4ba0511898906e27db790b17a33ecd43
d82f69e48625af1a2f6379197a431e6a088ce4f6
1882 F20101220_AAAROA morelli_c_Page_093.txt
fa1c62d20bf9c5e4ff6c65c03716338a
2e352bd59f6bbb99414cfed605bb957fb5a0d509
1967 F20101220_AAARNM morelli_c_Page_046.txt
be5c3372e752cdbfb3204b4568134e14
a73705dacf0b1d65fb90200fbd964e868cf2949c
1881 F20101220_AAARMY morelli_c_Page_015.txt
221db3c25ff11627d28d44f9a8f4bb5c
5d78717c7946a5d7364aa60a025ea2f7b72aee81
F20101220_AAAQKK morelli_c_Page_144.tif
d727d018f655ba66e240e5edf97db97f
cc7bfbb94357efe4c027751ebfe4d80d431cd3ca
26164 F20101220_AAAQJW morelli_c_Page_122.QC.jpg
36d5ec4618333025fe80d410fff0606c
d8a207f10dabf7da92b162f33b76f6fcc9ec14eb
1857 F20101220_AAAROB morelli_c_Page_094.txt
6e6eb26688f531c7dd04f56d4c24bd8d
a8835e549ff33eadd29ec8d083389e677c7ab0dd
2007 F20101220_AAARNN morelli_c_Page_049.txt
cbb3fe1ff1a1df93489a6b21ba3e70b7
42b9c5b890444f55d11418f520489f700de8c41e
1895 F20101220_AAARMZ morelli_c_Page_016.txt
6214bb0fa3b3f4e6b330d147bf3765d2
fffd72632bc7ea62ab88ab31d2530f5f0efc38d5
F20101220_AAAQKL morelli_c_Page_125.tif
6ff5b0aea63da60f0e6adcc23462cf85
45ac793395d786c62bc521c721027898e3879def
F20101220_AAAQJX morelli_c_Page_010.tif
35d9cbdec21f5afa1e5b7de29b456ff9
bfa97b421ed7bb708400cfef531f38fdc1eae293
1933 F20101220_AAAROC morelli_c_Page_095.txt
a70a60b60020fe060f9a5c259cdc3601
8b55a176295942ceb925c372cb4a3e59176abe5c
1938 F20101220_AAARNO morelli_c_Page_051.txt
68a3ad66f4f7480d89cea7226d976942
bb45bbee62259ff95042784a30d9c76811bb616e
31107 F20101220_AAAQKM morelli_c_Page_128.jpg
cd77b17398c865e042f7be992d45483f
9afec61a100ccc4693e6146d251f154455b3be7c
F20101220_AAAQJY morelli_c_Page_047.txt
5983db1c08fa2aac56ffc4e45de645f0
be6bc239b21ff439163d206f82fa7b1f1dc44081
59927 F20101220_AAAQLA morelli_c_Page_132.jp2
bfb2f37a54187f364fc98d423a0a5629
089e585832f4a8f18cb5a1b3d749992cec7de94f
1910 F20101220_AAAROD morelli_c_Page_096.txt
a0d4c0f63b43a51390885c7a1344c067
f07277650353db42c5de216414fc8c4506e20ce1
2010 F20101220_AAARNP morelli_c_Page_052.txt
97f4069d011c15d8dcbac201de7d0ef3
6b89e0c351e69a6cf498958621c5ee84f5da1c1a
11555 F20101220_AAAQKN morelli_c_Page_039.jpg
22e95b45627c7e14c3fd74e240ce6d83
d0b8d1592534c9f013b67965c8443f823ec3b569
6444 F20101220_AAAQJZ morelli_c_Page_140thm.jpg
ccd735676d1edb2406732d514c20baed
e4817c328bfce985809b94b63b60690c9b76c856
2141 F20101220_AAAQLB morelli_c_Page_021thm.jpg
2db9df3f7d8cdaa91c20fe722093f78b
c4e030aa8ec2cb24210dff39b4115fb96e0aed41
1699 F20101220_AAAROE morelli_c_Page_099.txt
b98f45a9ad34ddf8cc5cd61c8d80163d
1e9c3d59189a50bc2ec2e48ec7bf3c36087dac8e
F20101220_AAARNQ morelli_c_Page_053.txt
976b801a9c8a8f4329cfd794f145f3c9
8e16cd1b55e222d0345ee004e535d801f2b6a619
1976 F20101220_AAAQKO morelli_c_Page_071.txt
0ecb3333ffb198d225adf6c77519518b
56ea27bed6d1da9e828a2a7b7e0b7c1fc8233b7c
1821 F20101220_AAAQLC morelli_c_Page_097.txt
a2b15b12fa5840e5b8b73b1f5030f6ed
74a041024b9644c008be8419527550cdbbcd32d2
2056 F20101220_AAAROF morelli_c_Page_106.txt
44e3b692e5132bf04ed19faec5bd775c
5aaf3fdfc73fb3f05b7c3cb815d1fae98489b35d
1854 F20101220_AAARNR morelli_c_Page_055.txt
1986697fa9f6d2f5206de7e137776c82
9540229cd78f3d53645e30849156f5f0fb476a1f
40201 F20101220_AAAQKP morelli_c_Page_099.pro
9c00e3b18a1ccc9a2797ba10f8ffc208
03232163b25870712dfdd2732d47fa10bbda85eb
1914 F20101220_AAAQLD morelli_c_Page_019.txt
30bb914afbe22d9203de31a636a8e18f
8a5eb1553461a7adcae8978d8dc1caeec57a79e5
2107 F20101220_AAAROG morelli_c_Page_107.txt
bf01b2658820f5936e428d273b2b3a61
cb6349c178e78ff6a570592ba942c7816d1f0794
2118 F20101220_AAARNS morelli_c_Page_056.txt
f9b03750446c290d9fa3684f10478821
9c2f359bd31fbc6149b97cd4aa92092a52888146
796934 F20101220_AAAQKQ morelli_c_Page_108.jp2
4e9351305adf48eaa1a80a10258e0362
d591ff499b401c2a9634dfcb44eb217c1b369b03
6298 F20101220_AAAQLE morelli_c_Page_127.jpg
6fa7b06a2bae39eee37b51ef5ffb9cff
6fa2b4e7b3102f5d83328f915d285776c87e3ce3
1528 F20101220_AAAROH morelli_c_Page_108.txt
78f5e55ad87e4517e950e9dacbda87a5
74186045037e3719b21d3970509d3a2024c96a5a
2013 F20101220_AAARNT morelli_c_Page_058.txt
2770eb335cc2b3da8dfd954c446ecb7b
5c1a028e15bbdc4c928ce3f956acd22688e7018c
34881 F20101220_AAAQKR morelli_c_Page_014.pro
c8cf0be43c0fdd80669a1414577e8b7b
be27fc54d81f0b4ace087ce6b2cf1b73492ee74d
6493 F20101220_AAAQLF morelli_c_Page_073thm.jpg
c0520475f8d2da935d1116fd59f1d04d
ff1e0a6d400b70b4ee4a93eda3b138efcd768c69
895 F20101220_AAAROI morelli_c_Page_109.txt
7e4f3b607d37bb1d1290b202e4557bdd
8fde42788701c1f4084a1f013021afd7e7f0d315
2063 F20101220_AAARNU morelli_c_Page_062.txt
114f2b163e2d45addbf9fae85624a091
d4ba0c7cfda2a5b4a683d11d9fcab9278f8dfe17
26588 F20101220_AAAQKS morelli_c_Page_064.QC.jpg
8e1714ecd68aaefcd27f6d2d2f776a67
1ddeab020f55782bb9a7b92a181d1c5691fb4e0f
6550 F20101220_AAAQLG morelli_c_Page_119thm.jpg
f92f8c755e9f170c0a7b7ec01f9440c3
a028dc47976458ab41255ec661dafca928e2a901
1993 F20101220_AAAROJ morelli_c_Page_111.txt
e9a94f8a4af835412561d6891e0c6c24
550a8f935155ea9940f3dab92ef4bd35ecd52d77
2093 F20101220_AAARNV morelli_c_Page_063.txt
715a4e09f2a6d448f247da141d847934
1b5f3354220b11a1c28a2e44a4f574c3f16a7fd0
F20101220_AAAQKT morelli_c_Page_075.tif
96302d7da9e62a010654f1db6af5c2d7
0c0171d8ac9d9bb5b51e099fcc5b8f3f9d4b52a9
1764 F20101220_AAAQLH morelli_c_Page_081.txt
ddce6f3afc91b12eb850d8bbdfac8c99
2c85b3108afa59239b92fcd4888588c09e1d9758
1966 F20101220_AAAROK morelli_c_Page_112.txt
f43d3ae62509721088855fa7ef412af9
ad12bf5b4884d443d409b29cb63542ca73743858
2070 F20101220_AAARNW morelli_c_Page_072.txt
0d201ab06289e6cd2030746fd7ed313a
815fc459febd0b56907bf19ebff0977e537a521d
F20101220_AAAQKU morelli_c_Page_021.tif
50e315fe378ccf69cb40a38c51c8a2e1
2c702c30cf5e0273b38e0f08ae1a08c01b2b35a6
138248 F20101220_AAAQLI morelli_c_Page_142.jp2
dcd24b4cb994ac42213986570c093aa2
4c1262374fe17f8420198f11bf33ad834a12fea5
2763 F20101220_AAARPA morelli_c_Page_147.txt
d18255eb2325f290e3a47a8b5c830771
04598aa5deab3ff124f7f828c29d5364205e984a
2046 F20101220_AAAROL morelli_c_Page_113.txt
9456f030877c60d5660ae3e72e48d2c8
e7c8e61c20c954e0d0b766e070c925fcba9b5862
266 F20101220_AAARNX morelli_c_Page_083.txt
4b3cd8addc0b097ca6db5f6ecdc61467
d3ba28e05f519cf41a924811ba6753026ab5fc64
20877 F20101220_AAAQKV morelli_c_Page_148.QC.jpg
9fafde53d20e65761b0806f72c3e496c
56bff6ab8a757d2d5891a1f67911203f25951d56
F20101220_AAAQLJ morelli_c_Page_005.tif
d9ae8aab44a12cf014068d2ddc2ae3c2
725644551a1f2508dfa8b1d32a731aa13380250c
2076 F20101220_AAAROM morelli_c_Page_118.txt
feed71f2ce318b351a9c457f82fb84fb
418cd9cc44e4c1479c231e487e6dfdeaa7fae606
1997 F20101220_AAARNY morelli_c_Page_087.txt
ecb71b3c2ed2bc352e672fd2ffaf6b9a
6a794126325309da195cc77c1f7c067d52b22bb4
26026 F20101220_AAAQKW morelli_c_Page_058.QC.jpg
00bfc26626ba5e0891b39293d5d75064
e597549dccf56ac76bd4a308f450f6f1a95967b7
1992 F20101220_AAAQLK morelli_c_Page_101.txt
85b9309d9a57cddff6296ed668d35983
fa0abc005e26621ddb4ad5d0a7a10936513450be
1083 F20101220_AAARPB morelli_c_Page_149.txt
271a267c229d1d37d77a05dbc25bae34
bdd41b3c011c257143c18de818fe6cd0c240ff1c
1941 F20101220_AAARON morelli_c_Page_121.txt
11e4f61b773ea7846a4f224ca8af599e
9dd8f56716218b45ae1daf2c84aed896d00904fa
1770 F20101220_AAARNZ morelli_c_Page_090.txt
2df37d26234f751861ccecf60b339117
6f3c565ff78f8e551f4431954c2ad6f8cbdfd55e
F20101220_AAAQKX morelli_c_Page_060.tif
0d42eda53ab4dfd8cfaa8a5e9e6b5e3b
7b7ec6bd0b74dc54a334af0165f7596f4e1f5c09
109996 F20101220_AAAQLL morelli_c_Page_049.jp2
96abe6248f94f926a43ba68a736a1de8
b9cb8b77a0fdb748126a912fd47c1fd48c2d4dd9
1715 F20101220_AAARPC morelli_c_Page_001thm.jpg
40b0c988e1be51cf34d020017e0891bc
770457a702f35dc245430dc62daf0155187ec6eb
F20101220_AAAROO morelli_c_Page_123.txt
4a7f5dd8acd17b3693b0f02ea95a6610
48c0a2ad5e1a1d21eb61c9b2bebbd4502700f8ac
1936 F20101220_AAAQKY morelli_c_Page_126.txt
c8d967e66e4fd2738ae2a5bd8c8babef
75db3d9f680bada1fd75ac2ded3821e78f3ebf26
2062 F20101220_AAAQMA morelli_c_Page_064.txt
7e9e8f2d9c3c6dc89e5ed64174466392
a700b6cd089ef40aa9e89f4c1af7c567f7d7f676
77181 F20101220_AAAQLM morelli_c_Page_093.jpg
27d7b4ba29c1f6bfcabc8b96b62b0bfb
78bf13fc8f44bed40c8d8aa4f522a239e246bee8
1313992 F20101220_AAARPD morelli_c.pdf
089cd384db7967f30a21cd5bc767ba12
875bfd6674df056c3ee2a6197a04837aeac38503
1987 F20101220_AAAROP morelli_c_Page_125.txt
d5bd6500bdcaecb76e9d45d93e674e10
095e3478f476aa154af971c6aaf7ce5da2d9c914
86937 F20101220_AAAQKZ morelli_c_Page_010.jpg
da24bff76b9b71b9c1d2f89b07b30106
358266a0427c733ada6f090a5d2ab59209d726b5
116148 F20101220_AAAQMB morelli_c_Page_089.jp2
c6d32e6b1d3c1b2a859d1b3570c6f77c
27973eb833bed72c4648f4c831376db0213a2d25
67057 F20101220_AAAQLN morelli_c_Page_132.jpg
a989e58a919865494252698743a15def
42d9ed617f24f599b55cb0a1bcf884bc4990f108
6369 F20101220_AAARPE morelli_c_Page_074thm.jpg
601b5d66443ae3d3981e7f90e4e0aee7
4dbd6c95d591da029414ab924cd56663023c9a73
1126 F20101220_AAAROQ morelli_c_Page_128.txt
6c720ffc499c46fc11350540d5ad5e15
5f70b6073da90aad0f2942917cc80aad749e74a1
6299 F20101220_AAAQMC morelli_c_Page_089thm.jpg
5a45dfd5f8fdda77f87a0d176c1a15eb
b31a0e57cb51593cf84e9c7050ee370be22775b8
25755 F20101220_AAAQLO morelli_c_Page_035.QC.jpg
0327327b9108c9fd37858d82f5509fb3
bb879e3e039f9cdf1790a9c73e934a65dc192691
6455 F20101220_AAARPF morelli_c_Page_068thm.jpg
3d73011b9a63e0b4eed066b1a4f29f73
465058c07faad3ee31ab03993ea895dd8176f069
1404 F20101220_AAAROR morelli_c_Page_131.txt
a7e4970e7f7ad7d561644d06efed91d8
a67336a409bca0088e49c033c60900d1d97e0aaa
6036 F20101220_AAAQMD morelli_c_Page_055thm.jpg
71624125f637d163545fa6f6401f0882
057cbe5b6918d5182e18423d7b6fe560ae3c876b
2041 F20101220_AAAQLP morelli_c_Page_038.txt
deef618adc9a61fcd8737f477035fc4b
d3949e942ed7babc85c74fc8ef65aadf9922b7f3
4149 F20101220_AAARPG morelli_c_Page_083.QC.jpg
77f89871be238c206036aa7cd6bbe4ca
37b4da69860cb12a2133696267cb18735233cde2
1231 F20101220_AAAROS morelli_c_Page_132.txt
d619eac7bf90741d4edb732b5680e10a
8af44247ae13e01c1c7922a4fed0c46a003150a0
F20101220_AAAQME morelli_c_Page_044.tif
5aebc96648b77398c3c2971ba25cc83b
0e7cdf2b535dd2ef54c088571700e61ba3cdd848
450 F20101220_AAAQLQ morelli_c_Page_012.txt
8371894548a32dd4daf1305f86c44a80
290b7c7d0fb2a00550dcbc6c99ddc21b0ac94181
26513 F20101220_AAARPH morelli_c_Page_053.QC.jpg
4a56b2c39f1d8d4bb6a0cfe0444c560a
1cc5fc6abf33162b2461d97b7caf4ccccd35e4d2
2351 F20101220_AAAROT morelli_c_Page_135.txt
9172fc40c341f210a3516ba061635021
448798e6520ca62663fd71aba32cbfff66a3ea6e
59632 F20101220_AAAQMF morelli_c_Page_145.pro
71ac4736f787ff460c2e14fd4dbb0674
42db256a73d1d75d6830d17d2b48adf9429c3f56
24202 F20101220_AAAQLR morelli_c_Page_095.QC.jpg
70c28758e8fee0913ca9c3abc69cd212
97d716f5a4aaadff1fe50d6bfeb6fab438e6c1bd
23996 F20101220_AAARPI morelli_c_Page_094.QC.jpg
b00292c5d278a9d436a3ccb90611f078
5bd674b79aeeb4f61ce2de2188a1e6ca87104dd6
2659 F20101220_AAAROU morelli_c_Page_136.txt
6f25d9298653b6589bfb151bb6e2e3ef
03236a666d23e4cdad484a279368a3c6448efe7f
27139 F20101220_AAAQMG morelli_c_Page_143.QC.jpg
9e8036b744e159b45aa96d4c14be7074
ad8cd4d2e48c9ff966f37cf509325eadf3c1c769
14405 F20101220_AAAQLS morelli_c_Page_149.QC.jpg
46ac2d7c2cbf04c17ea1a61428df5d77
7d93bb4930c425055d7165a03c0892df177c2cac
24700 F20101220_AAARPJ morelli_c_Page_121.QC.jpg
10ed5cffda070cb94ac0573dc167c8ff
9234814e9044319018589b59cf0e59fbb53fbcbc
2656 F20101220_AAAROV morelli_c_Page_137.txt
b1e5d7d9adcfde7e8d15ed59df8490df
7e3179296d9569d58f3eb7a03986a2d4c76a383e
51879 F20101220_AAAQMH morelli_c_Page_038.pro
edaa4e2e2eb980184ff2933c4bc102fc
bb8dc555ec8d10e141651d22b00dae87504e12e9
2083 F20101220_AAAQLT morelli_c_Page_067.txt
4f6d9a619c9b9e2eda01a6f352323d28
c09c01087cbedeaceb2ee030c9e80f39bfe5a142
4423 F20101220_AAARPK morelli_c_Page_009thm.jpg
4ce6bf9b398f532b8985fd3e9c6f92a3
bf4fc6e744108bdab859d50d2d1c4f4c653a4f84
2527 F20101220_AAAROW morelli_c_Page_139.txt
0fcd297e5c4af0f22836157d5de80c3f
f960f81a32e0d353b037a2ac42a10c6fb1ca23cc
100650 F20101220_AAAQMI morelli_c_Page_125.jp2
40010a9a0d5f2075712742d96712a3f0
14a36ebff6833767ce88325db6fdc5d2424f7bd1
F20101220_AAAQLU morelli_c_Page_066.tif
a729de3805eb009546164429309da4ef
01b23db0d835fa08c3b3c3b533ff9a41e837e36a
6038 F20101220_AAARQA morelli_c_Page_008.QC.jpg
e922761dc6e7276f609a96736008cac8
db851f79e48012232c0704daa94b40ed623a113c
6354 F20101220_AAARPL morelli_c_Page_047thm.jpg
813e8c18b93776e73f1e5d6b47194712
06af20474de3f27d0a1e875df6b4cf64f80ceccf
2682 F20101220_AAAROX morelli_c_Page_142.txt
06671fbfd6b654ad3517b324362bd050
c94d967d88446e71a030635bbe938377b418028a
101039 F20101220_AAAQMJ morelli_c_Page_140.jpg
e65d0d1bc023c5febbdeedcf87315ae9
adf0c5b5a88f0f626ea47a5233b280623d04814a
52099 F20101220_AAAQLV morelli_c_Page_102.pro
107fe4faf9bd1775e261ce143f4791ff
01eaff830443cfabb4cdb2d37bc4cde9dcf7fc6e
27301 F20101220_AAARQB morelli_c_Page_089.QC.jpg
ee8324cc274b43bc45b9ce6cc6948f71
1faaf8068d61256e74e50e34482ecbe2269bdea3
4144 F20101220_AAARPM morelli_c_Page_098thm.jpg
e720f0c5ffbaa261de00573ba25baf80
fb3f528a0f9b4335f6a57dafa7fa4e6fbbdad967
2455 F20101220_AAAROY morelli_c_Page_145.txt
c608781e6db7ecb8fcffb138129d2f6f
d8141f9d5226580af718a24848301fb87b3e970b
22933 F20101220_AAAQMK morelli_c_Page_134.QC.jpg
d9c3032c6596183d013a05423eb1b04e
cd282cb6a4ecf5b6953bafd9c5376aa2da5336bf
46938 F20101220_AAAQLW morelli_c_Page_055.pro
d58674b379eb994e9bdd9898a0c78168
e1a591d76b2f0787f5dd2ab6bb5b4fae297d5d52
6014 F20101220_AAARPN morelli_c_Page_096thm.jpg
26ee90161c40100c23a48502cf7c861e
cc45e19ec0f0fe672d1195b2babee3abe56510ff
2406 F20101220_AAAROZ morelli_c_Page_146.txt
43ab6d592f0237f508f9d3e0098ad53c
a883aea1538ac2475619a316e87072fd26b47b57
25560 F20101220_AAAQML morelli_c_Page_111.QC.jpg
fb668d7cb31c47e06649324d06ec3c04
db42a67634fdd3bc86c30eef38d0015d568422c5
104 F20101220_AAAQLX morelli_c_Page_127.txt
57c438ca7542f4132761a5a578893f7b
a8803f8cfbf83ea94c0492ba6d2d864092cfc298
18260 F20101220_AAARQC morelli_c_Page_009.QC.jpg
c36ba3d583659c65bdc393b511c1f00f
943f75fbac65997caf398982a8fd98228bd37d3a
26302 F20101220_AAARPO morelli_c_Page_065.QC.jpg
2a9f23eba2c85c0ee23a8f1c00ef4d7b
2087b30863792b91211e4c223860e854cf880082
F20101220_AAAQNA morelli_c_Page_020.txt
eb3156b33efbb8a8ce83bf4c3a15a5be
18e720f4cda3a1fb7d58d572fb89408c0b86f23e
1251 F20101220_AAAQMM morelli_c_Page_002.pro
beba621f8498b4e87e76d23edcdafc71
773674ef843ed09eb4ed76ce5eab7c8363859810
27185 F20101220_AAAQLY morelli_c_Page_102.QC.jpg
0dbe7831adb76e8874ca284921529fe3
4c30f56fc2d7a92466990d73dff72c177438e11b
6381 F20101220_AAARQD morelli_c_Page_062thm.jpg
b2350afecbb9f984d0a9e4bd3019cef9
94af173907e85c0acc140edf999d3b43178cc9b9
25409 F20101220_AAARPP morelli_c_Page_051.QC.jpg
77d8d517e92811f16ec0a80c241c7d3e
9ff1b31b82f6a636169c0e2a93cb567165ac64cc
26374 F20101220_AAAQNB morelli_c_Page_025.QC.jpg
e0d1b1976cd18fbd36036de0ad86edea
343a96d8bcd2c7dfc4d95a9f43211d64214de109
4488 F20101220_AAAQMN morelli_c_Page_014thm.jpg
92916dcc39b88c4e6e517aa8a8b51733
42d35dcb362ee1397d859bbf177615b369cef776
3141 F20101220_AAAQLZ morelli_c_Page_124.QC.jpg
ad94f9e6ed7d3a904f5d83ac78e9176c
7147939ad56a82112a5c5aa019d2adfe4899f15c
6348 F20101220_AAARQE morelli_c_Page_020thm.jpg
4ac765c4e60ba7daf904bc0b3d6bf83c
e96a56ddef88c73e4172be453962df2771e4f7df
26817 F20101220_AAARPQ morelli_c_Page_106.QC.jpg
d8958cfaff6d6827b5606ba73f9a9d7a
c4a2603f3cae3dbfc3f096236506b7fe236f00c4
100298 F20101220_AAAQNC morelli_c_Page_148.jp2
c0e762a715a4df5ba9cd229735cd0029
e3cd9c98d6012d76d2781c909c094596e88ec868
5721 F20101220_AAAQMO morelli_c_Page_040thm.jpg
97db30e9ea1ab65270b91ca167d96760
1cbdf17ec7b322d9ba98af2b17ddcbe3595c38ec
6089 F20101220_AAARQF morelli_c_Page_111thm.jpg
bfa5ed67843a11ec384e8ca5bb534aca
2a6c2343382bea9be88a9a06ee1bbb0eba50e27f
23810 F20101220_AAARPR morelli_c_Page_004.QC.jpg
c0dd1aae90596a89905e2cfa837bb7a6
a7c584daa1248c6ab13eb11426d6e5584b8171c2
47946 F20101220_AAAQND morelli_c_Page_095.pro
749eccc51faa281679b659ea64401174
7f38bbfdec11fb2b814d73f8e181656c2ac86081
85335 F20101220_AAAQMP morelli_c_Page_053.jpg
2f76b3cc563745cb4748608058d8baed
9e36e5658c82cf6f63acbf158fda7c2ecc3f10a1
26158 F20101220_AAARQG morelli_c_Page_123.QC.jpg
2c93f27e8d3a7fa9ba69531f4114e934
b2b8c6bc09e6bae52c89ce243ab8049cf4b91d9f
6400 F20101220_AAARPS morelli_c_Page_146thm.jpg
05172003d309d70e793d9c340732d637
6dd68de3bd3071eb5353f1bd4c1ab2c915da049b
64791 F20101220_AAAQNE morelli_c_Page_142.pro
668eea913438c8a9aea9e444d54b5556
3daf83fc125b67919934aeec2590601c97ccae72
25692 F20101220_AAAQMQ morelli_c_Page_016.QC.jpg
d2bd5b2a7ca21f1b4a10fd281ed379b6
66ae4fd630365fac213160c8d20f63799af71bf6
5765 F20101220_AAARQH morelli_c_Page_022thm.jpg
facb0ec10c23cd02ff682e0584007ce0
8623cfcda2131d6c787d5e7107ba7cddc233ae7b
6446 F20101220_AAARPT morelli_c_Page_018thm.jpg
e501f00638274531e990c253d44f691d
52d156b723070a702c2efbbd9dc1881f1f505247
77973 F20101220_AAAQNF morelli_c_Page_014.jp2
1b892f496f44af82978c6641d367a3a2
dbb9b2e0905f60db02aa89fd16ee01fb4a6934c8
6516 F20101220_AAAQMR morelli_c_Page_028thm.jpg
2224603eced66a097389c3f7221978d1
bb416934831080712e1a57e6c993410b047fc199
27220 F20101220_AAARQI morelli_c_Page_062.QC.jpg
6b26d7cc9463f423e11e8a187a03d620
21c18301889a095b6e3853672184791b4186df14
6496 F20101220_AAARPU morelli_c_Page_031thm.jpg
16adee3774c4b8ad2d964a53b4cd829c
7897e526eee7dea18fa8bc960095dcb451918816
F20101220_AAAQNG morelli_c_Page_024.tif
d38eaa9fa9b4b774d357ab56f442d256
091b4ec80d39ebb0188475bf2557f21f1d50cce0
50379 F20101220_AAAQMS morelli_c_Page_005.pro
fbefe2b09622d606ea372f2fa7516a81
e6b5724fdee4aca0e11a9afa481c476451095e82
26675 F20101220_AAARQJ morelli_c_Page_041.QC.jpg
5f21a88e2a810c2930acc59019b33ab1
df3190e35b60fa6f8c436f16e2f00732b7f56749
5867 F20101220_AAARPV morelli_c_Page_125thm.jpg
1d0d3bb8a08f5945bf4db6689f86509b
67cb443eac24813cd121b2903ca1ecf366e1ae9a
109841 F20101220_AAAQNH morelli_c_Page_091.jp2
cdb3e2cfef7ce74a96939624eb194a67
bd0dbde3aa085fdf24c971e9fbbcd7395508eae8
2032 F20101220_AAAQMT morelli_c_Page_060.txt
78eaaa923b1ae4e1324f8c7695793bfb
598ba44d3e65b2139c0bb73c7f50b9109825456b
6744 F20101220_AAARQK morelli_c_Page_136thm.jpg
1da0a0d034ebf8ec70b4868fffa48e94
48a5dfdb8c79cb8b1482c8c2cdc7e87d9075494d
26654 F20101220_AAARPW morelli_c_Page_074.QC.jpg
f2b506ce49d7069f82ff38a1f8a74ffe
88b92869a3f4d72dd6e9d7da9bbd0803dbd294c5
F20101220_AAAQNI morelli_c_Page_070.txt
3f9e49d8bc169e8e25c4da0d3c48a0af
51cce3fa1bf10433d5603b07c305c5bbb8db40d8
6350 F20101220_AAAQMU morelli_c_Page_143thm.jpg
4387f8dbdf89232738c081bfa89508cd
3ddd6528f8703597858beef42ebcd0c0c89f3bba
24027 F20101220_AAARRA morelli_c_Page_130.QC.jpg
98b7de9b1ec640ce79333339daf25046
f3f92b16ffac1c03bce1bfeac9b2e700c2f64209
24403 F20101220_AAARQL morelli_c_Page_042.QC.jpg
a451d005a315a2d57b812a95364d8bb8
16c09a4de98dd349db8b28c6a4ff91ece6098233
6341 F20101220_AAARPX morelli_c_Page_034thm.jpg
0bc98610d31efa6c979abdd26d3aa9f9
56ddc1ca5f5c53657adba4d120a627bafe32e7cd
24439 F20101220_AAAQNJ morelli_c_Page_093.QC.jpg
15128916f8a2262764b67f9bb6f13ecd
6dae76d455757c16c1a5b5bc9acccd1c9aae2b70
80831 F20101220_AAAQMV morelli_c_Page_116.jpg
e8020c2bc83992ae9419a26dacb27c1e
1be720128ce092e6fcfa6eb94cc7829b90efaf08
4355 F20101220_AAARRB morelli_c_Page_131thm.jpg
f80eda1e64a6a70929a325a0f19873f7
d50ea09eb502c5907b4036c79036eb7d0658b04f
26494 F20101220_AAARQM morelli_c_Page_034.QC.jpg
1bef2f0511434b0b9dd3c5cabf013762
fcabb181c40db24abbff02cdf4a1831ee5568ea9
26098 F20101220_AAARPY morelli_c_Page_038.QC.jpg
9ca3d647f18c2f60830acf5ef6e10235
b6961e6b4b3e1cbc4c6fb4eea33dbe62647fc74d
69156 F20101220_AAAQNK morelli_c_Page_129.jp2
86b07091b6c1c96aca6213900323c002
bbeb29a6f55a83260f503250c4ebe8ae461bdc02
6506 F20101220_AAAQMW morelli_c_Page_114thm.jpg
87fbd231775860b4daa9e8e3fdcfe1bd
ed8e2f7500c252d1ede5b08377064762d1e37607
6214 F20101220_AAARRC morelli_c_Page_117thm.jpg
6d915253a010af2946e2794a017d618c
300de57216dbb36b3bfd09eda1bf5fa7755297d5
26038 F20101220_AAARQN morelli_c_Page_046.QC.jpg
7cd14b270cfd54a9754ef473f33d6747
f5c39522dfcf4a52e187e0a9e16b475fb8fb94d1
26457 F20101220_AAARPZ morelli_c_Page_067.QC.jpg
aa7dad2f3076081d2bbe861de5c1db9f
f303603abb75edd5ca28b3771eb1b13745d19a3b
F20101220_AAAQNL morelli_c_Page_124.tif
868f1c147d5fbeac9d5999f4617c844b
622e8ba52f8d143f952c29ebbffc7e9abb8eea6c
F20101220_AAAQMX morelli_c_Page_080.tif
652455df85195eb0aec1dcdb233718e8
0d3ccba9a4ad4a931d482f5179a916d1aa33e09d
1916 F20101220_AAAQOA morelli_c_Page_078.txt
df1bf1fbc6930bd09c98168d32c773ae
edcc5debd430f6209c3b1cd268447ae8f5b62115
6462 F20101220_AAARQO morelli_c_Page_067thm.jpg
3ce8f4e11d9677416621af60fdf8e178
8556dfaa1ef5bbfe15d20333a361f2f651bf8c0a
2399 F20101220_AAAQMY morelli_c_Page_144.txt
bb043a472ee1aad9420bdb03fab74666
ce28ad27ff5273b7bc9bdbae693984d54c8b6327
F20101220_AAAQNM morelli_c_Page_091.tif
ee64b5d28e343f7dfb30441b5a811d43
f4df4391f332a5daa7c3db9034c2e7917e3075de
28875 F20101220_AAARRD morelli_c_Page_147.QC.jpg
d6094260b21eba55c59498ca9656347b
550057c68cecca00b70c17391d38821d67e8c88d
6233 F20101220_AAARQP morelli_c_Page_033thm.jpg
24f9db6a037520418f9dbd2651e2f769
206f4aa55e003a3666ca9b74be92bddf269be4fe
9601 F20101220_AAAQMZ morelli_c_Page_008.pro
9659d4a1889b60f6e0517bb949d08a5d
b7e86771f9fe4aa2af267802680e4f69991339c8
F20101220_AAAQOB morelli_c_Page_082.tif
36248a9f8ceb2563cb1f68f18ff0dd96
144890e348692944fa7bd3af77689b985990a6ee
67128 F20101220_AAAQNN morelli_c_Page_147.pro
258ad62fe8ddc44f8451304cba0b4df1
6f70eca971ff1f81f470d28a0499f159b88dc58b
6292 F20101220_AAARRE morelli_c_Page_101thm.jpg
e3ac1b48b9e27f2042a259e65fe07fe9
bd2218cf55922b0e26a913ad8a6dbab99a87a5a2
6450 F20101220_AAARQQ morelli_c_Page_053thm.jpg
05775555cd4e8fb337a5a52ec7fc2635
7e1bd5b590e9c1a7275c99c9539b9f5c3f3005d9
50124 F20101220_AAAQOC morelli_c_Page_117.pro
f8b05bfa0fc27f0f5b038547f9179161
e644357f510fe263440d6acd1101621e28d796c1
5934 F20101220_AAAQNO morelli_c_Page_042thm.jpg
87f57ff3eec59433082bd2eede3375e8
28c83c1bed47bded9cce3ad87df757d44e72add2
6347 F20101220_AAARRF morelli_c_Page_120thm.jpg
a4a61cdd638a98cd6ed3064d52810517
414799714a5b945c5e65fc7e3cbc117b73a707a8
25427 F20101220_AAARQR morelli_c_Page_076.QC.jpg
3e01bfa02c04507e0036e48a20fdcb74
ee984e2c1428409a4289a49807880d354b9e387b
2000 F20101220_AAAQOD morelli_c_Page_030.txt
bea65fed3625576376268d81a1ac6da1
112fa17bf5c15fbb111fd191d70601c21b8a0047
61427 F20101220_AAAQNP morelli_c_Page_139.pro
37292d50485b2650d30f07fd7bf0a320
fab758c9a56402698930b74265a216e20feb3294
5403 F20101220_AAARRG morelli_c_Page_108thm.jpg
8b256409231adf1b398daca153655494
8fa047e2de7e934210c050f9911d0e535adb1dba
19374 F20101220_AAARQS morelli_c_Page_013.QC.jpg
8ebdc2f824c2a68ec31f9a920598f931
301493a40c39248bb430f4fbefb888af084183d6
87518 F20101220_AAAQOE morelli_c_Page_028.jpg
4c1ca184a4cf2845eff991a0e77b2e82
ba226f8bb9993f3f19b762b556a74e9f26b0aa8a
1384 F20101220_AAAQNQ morelli_c_Page_014.txt
da1b96cd15551367adab7d529289fcbb
a304ad63365ba490f291cd323372bccd7c12c846
24207 F20101220_AAARRH morelli_c_Page_043.QC.jpg
e2561730204a7b84757b8e223a0f5c54
04027b1a7fc756115a8d9746607c39abc8e85646
6367 F20101220_AAARQT morelli_c_Page_123thm.jpg
e6dd6cebe52dcc5c992b02385538c288
1fa4c0742a6edc49963b5c1e5d3c054feb7b6d43
24978 F20101220_AAAQOF morelli_c_Page_112.QC.jpg
4400e14bc533a03d5de28aadfcdf739d
d822f8e6b7b3c621ea992cbdb38e162096f795f1
63196 F20101220_AAAQNR morelli_c_Page_138.pro
c0ddfd250727ef0bf2460ed7116312a2
17d6ac64bbbfc3102c8cfc1664a9472f2ac2805e
26418 F20101220_AAARRI morelli_c_Page_018.QC.jpg
20c9a01ea67e8e0ebe7b6fc3511f6147
f7ae0bb34bd5a02af3318318cb053d3fd77dbd64
28187 F20101220_AAARQU morelli_c_Page_142.QC.jpg
de99e39f8f939ffab9ab91dfbc5bfaef
453aeb7bfc4ad07a3e0948991cb6b6aa0bb7fc13
104308 F20101220_AAAQOG morelli_c_Page_121.jp2
68b6de7ce4b245f0d319af8147abb872
578fb09f58bc63bba152c63f69f359b0af771437
5473 F20101220_AAAQNS morelli_c_Page_082thm.jpg
1e47117b160331a30c77cb7a7dcdc34c
1b8030ebdbcf751e89a98c434d087405f176a58a
5702 F20101220_AAARRJ morelli_c_Page_004thm.jpg
c2703c5ce8c1a2ec47c1ca50f1e2240d
4088bc7e4b1bcc728e57dd7e69a0aee38c6be482
24832 F20101220_AAARQV morelli_c_Page_088.QC.jpg
de59e407d99a6b81cd1ed4ce25425b23
bac4da16f8cc09b7dbf228d3a454480bb4f2f085
F20101220_AAAQOH morelli_c_Page_037.tif
766e5ce5c8d64b76d6a46df6ce327cd8
37cb8fd61246de165cd812e2c9631d5d54b112e2
F20101220_AAAQNT morelli_c_Page_090.tif
4105f1cb873db4fe77870e72173a41be
688d3382fd1299ad7565a2717849e4e0bf47fcd6
6260 F20101220_AAARRK morelli_c_Page_045thm.jpg
b9183672fc6371cc8a5011f2b4f7965b
1670f26351c0b74b2e278d2cd9237667af9ac7e8
25276 F20101220_AAARQW morelli_c_Page_117.QC.jpg
05a7e1b2947044034c39f90ddaa85296
c6d78500e7438d0ed920849cd2a267edbbab9558
6500 F20101220_AAAQOI morelli_c_Page_012.QC.jpg
d734190b373669b76bf1f912f4529f82
172dfc174f7ee6d077eebb9145087220eacd179a
87876 F20101220_AAAQNU morelli_c_Page_054.jpg
6c0557478a9fee38905d9a5a80025e77
108d188142870b532c98cbc93e87687393c22d2d
2379 F20101220_AAARSA morelli_c_Page_128thm.jpg
daadae393b17509a49e96b66f0bc849e
0e9547ddf9f475751155d3757fe39923fa2de592
24383 F20101220_AAARRL morelli_c_Page_022.QC.jpg
eb6297389b211c538b3e1e13dd81f7af
91941ab183b219c2fddbb9c8083ad26c074a2e46
21166 F20101220_AAARQX morelli_c_Page_099.QC.jpg
98762f0549790c2ea3ded1022a5f017f
dd5510309d03c6cc958fc8b0aed4863da6c19f64
70969 F20101220_AAAQOJ morelli_c_Page_086.jpg
376687dcf9c92b57aa44d4b410ad77d5
652e98c11d25e45c1502c958e9f44cd5753c587d
28265 F20101220_AAAQNV morelli_c_Page_138.QC.jpg
cdb5887265551a11357fb676eebbe474
ff13c88184e91696b9d61970c84c7e4c42d6dd76
4807 F20101220_AAARSB morelli_c_Page_104thm.jpg
edbd2acad90dbe5720e435622461fb08
e3830e60521a53bfcdf86f7a6c948bb74e6fff6f
6452 F20101220_AAARRM morelli_c_Page_052thm.jpg
9af80ff3b4767761c4450aae93391fd3
fed1a28a48ae05fd1f9605f7ef8b60734341c8db
26294 F20101220_AAARQY morelli_c_Page_029.QC.jpg
8b1e44f6028c3a6c6f01012e19a3ed8f
64173f1b787bb483009cfbbd48c80a92d31dfe44
48477 F20101220_AAAQOK morelli_c_Page_078.pro
9246b129c1a57daa2cc360836570c126
fb487dcb84ffa2f882d9bb13362dc9c51857fd40
25143 F20101220_AAAQNW morelli_c_Page_087.QC.jpg
fec50a879276a43c8d1bbbeb2b868542
cc5672d78c339242837b682e74e8095989ef85f9
8999 F20101220_AAARSC morelli_c_Page_021.QC.jpg
3dcb359708b3b53e8ab9ca801ffef3e2
f3aba56467593e3fd0c92bce1a4bfb21de2a534b
5289 F20101220_AAARRN morelli_c_Page_086thm.jpg
52d6651d1dd83fd392ff66bd8737d607
35a13e549c032d2527b6d4813239f30da73d7a62
27050 F20101220_AAARQZ morelli_c_Page_100.QC.jpg
82cef90082636fae3a9a0cb2ca5f1215
c9217816cdd00b82eb428ea254ce90491bb73807
106811 F20101220_AAAQPA morelli_c_Page_115.jp2
8a9ec058cab7b03ae65d6a32cc9ad20b
09f0eb78c88f61c9d6492b2b9b81374977f1d03b
62219 F20101220_AAAQOL morelli_c_Page_010.pro
3e9938469ce0180b3915d4910dd57c6e
d8cf6a6f5240c83fc79b3ad3990a4a8318e33a50
2099 F20101220_AAAQNX morelli_c_Page_032.txt
1332787c473d9c9d6fc10bd635237438
0cfbbb62956a59841a042b9abf0a4d4b2fdbda44
26128 F20101220_AAARSD morelli_c_Page_079.QC.jpg
8301ea6bdc99f69ced937e5f9cdf6da4
3df95e98c4eb3c86f6448da1d899f1b38ac35917
6437 F20101220_AAARRO morelli_c_Page_066thm.jpg
9045cd39bcbfbab537ee3c1801a5d51a
8f39957640db35748625ce90f523967ff828f9b8
50668 F20101220_AAAQPB morelli_c_Page_027.pro
9051251e0d639691b2efd864445b3d99
a5c7e11753fc08e108d3dfe875a39ee4cc9f6b30
99705 F20101220_AAAQOM morelli_c_Page_084.jp2
d7da81184edf9cf1ae8b2851be076202
d6bc031441777fa59080b1b624dd4258e60db47b
85714 F20101220_AAAQNY morelli_c_Page_106.jpg
311dd67561ba883bb18ad3ca1f349de3
dc6ddc3381864e433220eb0de3617c65a16395d6
6264 F20101220_AAARRP morelli_c_Page_070thm.jpg
23e8fe46d475c79c38c9505e69dff829
5cd1812d6acb411cffd689f9335392d9a318d621
28194 F20101220_AAAQON morelli_c_Page_139.QC.jpg
bb6715311427806f7e4cec2d16990784
ba97958e58f70edbbdd795499aa54d17f8ed6f46
26673 F20101220_AAAQNZ morelli_c_Page_073.QC.jpg
f7c121c17a48c6bab04df7a41fa19c53
8fcaff165d99d855d1f672f592282e18ca354253
6395 F20101220_AAARSE morelli_c_Page_049thm.jpg
9e54c88c9dd76771991681cde8909738
e9a4ebeb0420d70c06f56a986b53521dde7e3bca
6227 F20101220_AAARRQ morelli_c_Page_100thm.jpg
57f1fefb04e7f4e47d0f10e6b3466185
3877ec4893c3827b99923bd27bdd60318964b6f6
113871 F20101220_AAAQPC morelli_c_Page_118.jp2
a5ffc78b7a7a4af29718564337f57adc
b311b9c6de46ea34f40b18200d49f594d39831c5
78402 F20101220_AAAQOO morelli_c_Page_094.jpg
31f8769a9f3c0c1767bf2c3dce6daadc
8e761b6ed679ebe1aaee217ed5f665121c3288bf
25291 F20101220_AAARSF morelli_c_Page_116.QC.jpg
2874739efd38be56cdb16dfd888f4e75
a90127b77fc6be5851452249883830a7e6773616
22005 F20101220_AAARRR morelli_c_Page_081.QC.jpg
9117c4c8e0dc2cf4ee89017811d0be9f
e0c9319c1e8ba2a29cd5b3e9950744268f9d7c52
112492 F20101220_AAAQPD morelli_c_Page_072.jp2
d9031dcee97c52a76f9692c2731b2af1
420291aebb3aa484d78c69b26aad7644be18cdb0
5735 F20101220_AAAQOP morelli_c_Page_015thm.jpg
e73facd041c5670af6cddc4a960560ae
425210e17d405a37c66868914239507f50be248a
6398 F20101220_AAARSG morelli_c_Page_135thm.jpg
842ca238ac9948b23969acd6361118e9
d628cd9ba8ec2e01d7d6d6afa233ba9c3496a6dc
5627 F20101220_AAARRS morelli_c_Page_110thm.jpg
48d50d985ecbbae98fb1545a8ad976b6
3d5ed5aeb813a1fa8a664daf19a226b71fce5592
81800 F20101220_AAAQPE morelli_c_Page_087.jpg
13d54e169ab71a0269a850e2e1a99c65
3c570d4dbe4ee5d61e446f0da4c2f51f24a71890
51175 F20101220_AAAQOQ morelli_c_Page_020.pro
2cf60c44cba0ad04d99a48405111fece
e1dbeba692825a62941ec4c5a60e6c68e3e194ca
3112 F20101220_AAARSH morelli_c_Page_109thm.jpg
4358046abbf247cde481fe560745f2ae
8cf7ab05ecadeb45998c7044caefffb8098abc2f
25413 F20101220_AAARRT morelli_c_Page_078.QC.jpg
75cd33bd2629a4f7e7166d4480ea3dd6
52fc70091063389e6a7676142c74cb748ddf8c8e
2043 F20101220_AAAQPF morelli_c_Page_035.txt
eee6fea476da21245acfe36567c44a1a
a7fe578e7dfd22fc3187c5bbc22f396a3792d26e
19125 F20101220_AAAQOR morelli_c_Page_132.QC.jpg
0b41b3bed2570c25741c820912259146
dc34acea5101a9d4d5277f38c1a52a4cdc3e65f6
26131 F20101220_AAARSI morelli_c_Page_135.QC.jpg
c69956ef9108f669e4ae60ded140aa5b
5fa83f8bbc165ccad9c99eabd4a5186c57921553
28013 F20101220_AAARRU morelli_c_Page_136.QC.jpg
bb32812bb9526244002ec9ec81eca090
82820ebe4ab37108479f9823d2b1c9927075fc14
104292 F20101220_AAAQPG morelli_c_Page_055.jp2
f69e3c07553b3129f7cc7fd967566744
103b8e774383d9d1d4266c6c0966b5fa9f1c3c89
59070 F20101220_AAAQOS morelli_c_Page_140.pro
3e422101cf3d5c5838004c4161ffc303
9c14cd07facd4ef0fc3d1aed960310df6e41e9b3
25138 F20101220_AAARSJ morelli_c_Page_085.QC.jpg
ce06e9f562b3f744b58971b49506bc0b
223a6504ab8745f975498aa81d1f5b6eee6b7823
5184 F20101220_AAARRV morelli_c_Page_099thm.jpg
776e9e014cfadf76e539a28981107589
db1eda822b0bb42e9a40f5c4781237784171f7b9
F20101220_AAAQPH morelli_c_Page_055.tif
2fa4c28639b6cad428d7dea827f66d33
bb4d99407302c797fcedb8b7bd5d76c15adca94c
44620 F20101220_AAAQOT morelli_c_Page_148.pro
d92356e01167b15d748bc551206d901c
b1517323605957db52f82fc1519245a4ec9baa74
27556 F20101220_AAARSK morelli_c_Page_057.QC.jpg
c52d1b22ba0e88f3827afdffc2afa0f1
501f5c20d18a99b324c45aa64fff07d4f503640d
5273 F20101220_AAARRW morelli_c_Page_148thm.jpg
26394e162eb7006b22f9e434f32ed496
66f8131cfc239055329f83ab16ba114109fdfbde
6175 F20101220_AAAQPI morelli_c_Page_024thm.jpg
0c4e1ac93c14f76b8b1e49e4fb5aaac1
2e691ab9d1c7ef88030c0fd22f3723560ab89457
25785 F20101220_AAAQOU morelli_c_Page_005.QC.jpg
3aae49a3f7ff9ef1cd4756c461e28291
b85a66cbbff6560e21ac73d97b908dd69d56cf0b
26834 F20101220_AAARTA morelli_c_Page_075.QC.jpg
4c5b54d52f7e2a7403569458fa8c50cc
791e2df3511d0ff19123a5cec3db91964b77cd2d
24393 F20101220_AAARSL morelli_c_Page_096.QC.jpg
ea74c2dba7ad0a6258d22050937a6463
9fd0eaafc9c224d7ab3605c8874b682428f2cac7
27331 F20101220_AAARRX morelli_c_Page_054.QC.jpg
3901b1cc17bc629257b2b16f489ace25
918387839daa82d1a52ba9bb0427cab08d167ed8
46926 F20101220_AAAQPJ morelli_c_Page_094.pro
a73dec8ce736cac68397106f05cefea1
9fbde38bb397d1770c92026819b59318dc201e9b
F20101220_AAAQOV morelli_c_Page_063.tif
dc3daa8ed1c91be41542f5ebc8fb8ecd
9143b64cb60c2df2938db0d6b5bd58e70a7a9560
26802 F20101220_AAARTB morelli_c_Page_060.QC.jpg
925b10e05529c7d8050793d3b4340438
d515bd1b4e77cccc42e202b118e319dd40cca127
6448 F20101220_AAARSM morelli_c_Page_057thm.jpg
8254a588e241df3e1cdab286a68a1e89
16163ffdfdb739992269d1ec43769c644a8a555f
6573 F20101220_AAARRY morelli_c_Page_072thm.jpg
abf746c2a11bcef9491532d7f2bbcdf9
d785ef4e6a8b6932ec7e09e5447842caa3cd5fdd
112455 F20101220_AAAQPK morelli_c_Page_034.jp2
392ec5287391e4ac2efc1ff647d8cc4b
88402fc30ab7c0d5a3abb255382b52df1fc59c3c
F20101220_AAAQOW morelli_c_Page_083.tif
056ed2a8a1e147858332ece94529f84b
0e4f90a066e65ce37a6f022ae2797f130340ada3
6332 F20101220_AAARTC morelli_c_Page_092thm.jpg
50dda741db50f643a46f8b0a330b835d
10c6192e8600881d10453b3bc53bbdbf9768b87d
18361 F20101220_AAARSN morelli_c_Page_131.QC.jpg
96028df532e0131087f788c45408c306
9aa6049b99694f5ecaf098b9067221b2b6fc0336
26015 F20101220_AAARRZ morelli_c_Page_144.QC.jpg
d08ae24fcecdc23f0c45d860eb69109d
708b15ed030f5fd23a3dc247bd30245a8d395c65
1150 F20101220_AAAQPL morelli_c_Page_083thm.jpg
12c287afcf1d0c4f07d196710504bfab
2363cf2f724ced06daa2993e6f5bc1839d71fb4d
6708 F20101220_AAAQOX morelli_c_Page_142thm.jpg
1c5d77bb06171793eea45e0d257c4ebf
f0ed6ccf182f8bc7ba2276ff72a5ec9fbc64f2be
F20101220_AAAQQA morelli_c_Page_080thm.jpg
9c7bd5fba038cbf45b7bef67a54dc15d
82443f3f852eac0fcd37b2fb2650575139231fc6
21734 F20101220_AAARTD morelli_c_Page_082.QC.jpg
9f6e907a593ea725a8250a907948dccd
63895c5471c24b80c9fcc417e20e5d63770a896e
869 F20101220_AAARSO morelli_c_Page_124thm.jpg
bf1aa15d51f37516e5aaaee9b5ae17bb
c206d5ccf1485e737521b4ef6b5207d686f70457
F20101220_AAAQPM morelli_c_Page_146.tif
7d50f76a47428d49472bcaf97052d79a
9cf17d6b3b85a928296b51e546a13f771a500f3b
6748 F20101220_AAAQOY morelli_c_Page_044thm.jpg
f1eab01cc047b6e555931498bc7a6661
6628870154ea339db63bf0e0651f6f312551ef3c
112708 F20101220_AAAQQB morelli_c_Page_067.jp2
e9d39d6f53fdb2b45c57c8d25880ff73
6adf29f0fa0fc706f6e75d4b8a0409cb6d906b2d
6132 F20101220_AAARTE morelli_c_Page_007thm.jpg
393fdf3562923df5500b4c08080a82af
ea83578c6fe54de7b3f1ca8ee3d80e4706e448a2
6402 F20101220_AAARSP morelli_c_Page_113thm.jpg
faf271252be8b0d9b55196b28840afc9
d8d76b2aba2421077a7eb336e123893c541772f2
1974 F20101220_AAAQPN morelli_c_Page_024.txt
402c1982e957ce91347db711b6034240
cd320c3d1e46bfbe4e32df23e41c00c4aee3bf9f
42933 F20101220_AAAQOZ morelli_c_Page_011.pro
e122d44bba43390886b0e7a5023db733
033c07be7c6dc41e90bbef005a9d87bf8f434aa2
51316 F20101220_AAAQQC morelli_c_Page_058.pro
a7873d02f8ace70c656978e4ab34f126
69bbef7a8c0cef959da110be7ea7954f03d72792
23995 F20101220_AAARSQ morelli_c_Page_015.QC.jpg
4a9bae3e396c81c1a28adaa6be631750
1c4b18174771e7ea9ed07587454286c4ddb3815b
25834 F20101220_AAAQPO morelli_c_Page_019.QC.jpg
aac0171e666a738fcee45cf690ad36af
c27998cbf2acca6bd13667fd694cf11e2d4e8820
2830 F20101220_AAARTF morelli_c_Page_129thm.jpg
691ce066ddbb05f536589c10abd4bd4f
e12ba4603378abd599d44cf9d4058d8eb47da2a1
25211 F20101220_AAARSR morelli_c_Page_006.QC.jpg
e818f4e88b9e4044f6fa81c65ad64cda
98e200023bfd00f8b88743a7c3f35b9765516dd9
F20101220_AAAQPP morelli_c_Page_058.tif
1c9739ffee2957755b3ee8fa031e9777
2fdb014ba85383d1987b47a88a6f42fa30dbcb09
114799 F20101220_AAAQQD morelli_c_Page_119.jp2
6437f8486bd94f8a364475ede553b07e
2592782e5c43ea4e4bb49739104b65eb7e8dcc41
25985 F20101220_AAARTG morelli_c_Page_146.QC.jpg
91aa553e1c365667ad525ebed9f2c01a
aa9bfee2bddafaebaf4f736dcc0bfd85bcf6028b
26402 F20101220_AAARSS morelli_c_Page_141.QC.jpg
2b3e2cbb9a1b7a594383e39136f7ee89
5efb7d74386de74d18b243046f9d0a8d122bc173
1051983 F20101220_AAAQPQ morelli_c_Page_010.jp2
6431a986f254e9c846ad46d92f91f2d3
0cd5cce9645caea2ca3596be6649ba3f63a2e745
84909 F20101220_AAAQQE morelli_c_Page_068.jpg
a746b8e518bd5a57920e7a18dff4e4f4
e14b6440b70640926b058623432527495f3dcfd1
22209 F20101220_AAARTH morelli_c_Page_090.QC.jpg
715c47d4d6325b38db62b60999b5108d
036bf9d682acd838aae099231801a8446bc0c392
27752 F20101220_AAARST morelli_c_Page_023.QC.jpg
067fe3a655a3ba783188227ca03b8de4
de33f4097af75e6bff013840cb31bca8b4329c41
6235 F20101220_AAAQPR morelli_c_Page_071thm.jpg
ee90040e82c346a81d4217868e1ae7e8
bdad0ef629f5fc2c19f1d8e2c4844f62a157cb54
F20101220_AAAQQF morelli_c_Page_056.tif
ceeca655e0dede40ae587a1ff5bd9694
9ed0482f2b83938ef90fef0711cae0b6c5d0ee6b
223794 F20101220_AAARTI UFE0015420_00001.xml FULL
14bb9e131a60e22764daa0ff04c74e61
ce75a12a8dfdf751aff07cc239d7c30e915f166a
28051 F20101220_AAARSU morelli_c_Page_056.QC.jpg
d72937afc16005e4984d3c20b815b1b8
c6c69937f4bf2960646dc46a2e415fb58ab6e95d
1899 F20101220_AAAQPS morelli_c_Page_088.txt
b93db7dafa2ebe0adb47a9069c0ca629
9aaec9688d52d76416edec93a056facf6530a2cb
5783 F20101220_AAAQQG morelli_c_Page_083.pro
c2e5089bc2f10ac81ed7d0597654fe43
27b0ab2fda045d234b881824a811a99d0af797a1
539 F20101220_AAARTJ morelli_c_Page_002thm.jpg
5368b427a15f720b607fb6f917e0d653
961dcc424439c5cc0e7ed6620da469c42b3033f4
10426 F20101220_AAARSV morelli_c_Page_129.QC.jpg
dafca8b17828b53a80ea9553d0c3f801
4f6631f4ab5946ed7184ffae879f914b9bb4c4d0
22984 F20101220_AAAQPT morelli_c_Page_040.QC.jpg
a7318d59bbbe660bdf36bd02ddd3e74c
9615bb15c0e9fc2cc9b0dcc71147cd2612698c86
101730 F20101220_AAAQQH morelli_c_Page_143.jpg
0af4eac5a4d1925e3dfc6d50adab4601
d55a011ecff33376006613e7609bea8750053181
1105 F20101220_AAARTK morelli_c_Page_003thm.jpg
b0e2eb834eba8d2e418a92693c380ac7
5411da66763e48a21367b4b5c3656980346e5960
6146 F20101220_AAARSW morelli_c_Page_043thm.jpg
dd1f9129082859e85e5c77039849a6b4
247e0a3325ef2c6f070f194214ad7df9d88e4b58
97945 F20101220_AAAQPU morelli_c_Page_141.jpg
75b02b838d5003213d6ef66c96fa2539
6514a6ae664b2b81d22bb3f73ea0a2fc92dc6955
F20101220_AAAQQI morelli_c_Page_014.tif
dac5f8adaa5161c619f1cfc846677514
02be6b3c7483700d491ca98702fdae2620d1c494
25935 F20101220_AAARUA morelli_c_Page_120.QC.jpg
8460b984a7665185a568c79a197d458f
3b3ae109dc675ee840e914652085e1fe4a300af1
6234 F20101220_AAARTL morelli_c_Page_016thm.jpg
0beeb3f8b192d730a4aef0cbc7138669
4e8c38c13fdcc974ade543acfa9d0da82ef3978d
22043 F20101220_AAARSX morelli_c_Page_086.QC.jpg
cea6cbdcdd4d004444bbd408fd832a16
5cb05acdce1a7e0ee69be3cdd2775ab7ad1283a4
5519 F20101220_AAAQPV morelli_c_Page_130thm.jpg
7bf2e740c9bacee64f75af84fe3755d1
5c363afeb8e71fa1089218e6f910d88ac8d06826
F20101220_AAAQQJ morelli_c_Page_092.txt
d688f5c5eb955ee5efbcf0187fcb466c
1882db90ad65c94dd6fb010e4efac3a1d376ff61
6097 F20101220_AAARUB morelli_c_Page_141thm.jpg
d051bd81c53af80778303f8f722afbbe
afe5073ee58a8295c2c4b5e6fc78eb66b4a58e07
25407 F20101220_AAARTM morelli_c_Page_024.QC.jpg
dc09a544dc17f0eb7e836a3f64bb7c88
b9c2109f413a6c04a75fc8e709ce640799c8942b
6429 F20101220_AAARSY morelli_c_Page_106thm.jpg
2b853fa4366a0dbfb663cfd243d34060
1278dea07c411d78e3320507829720b8e7562eda
5713 F20101220_AAAQPW morelli_c_Page_093thm.jpg
cdd183f56e4c6932012b74d4eda0a484
46aa3f1774876c7bdcfbcd0ad4a5056d3f9dc1e2
5914 F20101220_AAAQQK morelli_c_Page_112thm.jpg
db074491a53c705fcf71aafa7c75ad67
3195fdef9da1e1cfc0ed0ea42a766324c810a74b
27131 F20101220_AAARTN morelli_c_Page_028.QC.jpg
743976960fa122fac9748cd3ba56a0a7
d9a3b7de0a38dee3f2fd7da4709c4f7d5b9b7576
26729 F20101220_AAARSZ morelli_c_Page_027.QC.jpg
1faecf939c1494194af50be52671c084
5f1327d50606b4576e9c13f7a2063dd5126d399d
6589 F20101220_AAAQPX morelli_c_Page_063thm.jpg
46139237a83b665c07b53fa5fc379f31
2c88838feec1624b1acec3611ad1af5e4fbd96c3
F20101220_AAAQRA morelli_c_Page_100.tif
ae63d5291667b1589d4eb44b9d358c59
472ffd8e6398a183cfcce1e7c46c271073d441ab
88459 F20101220_AAAQQL morelli_c_Page_099.jp2
99305195dac23c37adf11bd6376abbc4
19a634af448ef0a0fd69df8e1c6ad1a5d8814889
26525 F20101220_AAARTO morelli_c_Page_030.QC.jpg
dbfedb0056fd2fe475a45390f438f495
5fe001de868076c875d7e3a62ea504f371af8ff1
26925 F20101220_AAAQPY morelli_c_Page_118.QC.jpg
772e93285b60f2dcf05e3f822e37763f
22836c2e49cae7aedd0a35af19e2eabdbcf5293a
6232 F20101220_AAAQRB morelli_c_Page_036thm.jpg
ce6b4e46d4738e63140cac11f90dafad
4319f460d48777421e2b7f19a147caea5c731697
111710 F20101220_AAAQQM morelli_c_Page_134.jp2
0dec9f2039fb525b3ecb07958242f3a4
7784bcbb6d14d410d911b68b3af037e381a7b7c5
6439 F20101220_AAARTP morelli_c_Page_065thm.jpg
d1889344542a432e9f30092472a2232f
ac8168bd6f7b7cc841d8e6c519a75e30aa420b53
85153 F20101220_AAAQPZ morelli_c_Page_080.jpg
b34596ca62ebbc1aee0e8c3b49616ed2
bf765d0c2d375362efa32776b841df66b5ef1700
1956 F20101220_AAAQRC morelli_c_Page_036.txt
cd2ff3db1f183800a795e16079051d24
aa4bb100abcfe53c65010403a27c97a7ff4aa296
21777 F20101220_AAAQQN morelli_c_Page_105.QC.jpg
d69a86045e7d89546494b4270cbdd763
b660cad94468975e5ff78605395a2b1645617747
26113 F20101220_AAARTQ morelli_c_Page_068.QC.jpg
330e6192032347e6cc9df237e3f50186
758f3652a51baeac7588646684ae5ffc3cc721e6
1869 F20101220_AAAQRD morelli_c_Page_077.txt
c5866a543862b09953b621864175c086
60e3575e67b6d032d44c6daf9eb34f0bbec5eed9
6498 F20101220_AAAQQO morelli_c_Page_059thm.jpg
43225a2bae374075bb9ceb09374b852d
8c65518dfca6f7dc28bff763cd85f95e1111cae9
25637 F20101220_AAARTR morelli_c_Page_071.QC.jpg
3003a4240c6eb552d691a33f559f0d3c
887ea61ef9afcc5e4b8c7b2246bd37df04209989
47163 F20101220_AAAQQP morelli_c_Page_077.pro
bfc02ebcc923eb1c0a7cd27792d6c45c
7bbb7ab2c2bb2015498097183b30704a02274910
6449 F20101220_AAARTS morelli_c_Page_079thm.jpg
584a2e26906d92252e2a9462de589fe6
2bca67d9b2ff44487f32d6a66403af921e151e81
2437 F20101220_AAAQRE morelli_c_Page_140.txt
0c977cedbdcaf6ac7dcf08221c01bc26
d42de338719e770674e2e26d871750ecc2a92971
1952 F20101220_AAAQQQ morelli_c_Page_115.txt
2dc2be53f1680a056d194c65f4764f01
57cdeef4d06592635996006952000dbb56566b26
6044 F20101220_AAARTT morelli_c_Page_085thm.jpg
5df2a24dd3e338d279cf54d45ad40052
f08691569b289fa61d3b4711bcf994c0d580885c
1865 F20101220_AAAQRF morelli_c_Page_110.txt
1310b8b8159a6b0ef16aed1755e15bee
f24526e0f893e4d25f73a4bc0e46e7999b66149a
25130 F20101220_AAAQQR morelli_c_Page_026.QC.jpg
9f7cf8f3a076a892f1af331dc99cc658
87f778c162dedf85cf702341729b099f5f77b76d
6102 F20101220_AAARTU morelli_c_Page_094thm.jpg
772214af0d20f5ef70ee18fa7523381e
5d7cc48d03abe363ddcb22a4e0386d67d381f123
112421 F20101220_AAAQRG morelli_c_Page_029.jp2
7d4851a9dbd3ab59736fea3f20beb685
c23813cbbf9085ef98588066fb53512b1bd7b65c
110822 F20101220_AAAQQS morelli_c_Page_031.jp2
027dc58b3b20beb4560e1d860f2baef8
1afe647334f2040bae936b63bb657f861cbaa9fc
5746 F20101220_AAARTV morelli_c_Page_103thm.jpg
1b73cca9797dbcc7fc3e0d4b872c98f1
f35411b67fc541a1627a99a2b075e454688e8ae6
47600 F20101220_AAAQRH morelli_c_Page_101.pro
245a2fd1b79ab32dd25ccd4f2b4b4436
864491380cfb0a88d6837c040d5772a872772c34
F20101220_AAAQQT morelli_c_Page_020.tif
f8cc7b3905e93128ce4cd7d093d440ea
a439e76f5705c785bbb0df7137110af9b2114d46
18576 F20101220_AAARTW morelli_c_Page_104.QC.jpg
a085e979029edce2917aff2996452dbf
974aa4341f3ecfb7690dddaf1d7ffe2c5f1832d7
26367 F20101220_AAAQRI morelli_c_Page_091.QC.jpg
c11bd9c577331fd7b99afcb42e77ed45
2e5b82662998ba0fe5b3a74d55dccd23d06fb792
F20101220_AAAQQU morelli_c_Page_049.tif
374350fbd153deea6080910d33320f54
3397d7a9cf1b8229e7c09e4a4a13ee2eb942e09c
23263 F20101220_AAARTX morelli_c_Page_110.QC.jpg
2398e399a500e45ff7b9e9c033c81fa7
685b6931277f22415d4b89312ed9d47e6908332a
6470 F20101220_AAAQRJ morelli_c_Page_075thm.jpg
85e2dcff5b68d1f83bf3b3b481694c73
518859aec00e46daf16e4f58d69f75877789b35b
86280 F20101220_AAAQQV morelli_c_Page_067.jpg
5d5cd7a2059f90b6e2e2d9fc9366602b
a3bd7761168a34df824440e4267a8d141105bb1c
26655 F20101220_AAARTY morelli_c_Page_114.QC.jpg
d9a5bc8a6cdfdea5ce4535b3ed8d9169
80456fbfb696c4193ed550d33c48095ea3baad1d
6344 F20101220_AAAQRK morelli_c_Page_145thm.jpg
c6a9df3fe93820ed1256e6d622541e4c
52b17c794565078ba4ac157e450c427ea53c602d
108719 F20101220_AAAQQW morelli_c_Page_071.jp2
5d4b59b27a6469b54261ef55ac815e0c
9078ac45008d1bca735253329ed46b47cbff962b
24714 F20101220_AAARTZ morelli_c_Page_115.QC.jpg
fbd7297591b9212f4c04051bcf10bb63
3713a270bd5b3d59e040276f2af7b99c7bad54fc
F20101220_AAAQSA morelli_c_Page_068.txt
ed78b7ec9959509b79874be329aae29c
166f92e348039acd6ab393071984d44c7faa612b
5646 F20101220_AAAQRL morelli_c_Page_002.jp2
e9e520a8bbd8b2ac8ea578538a268d67
18efd34dafa3490a312c251a1c25849ff85f3328
11483 F20101220_AAAQQX morelli_c_Page_133.pro
1fa8a12592f6c9f49d902f19cdb7649f
a6f959dd5e9148299d9bcf1c5d838c5fea4093fb
102169 F20101220_AAAQSB morelli_c_Page_094.jp2
4a5ceb84b97f7e377115c0493744596b
032db1b835eb285750b8b4fcba4cd0c6fbfe1dc5
94563 F20101220_AAAQRM morelli_c_Page_040.jp2
1c46ff42cece22f4466a2e8fd24e02ad
c32cd5a3b71efa2b5dee1876cd6975120f6a48fd
108993 F20101220_AAAQQY morelli_c_Page_117.jp2
33bf879d6b36cc2fc1831988bb7d1a3d
6a2e493dfa0661e61115963a90fbfcfb3a99b358
127979 F20101220_AAAQSC morelli_c_Page_140.jp2
d08cbcff499b0f463ab93a4b0a690404
ecb7579c3241923534b5aa0223d2caa10d841577
F20101220_AAAQRN morelli_c_Page_057.tif
eeb1a2595ef5a40e7ebcb3577b288c3d
4f5e72be38aee5fcfedb510c3d5155380863c1ed
85990 F20101220_AAAQQZ morelli_c_Page_073.jpg
49870fa407cf28ca0d22216dc6c4e5a3
fdcc6a6c22b5b2ec2174b8f0b38f3266ee98f047
5848 F20101220_AAAQSD morelli_c_Page_121thm.jpg
70d6abe43de9de90946fb1e116e221d4
37409caf3e2ea18b8b794c6e65774c4c9a75b6d2
95640 F20101220_AAAQRO morelli_c_Page_146.jpg
dd7a34c5027a18287d42bd0e706a5cdb
82ebd4f8e890c2687044006b52b303aaa1447c19
40559 F20101220_AAAQSE morelli_c_Page_086.pro
90dc6355b2f851caf9664848421ec2e4
26653e4a367190b6e8ac0283408af208e0a379b4
F20101220_AAAQRP morelli_c_Page_038thm.jpg
63a620e672d61048d3db2eaa453cb37d
3a38278683e1741f30647c9a4a75af83f91ce1bb
49144 F20101220_AAAQRQ morelli_c_Page_051.pro
ae30ce2ec5c576c63e7861d1ac53b621
237d2f66c5d1f28c6d93a473ff3a2088e51383dd
6378 F20101220_AAAQSF morelli_c_Page_035thm.jpg
f0338398c47a3eca4e9a606bcdbec317
4ec2bed6b3d34c2150b8825565d92b13eb6badea
F20101220_AAAQRR morelli_c_Page_105thm.jpg
1fd9b88009235b8e8fb52d933a1af655
c241f923b0d5da3ffacb2fb40cad015af3dc5f92
87481 F20101220_AAAQSG morelli_c_Page_063.jpg
e204c6a59127f434209cf24914c18d17
4e54cb804075218d072eccf62d81ee3233a3ef01
84389 F20101220_AAAQRS morelli_c_Page_035.jpg
9fc8560372b95048621bdaedd40b180f
ed1848cd19016d1853a59b0c6c91719d88909e59
5793 F20101220_AAAQSH morelli_c_Page_090thm.jpg
d5a7fdacf9ece0b48b5ff260e9c9e4e9
92adf174f22722f7372715c02b8c808602946355
F20101220_AAAQRT morelli_c_Page_012thm.jpg
584491571e79cb12a7faed031b1f8c1a
6f9bf083b8a154497fca54e4df698e70cca10df5
5514 F20101220_AAAQSI morelli_c_Page_084thm.jpg
56013dc5d10e552e02d5d091576e28d8
bdf0cdb3903db1592cced209d19518fcea94bbca
6366 F20101220_AAAQRU morelli_c_Page_030thm.jpg
ea82f04a81d4cf8dd6c1bfb23dcf36af
3e640fff4bf5dc4cfc906d649eb7adea152d99d1
F20101220_AAAQRV morelli_c_Page_050.tif
6a422bf8eea270ee9410d85116a3c0ac
7eaf3043d6ddec75f7973367f7469b0f0afaf692
F20101220_AAAQSJ morelli_c_Page_036.tif
34a94b597088fdf4ea7c82c4e883661d
9f32ec4db5596a106b62c1713e2cf818f08de3df
57090 F20101220_AAAQRW morelli_c_Page_135.pro
e0ce3ad02d57966aeb672bb3e09f46ab
6a175cc1c90a7a1a37891acce89e5039940735d6
F20101220_AAAQSK morelli_c_Page_093.tif
29ae00510810093e8a187e74883fe01b
ce50b8fe23d9eaf97a841c9cb9680a7effd52e53
83202 F20101220_AAAQRX morelli_c_Page_045.jpg
5b728615bb852b33818e4bf3d2991261
3e0c0deadf603886103cd93f0c691dc9aa084bb0
F20101220_AAAQTA morelli_c_Page_149.tif
28f291fed4a769a4ebb01ff5c138ea64
d325602697ad01f59d6075a5b0f547887a8cd46a
5865 F20101220_AAAQSL morelli_c_Page_088thm.jpg
09e05f453592f3bcff09f98d6680664c
4482143630c8c7b22f754e408551decdba15edd6
F20101220_AAAQRY morelli_c_Page_075.txt
d80b00dba4ced39f9530143d02019940
2d6ffbb4de43dacd2192151312548548f3c65d2e
25212 F20101220_AAAQTB morelli_c_Page_101.QC.jpg
b9a8109451d65517b8cb12520cb41eac
807e09ebd46a87368d1b3706998cd4c7c3a53512
38365 F20101220_AAAQSM morelli_c_Page_105.pro
30c34f4a367c96d53e2b2dc6ac1bff0d
15569374d3261f920e23190ec4f7305b4bf1c910
83234 F20101220_AAAQRZ morelli_c_Page_046.jpg
0a90318e787e0d36a7ad8e8234390edf
8f4d7c29f53d85839bca0058664eca002f191fb9
6409 F20101220_AAAQTC morelli_c_Page_017thm.jpg
e7e18efa7688a33494649d678284a80d
ec91561491430cdd56fe2683ef2e73d270328ac6
F20101220_AAAQSN morelli_c_Page_053.tif
0f600eba3dd71baa66603013d76e82da
af770a379d34d113105b995fc3ce4c4de605efb6
F20101220_AAAQTD morelli_c_Page_066.txt
43982d99c79911f073f9b9eae0d76941
ba487aeaf47c5dabbf185ca17aa3d07c2c296110
51196 F20101220_AAAQSO morelli_c_Page_052.pro
aefb29fbbe878933d47a75f6b3191cec
7aac3a118835d8cc95e1c5260007ba3388017963
F20101220_AAAQTE morelli_c_Page_114.tif
00ca141057814c6c51e98db81414a391
8869b18231d1403cf49f6f5a5b11db862bd8ea52
2115 F20101220_AAAQSP morelli_c_Page_044.txt
cdf7c4bfb5c1fae6580995bcccc820fe
ea55b1793441e03a7783b2db4aa86d5215343fd1
103676 F20101220_AAAQTF morelli_c_Page_006.jp2
a0d60bf4f80838b8ecabc5c25faebc68
76db0a1b6eea2e57bc4c5d4726b99221a1a05562
25570 F20101220_AAAQSQ morelli_c_Page_033.QC.jpg
79df909f14189b1bcafdaac050505a1d
758880dfd8cbe15b68435a6f295570b4e39f97a6
50550 F20101220_AAAQSR morelli_c_Page_074.pro
c69195cea5129890bf845149bafda047
4e17d4603bf71ec51f9a7dd4522fb3eac20aa446
49863 F20101220_AAAQTG morelli_c_Page_045.pro
b2adaf745b4640614cd61a44f1b31e55
9a411ab0ff9207178951b0eaaa99406b39258f8b
125898 F20101220_AAAQSS morelli_c_Page_146.jp2
cb7a531c61cee54fa341986133514f43
06e418fd882113c15f7e8d10cafb3e30172cd948
2052 F20101220_AAAQTH morelli_c_Page_120.txt
efa019d9bc9ada753176498a105a0ddc
e8e95a09d07b4ddab4c47c78d82d77022c87e842
52117 F20101220_AAAQST morelli_c_Page_120.pro
34407974c1dbe35247555f358aaaa6e6
94dc31ff68b312231c0c3f711f1766f1dd7f0d07
25263 F20101220_AAAQTI morelli_c_Page_050.QC.jpg
6648f766190217b99394117a10c7ddfa
1c13a1ff01b9e2c08914ee836c46416eac27db9c
103594 F20101220_AAAQSU morelli_c_Page_042.jp2
caa9884afb10796691218956606b2034
947dd183b2aa3ffdaba47df8742735988b4dee2a
2460 F20101220_AAAQTJ morelli_c_Page_133thm.jpg
a664cfd2b256872b80e39328e8ca39bf
7b9712b839bb3ac16d2e8ce22713bf8cc07e522d
109420 F20101220_AAAQSV morelli_c_Page_079.jp2
9e3909437e615aa03cbf212b95d947c0
d72340572fc5a6f8c98a94275d0db1ace3cf5fff
F20101220_AAAQTK morelli_c_Page_144thm.jpg
79472797aedbdefc94b0990d25d86b04
5fab158ccf7b3b8e2bbf8c0c75a1ca9aefbe1452
2085 F20101220_AAAQSW morelli_c_Page_054.txt
e58cb42020cf5f463204f81d25a6c58b
c07d276d349abdfc1f6874a3757c93a706782893
6558 F20101220_AAAQUA morelli_c_Page_041thm.jpg
2d3c94e9c910cea08c212febed23e0ae
09567ac9dbd94b959c94e662c46b3eb4a77548b8
102910 F20101220_AAAQTL morelli_c_Page_138.jpg
160d5d9715397174d717394a669c1473
ed74d8fa926ea95afc294f22acf8984291786964
77178 F20101220_AAAQSX morelli_c_Page_103.jpg
e8db44d623b93a9720f06d9517b8d77b
fa44605538c4189eeb859cb1527f9638e864497a
F20101220_AAAQUB morelli_c_Page_009.tif
73b09c59fb1e9d22414666aad2227a15
f82e8d2a1db3cb4fdab2f02bb0ba6a415bf49a36
1855 F20101220_AAAQTM morelli_c_Page_148.txt
c84d59f3cadd5a88c73f9dbad56f54fd
c0f8b40be9c0c759abd1485e842672346d8cb31c
F20101220_AAAQSY morelli_c_Page_133.tif
f273b0c37b19173a26c924c39bc0b598
100749237c70bd2920534bdf87c1a8945faaa3b1
16729 F20101220_AAAQUC morelli_c_Page_098.QC.jpg
1067bb1dae1e82e4093673f82f34a83a
50baf74ece3441cc02efd32e666c2a8f30785be7
1975 F20101220_AAAQTN morelli_c_Page_079.txt
b80904a9a651e15694085a7f970e87d4
9ef9c3310b79e9c9443500c9c2f775e887a8ca3a
84532 F20101220_AAAQSZ morelli_c_Page_102.jpg
83ff3e9a22a93cd942bcb927d1b981d9
28629de19e4632f730f9fd1e3729817165f93621
1996 F20101220_AAAQUD morelli_c_Page_018.txt
94a1272f1eee0647cfdc76d95278c4d6
ad66e662d4dbb57b504ad2adc8a23ce798e06973
F20101220_AAAQTO morelli_c_Page_065.txt
dc44f9f9acf19d7fb92dd7fb355754f8
c568dc95410df26896dcf6cfe445dfdb911274dc
F20101220_AAAQUE morelli_c_Page_043.tif
82841ea3243f1fd1d02126db472074d7
f3cd33a5f7142321152cf94ff87e8bedb8b45457
56333 F20101220_AAAQTP morelli_c_Page_009.pro
e887aed00f839b499e781095f7139086
3f27dabb604a6b726207c2cc8c4f4d97ffdd96ca
101442 F20101220_AAAQUF morelli_c_Page_145.jpg
d571e1dc038c6bfd57bb876ba14dd853
b2ec2dd7aa424fde935e56958e32d0b0bf8cb267
47636 F20101220_AAAQTQ morelli_c_Page_093.pro
68bce57a90dfe89575fa54e63b12bcfd
7fd70f60df6032198733263b53ad9c38f606aabb
78820 F20101220_AAAQUG morelli_c_Page_055.jpg
b39fd16bcc24fe910070af638001d4aa
cd162c389fab23446e270dc9add9c11f30806b6e
6407 F20101220_AAAQTR morelli_c_Page_005thm.jpg
7577f68f4e7d505644218efb753fa45e
b210c6bccbcfc778c5d7e87b3cb075a14fb224ee
67792 F20101220_AAARAA morelli_c_Page_098.jp2
e5c6f3eabe3d2d7005724451677082f5
36c98f20179d51709b1abedd140822a4e14d8415
19879 F20101220_AAAQTS morelli_c_Page_011.QC.jpg
6b14258d5825e11b938b395ac6f4273e
671f4610063f97ce86321feb043eba29d5fdf975
110399 F20101220_AAARAB morelli_c_Page_070.jp2
5baf7abc06b472057c32d4a068b4bac6
b760c68f8c3c965cc39c300f6ae94b6c6b2cd518
84887 F20101220_AAAQUH morelli_c_Page_065.jpg
4f5240ac4bfeca901f05f64851a07db8
b49592f04fa9dfb3423a6693863b9b8d0931b85d
113432 F20101220_AAAQTT morelli_c_Page_075.jp2
d48932ce074d3b975ac5232566fe218b
c8934ce347ccf23e5ea39928cc58e00141935ba9
2054 F20101220_AAARAC morelli_c_Page_091.txt
2159319f83470cd816d69eca041f5990
1aff9bc3347608a755a5cf6a3fe1af9eaaa11209
2008 F20101220_AAAQUI morelli_c_Page_122.txt
2402cba8eef65a4498b558b9bb79a689
74757d07d489824b8fc88175039ba757e6fbf04b
F20101220_AAAQTU morelli_c_Page_058thm.jpg
5f5f036504b4a82c1a161f7fbf2436a1
8a2177b7565bb448375e03242b018f453f30c0fc
84743 F20101220_AAARAD morelli_c_Page_052.jpg
021464d5dc171813fc65b9451f24ec33
3c41362d45735befb5340db78d735cbf8747eb17
1968 F20101220_AAAQUJ morelli_c_Page_116.txt
09611839c25f4e77663acb0c607628d3
fdb914ff9db4b9aff86dc47685ebe4aca6c46b25
99144 F20101220_AAAQTV morelli_c_Page_004.jp2
264f4d3d44fec49fc70f82fc09740ee0
986003997e4bbd52f9a437539e9b2b7015a32f64
82388 F20101220_AAARAE morelli_c_Page_069.jpg
9f436a4f60291f5f19a08862c5243744
c07a83d910ee323cec4143556f4966cf25ca9ce8
28403 F20101220_AAAQUK morelli_c_Page_137.QC.jpg
7410b4f0993ac16e0bb03e72698f54d1
9c68c4e358b7aa73daa63f5b20df2af66d639f52
F20101220_AAAQTW morelli_c_Page_048.tif
bda83b20c3f3ccdc8c9462cd04e79da9
ca9d07afc121ce5c06c1c6ab88faaf30574ba0d1
6623 F20101220_AAARAF morelli_c_Page_126thm.jpg
bd45d97b48e263278460e3630681dc33
9c5babed9a3a25d869ebc85328cd7d26a9d58d46
39773 F20101220_AAAQUL morelli_c_Page_109.jpg
757d899b8cabe17c1e6960a5c9d6b953
8ae39e8e13198ef9948ce9a21f1ac2f2e62e1e4a
F20101220_AAAQTX morelli_c_Page_105.tif
e41e61633ba73ca9c649f936a984bbe6
1527e43534428fffb2f4688661955591edfe26b2
85394 F20101220_AAARAG morelli_c_Page_020.jpg
5685478514038777272c41d44cf83fe0
da077dd87290029b87c59af4e3e9e98e6965d84d
F20101220_AAAQVA morelli_c_Page_076.txt
98dc54dcde1908b39a5143e10b7935c4
f507819930486b4e85a7d4153b2f71e7bcfbc8c8
F20101220_AAAQUM morelli_c_Page_130.tif
5902ef5c893a11a541e679ef397c4e6a
7b30f62dc6f55c3c8b578a95dd9280e0fe970ccb
F20101220_AAAQTY morelli_c_Page_026.tif
cf5440c1eabc50a17853a38f708b3f8f
c52fad6e02e18554ed9e9476032ac6f48cd74259
83153 F20101220_AAARAH morelli_c_Page_016.jpg
f9554281816a0803a6fa643d036913c3
9b84f7ee76d060a278df206dc58fa3107cb3f199
2053 F20101220_AAAQVB morelli_c_Page_114.txt
a7a71dcd820fd0c75665ca2e144225e8
acaa381b1c8def5ccb50630b416dc498bad58098
79331 F20101220_AAAQUN morelli_c_Page_009.jpg
3455c76bf8415c267e15f198f33c63b3
3259878573eec9d2e0c1ecbf0e6c9e325fedec02
140763 F20101220_AAAQTZ morelli_c_Page_147.jp2
87f235442bff80ace14a2cc9c49e4147
e775c9c5f56f1c33209fedb52794be8c7f140b51
50696 F20101220_AAARAI morelli_c_Page_018.pro
81cdc4d7c9dad2c0851371653f611694
d89bc8000ade6ff0680cbd32cc5a37ac9362b374
6548 F20101220_AAAQVC morelli_c_Page_029thm.jpg
c35b8593c686dcb3beb0ac03880d91e2
14b468195ff381a566386c169ff0160625858487
F20101220_AAAQUO morelli_c_Page_111.tif
a11ef3e0f0dc68d84ca695f93afdf778
f88a3069f32f4c8f669ea2c91c62b87b9d744e08
79817 F20101220_AAARAJ morelli_c_Page_112.jpg
78d4afba26dfb2a05dc938befbee7d2e
ac207ac7ed9af1d20457cb356e84f97f5928d46c
84286 F20101220_AAAQVD morelli_c_Page_047.jpg
46109554020c60a01f2b6055cadf296d
ed79753f208b4b33edbf2caeb3c11e9c13019f79
6412 F20101220_AAAQUP morelli_c_Page_107thm.jpg
4af64b4eb06cf9e1209c6a0658fc6b68
3b197ca49a41f0b2d6e8c4329202afdccd9a86a7
47271 F20101220_AAARAK morelli_c_Page_096.pro
197e1605497b56ab63f03f6d613e22ee
097ca5f6ab239c03a6ab89eabc926569132e83a3
85010 F20101220_AAAQVE morelli_c_Page_113.jpg
6fbc3f91742f0ae53cc845477ad156ed
dc8dfef493e57a0a0b86b1d3c22c66d3d83cdee1
86984 F20101220_AAAQUQ morelli_c_Page_048.jpg
3e6e1766cb9ca7b3c3afb89f4b0b6727
25c50444014fe3361f1706ab6b13987ef018dee7
2039 F20101220_AAARAL morelli_c_Page_100.txt
cf1ef14f0f87de12960aa0ac60573eec
9dcfbf9f80d34960805b02fde1bf009eadd8894b
5742 F20101220_AAAQVF morelli_c_Page_097thm.jpg
3c701f322ba2b5035fa598581bab46a1
e4c8be949d756d882e6e222b35e96865dff7a5fc
86233 F20101220_AAAQUR morelli_c_Page_107.jpg
91062c20bd65755a6a3b244714e3896e
78cffa017ad24b80ab3907734c98563d769278e8
6011 F20101220_AAARBA morelli_c_Page_078thm.jpg
6556cdef34b43e458f401b9e576f1572
3696de3a9409d21d0d9d311a768743b9086be351
86221 F20101220_AAARAM morelli_c_Page_134.jpg
7879a41ab716272e0b8eaeb34d3758dc
b77270866e0c84df530788cd30f0634a6b6ca07b
52300 F20101220_AAAQVG morelli_c_Page_073.pro
3085187db4f1ead9c6ee85f5e1876503
f71714f1923025eee3c50a33f2f6a286fe39cb44
6597 F20101220_AAAQUS morelli_c_Page_023thm.jpg
adbcda2d7ff72cf330b69f1b6e7e4618
3476c70da4c660d4fc7f9f46b48ad843d4aec014
4808 F20101220_AAARBB morelli_c_Page_011thm.jpg
53ff0705630046100921cc37633a4d33
245d55f72ab085535ba482118170445b7138c1ac
116164 F20101220_AAARAN morelli_c_Page_023.jp2
6e730945e36bdb984e53cafdbee397f1
88206842baf9344178d5cdb0458371f940d301bc
F20101220_AAAQVH morelli_c_Page_016.tif
790eea70d4434e4998decc2601da780c
eb8b5e5493e141bf9e15ee490005c71a00a21356
F20101220_AAAQUT morelli_c_Page_022.tif
874aad5872012531ac4a05ef84d958dd
8c5a377382f2b460ed1bc8f11154bbdee248f3cb
80891 F20101220_AAARBC morelli_c_Page_007.jpg
28c24e10d66e8b5ff7a77f301a9a8c92
3177ade9796e16c09ba19b220006e3a4e8d61301
7127 F20101220_AAARAO morelli_c_Page_001.QC.jpg
5b4648abe342ac8d1919fa8022ec7696
d215a1522c90a4af1f35a9c7be13f8016167ac7d
52582 F20101220_AAAQUU morelli_c_Page_064.pro
7318216c593d9b7ab4134439db1c68d3
2f7b2b22b7fbaf7462584a27b4b297fbf20e0a88
6486 F20101220_AAARBD morelli_c_Page_060thm.jpg
cb9581f92e9d05738977f3179c81b530
c9c17efcec157dbcfd1a6be85dfa409a726d3947
191 F20101220_AAARAP morelli_c_Page_124.txt
b4bfd435579f58f31a1781e67bc02a3d
ee57117c2268200957cbaf557e2211584d479d3c
4118 F20101220_AAAQVI morelli_c_Page_039.QC.jpg
74926946e9ce2a2536364623580ceead
b4b4bb00d0d3428b931dbd8757787815ec15beb2
445552 F20101220_AAAQUV morelli_c_Page_012.jp2
6479ea882e99baf6afe0250cfa90156e
78a4982327f537aa4f2ab2126a8838154f2f24cd
1081 F20101220_AAARBE morelli_c_Page_039thm.jpg
ddd40b9123ba71151af5c3ec31f78f82
a65c2e814da2714c8740aaee16c8c7f387d7f2a5
112134 F20101220_AAARAQ morelli_c_Page_052.jp2
ef2038e41bb25aca854b179788dbed12
d33c9ce7d568528e621c7f415382b97b18f0d7a7
1659 F20101220_AAAQVJ morelli_c_Page_008thm.jpg
c711c84dbae0c7df6c4681d9a42eefd1
d316a27dec9d108b376234abb473f18e39bc9df4
61180 F20101220_AAAQUW morelli_c_Page_131.jp2
70e5956f2ab77cfd972fa15555e282ca
76b29f425c7f2d9eeade034c0892e76dd81b4a10
48323 F20101220_AAARBF morelli_c_Page_121.pro
188a3aa0fa269b9409e0cce7f64f0b5a
34f594f183c00f5e92ce5935517fea59279bc431
11300 F20101220_AAARAR morelli_c_Page_124.jp2
fb151e9c05cbaa00a5be0e9d766e18c8
2c70f68c744beea38b720fa54361ef0a87aa0e9c
26779 F20101220_AAAQVK morelli_c_Page_126.QC.jpg
09b8099117a86c095339b86a655d332c
0fa9bf5c97ebb65d1192f6ab32dd89cc83eb5a6b
4967 F20101220_AAAQUX morelli_c_Page_013thm.jpg
c3c32bd71a685bbd230db5ac230df412
8192aefe677c8cd87469b60587bedb4dfd133469
84046 F20101220_AAARBG morelli_c_Page_005.jpg
ed63f41f3f69f79ca4df8f66356b98a7
8838b37a20e6e4ad4e833093cc1d1f2ad9f0146b
43453 F20101220_AAAQWA morelli_c_Page_090.pro
eb6bb9543bf79a485e4fee00a5b044e8
dea09875e663fb15573645a9662f394831de5b84
6725 F20101220_AAAQVL morelli_c_Page_139thm.jpg
c97a3e09e4add215e5ce340db20e4434
da9c84226e311f3ff961cfbe9ba36155bf0d1680
8524 F20101220_AAAQUY morelli_c_Page_128.QC.jpg
e5899d54e5db618461f0245f65b3a5a3
7757d727452bb0d1ffefc63b0ec49f2ed7f55fc3
2034 F20101220_AAARBH morelli_c_Page_061.txt
4ad7c669f0bb6321f29c12b14af6cdda
54da8b34a52b5529e615967f27e72397c7a47d03
23940 F20101220_AAAQWB morelli_c_Page_125.QC.jpg
ee99b2c1c2b0cc49ca06a9a9d5b7b239
9df44d0332950e8d34bb0570e3092477607c2a44
81939 F20101220_AAARAS morelli_c_Page_115.jpg
b809fd60ab565830e68299837366b995
996193497faab8e3ca0dd6e272cb799df7b3a0cc
1963 F20101220_AAAQVM morelli_c_Page_045.txt
0d6237e595adc843ea4ff16ffbe1957f
2610c288203eeed41ebf94be32bef6125ff6c5ff
84495 F20101220_AAAQUZ morelli_c_Page_120.jpg
058653468ab3d25c0ec9a4e014fbd966
b68d589d28948749065771fffe89755e8503b269
26268 F20101220_AAARBI morelli_c_Page_049.QC.jpg
ba55fc7616d6c5dc6afdff9fa99b5e37
1ca1465d325cd5485ae4e7366303830506a6035c
102552 F20101220_AAAQWC morelli_c_Page_096.jp2
e4afcf80d7123483fb7d3f4e79a166b6
a1390e2dfa2f623a9b76f088f715ac5baed859d4
26830 F20101220_AAARAT morelli_c_Page_080.QC.jpg
070ad265d3bd3d54a806ba056d192c63
6e5c8f6dd3203730e158d407b7704eb69f6d7bfb
2128 F20101220_AAAQVN morelli_c_Page_134.txt
eb97dd902b49d0b5a1052823b9cc2bf1
5a20b4d205b2a69c8af08afe749e7caf03c25430
4056 F20101220_AAARBJ morelli_c_Page_003.QC.jpg
14e0f7d90ff640080765fce867dbb53f
72d14130c65ef629ee13c23bfdae493da07c0eb2
4494 F20101220_AAAQWD morelli_c_Page_132thm.jpg
8c878f23fc56fb8ce99d37c6dca57c80
5240dd95484565a8a8690073ccea8f6769e258bb
6483 F20101220_AAARAU morelli_c_Page_118thm.jpg
d0c927e2054884fe51feba7e5692bb2f
5c5350a61977485f92fc0aaed2d00cc4a5326a9a
105663 F20101220_AAAQVO morelli_c_Page_112.jp2
d2e40dab5be4b41f0378825b11b42308
c0b9bc6d0ed4ea01c1669a268badb39720a54f86
51573 F20101220_AAARBK morelli_c_Page_041.pro
74355ca066dc219ab8b0ac1828a20a32
e10435d29d3264ec679d75e057ca16c0efb6174b
F20101220_AAAQWE morelli_c_Page_076.tif
aa31d4d7b0a12a9fee56de61c842e251
e6c0185156605f900e038637405bc028fd1dad1a
112895 F20101220_AAARAV morelli_c_Page_025.jp2
4df34f1039691d5904ff4562ac1d86da
865497970e3da000ef6435777d0ac09382220caf
110377 F20101220_AAAQVP morelli_c_Page_027.jp2
6753d8d09b57cd08e2fd051e00685883
69e1b6582ba583908f580aaf9b38f6c55ee4f570
F20101220_AAARBL morelli_c_Page_129.tif
24ede414550883211d155e7efb85b750
58222579e65c0497cec6fe562ea863ee2da10e4a
F20101220_AAAQWF morelli_c_Page_145.QC.jpg
1a186252f9e79de5e522a00383f8c67c
815af235bd164d64a619cfe9bc6d65aeecdb150d
29348 F20101220_AAARAW morelli_c_Page_044.QC.jpg
37eb16d0ded5c61e7f6735c5ac9a804a
a26d35d99734d004e02dc9836bd5c4a896c40a9d
612 F20101220_AAAQVQ morelli_c_Page_127thm.jpg
4ebfb9ee8c71bc465e217bb87b33a12c
d85c7e2c0682c0626b25059c49d840b7b3a97336
115277 F20101220_AAARBM morelli_c_Page_054.jp2
d93b23e21419f970083c1481ff829b72
82fba5ee7efa57df9c2d1cf93251c59f224a1335
3763 F20101220_AAAQWG morelli_c_Page_124.pro
a39f9b8f4032f7e76b42d42ec9814b06
ccdfdc82a7538d35515f6b0153f377c303b7105e
113918 F20101220_AAARAX morelli_c_Page_048.jp2
ddfb8589301bda1715744bea09da942f
0ebf580a085cfafc5fe807bc24b293552736b434
49815 F20101220_AAAQVR morelli_c_Page_116.pro
64e8aae40b8b1841bb3fc5c3ad0af13a
03390bd4b60fc8439413fb9c8c1a92aa8314be69
23891 F20101220_AAARCA morelli_c_Page_001.jpg
0c3258d28e457526986928ec9171c433
de535cb957c81fc8dddf5d6f4ac69960eff16e72
114432 F20101220_AAARBN morelli_c_Page_032.jp2
6057e3d6b22d2bbef0fdd21946a349f9
daed316b0415cdb47b1b64af68a2e7f1cfed5461
F20101220_AAAQWH morelli_c_Page_064thm.jpg
78ca0f947226bd3bfb8769b7007fb776
56a589eaceb0ddb20effcb3c19d674e3ae7386e9
109722 F20101220_AAARAY morelli_c_Page_080.jp2
499f6ea9859deb53166775b0bd1b7359
396e021f005318956988e8f2d718f0b9eda1fa79
28658 F20101220_AAAQVS morelli_c_Page_132.pro
40b3e9213c38b3c8ec2d3b5cf98b6184
bdce91fd2d7355c1d74d906c6c5e9e0e9086446d
4384 F20101220_AAARCB morelli_c_Page_002.jpg
4752df978a2e658e0e9290e8bd01c439
424bbc7220582568fefa509c76601a78f09a2cb4
6081 F20101220_AAARBO morelli_c_Page_115thm.jpg
02747444cf9b93f62b5808861c1649e4
5a2d83e7a17a3037d79a0996707b383dae7989dc
117371 F20101220_AAAQWI morelli_c_Page_056.jp2
cceff39f983d49570ff92a240c711a9c
e1de43df7c4caf32ab95a66c6d58fad76040e1e0
6190 F20101220_AAARAZ morelli_c_Page_037thm.jpg
dd991a24882c200859a6c148f3d0bbeb
54986eb74a00323b36da1638a5854daeac87fbeb
53214 F20101220_AAAQVT morelli_c_Page_063.pro
65c2f501afbf3fbd392b2416cd3905ca
6f191bb0ea77a04948724065552e26ab0f60bb8b
15252 F20101220_AAARCC morelli_c_Page_003.jpg
999fb1ae5d4ddde3fe6e6c6850b237cb
543c78db5e2972a3b51c03adc8ad1f1b634bf896
51042 F20101220_AAARBP morelli_c_Page_049.pro
4caeee0103c896ac89ed6a0134f2361d
deee2144c372903d8b25aed9d2d449a9b041341d
87914 F20101220_AAAQVU morelli_c_Page_032.jpg
6772854571f1499505b9a6a102a053e1
e4ba262c7a8dd51efdb772abef1f64f50743b005
80965 F20101220_AAARCD morelli_c_Page_006.jpg
d6249e4860a3f98a90e879aea665e5ad
7a3f94fc4ee9e36ca110521b396a875013635d78
51191 F20101220_AAARBQ morelli_c_Page_109.jp2
238667a2789fd64ba4ac5def3b4e99e6
35817a38b7bac447684a1f0801f84aa9948dda37
F20101220_AAAQWJ morelli_c_Page_032thm.jpg
914c0f328e943bdb846628536186f9ae
5ef80141957e81cdf6953fa3b1ad6a08770493dc
21306 F20101220_AAAQVV morelli_c_Page_108.QC.jpg
e3ecc1007420d18f124879835563a15e
e96b6fc861bbe5e56d46e61647fbe803c2a3d6c8
19630 F20101220_AAARCE morelli_c_Page_008.jpg
1844e500fbff6d8995eecd815289e548
ba874f06d5753f25034a87cf537eff5bd6bfd9c1
25227 F20101220_AAARBR morelli_c_Page_008.jp2
ab1d7a2a420514417bc7502b2bc6a97c
82128a004292b05a5a12ba6620950640ba1c5434
F20101220_AAAQWK morelli_c_Page_095.tif
ec3504162f2d987f980088a56f5d7f9d
24b49705e815f2f16f74c9458557e87c7f9be79a
F20101220_AAAQVW morelli_c_Page_033.tif
77e221a15e829ea2aa282162935e6dcc
25c736b66f83e7daeed005025b45c28f604a08c2
73419 F20101220_AAARCF morelli_c_Page_011.jpg
7561d3c754c1d23e1b813304f3dc7acb
c26c83d38877ed0fc17b473190e02c843212e4d4
48707 F20101220_AAAQXA morelli_c_Page_125.pro
976fcc9852ce8b2db61dc42a322d4a01
0286cbe030a8b621d7b3ecc0b759a2de76a25430
6031 F20101220_AAARBS morelli_c_Page_077thm.jpg
04f2fe4c407f1f96f3e4bcbfd373355d
dbdc0b9b2a042f95db8aad0acdbeacc5ad39833b
25945 F20101220_AAAQWL morelli_c_Page_070.QC.jpg
67111e9266959670ed34f4fbd41d686d
811f4827dd8887ea06fa0f63bd45016e8f7f00b6
81774 F20101220_AAAQVX morelli_c_Page_085.jpg
65465961029bcbd8e85fbac30f21939a
53ecd7939d4bb532a10fa49fbb79a2c8837a3cde
22233 F20101220_AAARCG morelli_c_Page_012.jpg
6a03dba3c569007f06d4e38274d46078
d4ffbb9ad179907bc6d75e52d1197f4aa37c7180
113226 F20101220_AAAQXB morelli_c_Page_064.jp2
d6d34b33f3d4c173140a695eccecb2eb
d6482b440615a6ab0c921f80285a0abafe254ce6
F20101220_AAAQWM morelli_c_Page_084.tif
856ce5d35abd243434803ae08ba13c7f
2edb32bf65c0ea2692446754c2c9759f727fb577
F20101220_AAAQVY morelli_c_Page_072.jpg
fbbd0898b58663f40cf2643b278cbf1b
a46026a86e6cbd6793d974ff8275eef9b1e6e623
66319 F20101220_AAARCH morelli_c_Page_013.jpg
97c37f7453a7ee1a38a34a8fbb5df3b1
e49d118099bab450f03533a77e7c8ad52cbb83b8
6099 F20101220_AAAQXC morelli_c_Page_076thm.jpg
5fd2dfa07371f839e07d27f416e06851
b648896790230926c4836f7bec383e46341d30f4
5905 F20101220_AAARBT morelli_c_Page_081thm.jpg
18d913f07076ae7f0b5d5de5b9e73e73
6a127a7825cdacfffae40cdb0b915cd216e712d3
112219 F20101220_AAAQWN morelli_c_Page_058.jp2
c29b011c542cd9cefbd499cd723cadd6
393d007e516adb81e10f58e9210e1fffec41f3a7
85451 F20101220_AAAQVZ morelli_c_Page_066.jpg
d0653f480a57f3c7c8115325441fb335
d892fc084b2fe2559868a6e9c61dac07011b6445
58679 F20101220_AAARCI morelli_c_Page_014.jpg
fe984c24295b96d2de59a24cc8ef11a5
edc7d57ff6c744a1f4702e4257963f6a9227608d
108688 F20101220_AAAQXD morelli_c_Page_017.jp2
bffcedda10451c08dff93fe8f3f2c6a2
059de1800cf97697b9537c435ba123c2525703cb
6478 F20101220_AAARBU morelli_c_Page_056thm.jpg
75d78d32c4d7668685afa6536cf9e737
d4b981c4956d56ad9f7a81bcfd9a65718ad3355a
58456 F20101220_AAAQWO morelli_c_Page_143.pro
e066e4e19375db49e3602f54112d0988
f8b363b5f6b3b02087f46e2e985428f59ef8f124
83152 F20101220_AAARCJ morelli_c_Page_017.jpg
44c84577defc213964f8007f7d901491
d143ab8aaba95ae1fabbe8bdff000bfc44fd3a98
1289 F20101220_AAAQXE morelli_c_Page_129.txt
aeb62bf0f695262323e448749e2e3d6b
53c765363f1deb06859fb62cbd72f569f8d4c309
46292 F20101220_AAARBV morelli_c_Page_103.pro
41c7a3d276f5e295befb293b4457598e
fd28fc92d151fcb9a9af7ea5676040888a82cdd2
F20101220_AAAQWP morelli_c_Page_051.tif
f161013ba68a8864671784129e2d5a88
6c239e15da859d11fc2e1c57d14896357514fed7
82496 F20101220_AAARCK morelli_c_Page_019.jpg
ac4767bafefcde6eef55005c3966bf08
14388614d7f9732595713d576cf1a21930b01e63
47795 F20101220_AAAQXF morelli_c_Page_006.pro
7d5ca84aa75c746c75145a85fd7dafd4
85759a7a7df65449e2c9ba9b066a180b9c1ffb75
F20101220_AAARBW morelli_c_Page_074.tif
8e0c2d6dcb4cfca0759707e3a9d9ce10
f0cfeb62c0a6ea082d5cf890bc6aa06b9d53cf6b
52802 F20101220_AAAQWQ morelli_c_Page_118.pro
b82d0a8d47f121125c3240ab6cbde570
d9c8c2170b4877eebf1bdfe3e20aec93cc7116c0
77971 F20101220_AAARCL morelli_c_Page_022.jpg
0b8ac03cd3c3958fea269e7e68e8dc63
dd7252d426316a01681ea93bf2b407d26d17fe8f
45186 F20101220_AAAQXG morelli_c_Page_022.pro
22c8a9bde6e9076e47aa9076fb240934
a177ffa7b807398342ae96e431ead3df1a1eb10b
172765 F20101220_AAARBX UFE0015420_00001.mets
0a39f0042967ee68db9f8d112b5990cd
b5667ee54377676c3e86762bd0606881b24820d0
6133 F20101220_AAAQWR morelli_c_Page_116thm.jpg
5108233eac54082eace6c98affa987d7
1ea09e04e51b8094fb8bc0a1a78a59f861b07ea0
81121 F20101220_AAARDA morelli_c_Page_051.jpg
63db1f8be7b41b565a88fdeeabba5df9
ed6a3d647735dfd4c153895a885d32b58b8e01e6
82144 F20101220_AAARCM morelli_c_Page_024.jpg
ed4695f2dd64fe9e8c2ad6995d1f2948
39c19cd43a662f437a36caf1ec6ffa3327ccc2d6
82626 F20101220_AAAQWS morelli_c_Page_076.jpg
5fa61ed73d664c3f341348a607f33239
16149d50453701db823ebfd75f08d4a66a5192ea
89775 F20101220_AAARDB morelli_c_Page_056.jpg
058217af68193b7d53408ee11414d359
499d8f196ca43ced241b97b5e5c24854de4e424a
86024 F20101220_AAARCN morelli_c_Page_025.jpg
7fff5a7cdb127e95b8afb01af27abe1d
d670479abb08c6cacb7f7c5dfa8bda652d15eb99
1674 F20101220_AAAQXH morelli_c_Page_105.txt
1fb3461ffb6d5685de028857d59c4554
7846f0bf818c18692ee04827ee1e7aa2a81ecd7a
83155 F20101220_AAAQWT morelli_c_Page_027.jpg
4307cc6dbb8665b40d4906e1aa39b53d
ce55815523f5914620bb730efc012d0805e020c4
84881 F20101220_AAARDC morelli_c_Page_060.jpg
5e3de1dcb0b4f3c93c176d2885b15322
f9ff93da393e8569c5369cbbe2cbe8fc212fc7d5
82933 F20101220_AAARCO morelli_c_Page_026.jpg
106a3d43ba108ceca8ac32d934b5d069
30dc6c928a3eecce31e07810dadb681a8231a746
31375 F20101220_AAAQXI morelli_c_Page_131.pro
306a285202e2dd8eed61b7cf9f955c42
de6ec44ed1b87d88c82a7f4d24be24da0a32316c
F20101220_AAAQWU morelli_c_Page_059.tif
1f637cf2fd6417a4ea29c0e92576ce66
d99ea7c2f9e294622b836026b6e75220ed86fa0d
84624 F20101220_AAARDD morelli_c_Page_061.jpg
8f40fcf91f6ef416a2faed4fa8ad9078
f9784afa65d869f88d2be9e3ed580a09bc2f791c
85419 F20101220_AAARCP morelli_c_Page_029.jpg
098aecb9b9e5a1644f451458e6fc3dfa
491496d17faa554e132761f26ae3e057e943b5b4
18654 F20101220_AAAQXJ morelli_c_Page_003.jp2
886821b191fd80d6146c8b551335a25e
09fbcedbd94c3036a43f47a6aa2ef9add09ff593
5707 F20101220_AAAQWV morelli_c_Page_134thm.jpg
39fbca3cee6ef01043257db071d6a5b3
c40654bf877696be8ddcdc3efeb49a81d5c37182
85718 F20101220_AAARDE morelli_c_Page_064.jpg
43cab185e5e294e39ec411f8d605cf6a
a7b8f233d88eef58e6b801a2f6328d0fbab6ff20
84966 F20101220_AAARCQ morelli_c_Page_030.jpg
803cb420d218278e7f1f41b1e6b73a95
06d933878add20fefca79f08a2d47ba682d09b47
4795 F20101220_AAAQWW morelli_c_Page_010thm.jpg
e8248c35eaaaa0e4e8ade1f7505ee5e2
c979d6ab0746d390c53c4304c1dbcb9515a5e210
84604 F20101220_AAARDF morelli_c_Page_070.jpg
a1c1eb5885881340fc56bd6a4ef4e984
68c436c5473f10e6108c6ecce383a22a3d7f3f99
83186 F20101220_AAARCR morelli_c_Page_033.jpg
3068f21181d2556c341849d3a4496dce
78bdd97ca3e87089fdd5578b474456a7f82d9943
F20101220_AAAQXK morelli_c_Page_001.tif
a6eb90381f1ec28cf2bc0dd90b99e5dc
3f7f13dfa7f9fa3a083980de7c53c18782050db7
6229 F20101220_AAAQWX morelli_c_Page_046thm.jpg
471ffd79c1b0bb25f4d6161a64f6ff68
bae5ebf3e47b8629b86c33b5f73b3620b1513496
82434 F20101220_AAARDG morelli_c_Page_071.jpg
d32402798565e7fdda1d06081bbba166
33dce6516fc58e94553f1bd481e3349db99096b9
26826 F20101220_AAAQYA morelli_c_Page_072.QC.jpg
a5f3d4ade69f888a7cad99f5c8c91331
a57d7fa7c5086c207244af4ec383306cdff3c45b
85796 F20101220_AAARCS morelli_c_Page_034.jpg
affed5c7e53f8fb1956b40c33d9be1cc
de19f315a1764e0cf0985442dbd4b7ee53765adb
27093 F20101220_AAAQXL morelli_c_Page_063.QC.jpg
0950f8a5ecaa847c81ca9dc9e6bf2140
0d846061b1b9b405ef749ea7b971af38ef668c1c
6092 F20101220_AAAQWY morelli_c_Page_050thm.jpg
b65f4befe8acd886f673b0d990bfcef5
0480c3fcb7f1481f50931b12764e61105ae5c4c5
85186 F20101220_AAARDH morelli_c_Page_074.jpg
d0b6722998b29939c24bb392d29ae839
be49d021490eae84ff1b3e9b9c03b69896f1104b
25074 F20101220_AAAQYB morelli_c_Page_007.QC.jpg
0c3987246098e29d6dad806b15a60fec
3a63e57c2a1e40c8a551cf5495324a0f4aa117c5
82647 F20101220_AAARCT morelli_c_Page_036.jpg
ce5143c76afb1d16f1f52a70527a3718
f31ae8f824dd47c62af7d306611359b54bbb90b9
18434 F20101220_AAAQXM morelli_c_Page_014.QC.jpg
9d7c8fdf1754c97c86d9103633561b39
c3ce7cf3ccb0de909838cbf2da718328ebf823c6
35905 F20101220_AAAQWZ morelli_c_Page_021.jp2
f95956f3a8f57c7ec9b92daafbfb3e99
bb60e5fe3e339962d6b12802887be6df93a15dc6
86397 F20101220_AAARDI morelli_c_Page_075.jpg
cfd7dc8c2b79241725080b5d0836bcf5
89bac287eef24902339c09cecc8c2af9acad95be
34627 F20101220_AAAQYC morelli_c_Page_133.jpg
a3bb6502376f958d74bb0be6dc7426aa
c26c76502aaec3cca06568d787996f45166b778a
27056 F20101220_AAAQXN morelli_c_Page_107.QC.jpg
78b20b8289afd5edb2d1cf86ad2f9955
5efe596678a65a7b5941804500b13068d6fce882
79484 F20101220_AAARDJ morelli_c_Page_077.jpg
461e42e2e3592da23159d23d33354b6a
339db918cedac804501b5c9ed5b4eb32117a04d1
6546 F20101220_AAAQYD morelli_c_Page_137thm.jpg
a9feb7f514259fa0f585a0e8dacacf3a
77fc3579849162b19fb6c1e1219c5a3d7f6f8a2e
85525 F20101220_AAARCU morelli_c_Page_038.jpg
3bd4bcb5f98d857b11731c4d58dd8d3a
b3a538386f138b0acbf282fbb4652a74db03d2d4
111699 F20101220_AAAQXO morelli_c_Page_062.jp2
e20b6a304bb8c1ddc5ab1dfc5e4bde29
f035a2a9f07167c446f0c74a21a01a7b38c793c4
80943 F20101220_AAARDK morelli_c_Page_078.jpg
a37ddac55c63668ab89904ac99a0957d
66238d709527ac7efc878dd2424311be1497ee68
52075 F20101220_AAAQYE morelli_c_Page_091.pro
ff9924dbf85b7c1fda4d908b0045a19d
f471628f03d1fc174781247d59b1a476a4b09798
73084 F20101220_AAARCV morelli_c_Page_040.jpg
963b9125369b2c72bc30b23ee0d3ad78
9ec58cd31b07cdb5196a2e2a91ab0f5103487d18
27399 F20101220_AAAQXP morelli_c_Page_021.jpg
0673e02cb827f4975964e2a6c73d40d2
89dcab683ff663eb5e96f914200d1bb03b153ead
84588 F20101220_AAARDL morelli_c_Page_079.jpg
23d4d3378c22deb4ead729ddbe093720
cffe43bd57470614c5932604af648d0bf4a4d0a8
82727 F20101220_AAAQYF morelli_c_Page_050.jpg
8e6b02d20e68b93ff6e171e7a5108e98
dca3903f0fdbbca4cf691df365e206a69e72622d
85501 F20101220_AAARCW morelli_c_Page_041.jpg
1c9d64a35fb83c4ff097e11fc1dc4535
1ca6d272dca911842f5dc43ea98da66379f1b822
103812 F20101220_AAAQXQ morelli_c_Page_093.jp2
86ee8e467e3ddac980cc0724c568f685
3415c1864f63b80314d2cc24a13180fddf6f8fc4
64626 F20101220_AAAREA morelli_c_Page_108.jpg
971ae9973193c03fd23625f1a99be5d5
b931ffd7510540e2e1e1880c48e24afede4096b8
71758 F20101220_AAARDM morelli_c_Page_082.jpg
6e938205ed4796845cd758321799ac49
0ba8c781d80837be4ee4ed1b0dac0e903693ba67
F20101220_AAAQYG morelli_c_Page_064.tif
71d66c96786ae9777ebbce21eadff21c
7a69af171a6f97bd777ea51d6cd525a5a3c071b9
76635 F20101220_AAARCX morelli_c_Page_043.jpg
c83737525ffd3fbc2864ff1be24a1fee
328b70b52e61ebf4251061a5503536f12cb2e5ab
2058 F20101220_AAAQXR morelli_c_Page_073.txt
3771072732108e7c7349dff43a3045b1
5108cf5309732a9b339f544d4e7c9b90a39f35b1
80810 F20101220_AAAREB morelli_c_Page_111.jpg
4b5d03cd94f7193f4a9e16823232c27f
b55084cd4d04e1777c7428c2a8c209be4665bacb
12038 F20101220_AAARDN morelli_c_Page_083.jpg
f79d342da92b78ac394b46c520baf3ca
c3e5d5c0cfc1e370572256c4249afac11c1c7909
F20101220_AAAQYH morelli_c_Page_047.tif
ad3947aa8e63207468bab3c1f60b2526
f1b1b42abb73349454aacec76963ef00761b39fc
91459 F20101220_AAARCY morelli_c_Page_044.jpg
0821c18220427a5fa60ee821b55aafbb
009602c5c0502f5e1ae35259328684c415aadc7d
101013 F20101220_AAAQXS morelli_c_Page_015.jp2
e88235ff88a0451208400f00d79000a3
087b1145044f58cfd46790b2c824b94c3966d8d9


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110410_AAAAAS INGEST_TIME 2011-04-10T07:43:22Z PACKAGE UFE0015420_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 869 DFID F20110410_AAAPMB ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH morelli_c_Page_124thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
bf1aa15d51f37516e5aaaee9b5ae17bb
SHA-1
c206d5ccf1485e737521b4ef6b5207d686f70457
26015 F20110410_AAAPLM morelli_c_Page_144.QC.jpg
d08ae24fcecdc23f0c45d860eb69109d
708b15ed030f5fd23a3dc247bd30245a8d395c65
24383 F20110410_AAAPKY morelli_c_Page_022.QC.jpg
eb6297389b211c538b3e1e13dd81f7af
91941ab183b219c2fddbb9c8083ad26c074a2e46
6708 F20110410_AAAOIK morelli_c_Page_142thm.jpg
1c5d77bb06171793eea45e0d257c4ebf
f0ed6ccf182f8bc7ba2276ff72a5ec9fbc64f2be
70969 F20110410_AAAOHW morelli_c_Page_086.jpg
376687dcf9c92b57aa44d4b410ad77d5
652e98c11d25e45c1502c958e9f44cd5753c587d
6402 F20110410_AAAPMC morelli_c_Page_113thm.jpg
faf271252be8b0d9b55196b28840afc9
d8d76b2aba2421077a7eb336e123893c541772f2
2379 F20110410_AAAPLN morelli_c_Page_128thm.jpg
daadae393b17509a49e96b66f0bc849e
0e9547ddf9f475751155d3757fe39923fa2de592
6452 F20110410_AAAPKZ morelli_c_Page_052thm.jpg
9af80ff3b4767761c4450aae93391fd3
fed1a28a48ae05fd1f9605f7ef8b60734341c8db
6748 F20110410_AAAOIL morelli_c_Page_044thm.jpg
f1eab01cc047b6e555931498bc7a6661
6628870154ea339db63bf0e0651f6f312551ef3c
48477 F20110410_AAAOHX morelli_c_Page_078.pro
9246b129c1a57daa2cc360836570c126
fb487dcb84ffa2f882d9bb13362dc9c51857fd40
1974 F20110410_AAAOJA morelli_c_Page_024.txt
402c1982e957ce91347db711b6034240
cd320c3d1e46bfbe4e32df23e41c00c4aee3bf9f
23995 F20110410_AAAPMD morelli_c_Page_015.QC.jpg
4a9bae3e396c81c1a28adaa6be631750
1c4b18174771e7ea9ed07587454286c4ddb3815b
4807 F20110410_AAAPLO morelli_c_Page_104thm.jpg
edbd2acad90dbe5720e435622461fb08
e3830e60521a53bfcdf86f7a6c948bb74e6fff6f
42933 F20110410_AAAOIM morelli_c_Page_011.pro
e122d44bba43390886b0e7a5023db733
033c07be7c6dc41e90bbef005a9d87bf8f434aa2
62219 F20110410_AAAOHY morelli_c_Page_010.pro
3e9938469ce0180b3915d4910dd57c6e
d8cf6a6f5240c83fc79b3ad3990a4a8318e33a50
25834 F20110410_AAAOJB morelli_c_Page_019.QC.jpg
aac0171e666a738fcee45cf690ad36af
c27998cbf2acca6bd13667fd694cf11e2d4e8820
25211 F20110410_AAAPME morelli_c_Page_006.QC.jpg
e818f4e88b9e4044f6fa81c65ad64cda
98e200023bfd00f8b88743a7c3f35b9765516dd9
8999 F20110410_AAAPLP morelli_c_Page_021.QC.jpg
3dcb359708b3b53e8ab9ca801ffef3e2
f3aba56467593e3fd0c92bce1a4bfb21de2a534b
106811 F20110410_AAAOIN morelli_c_Page_115.jp2
8a9ec058cab7b03ae65d6a32cc9ad20b
09f0eb78c88f61c9d6492b2b9b81374977f1d03b
99705 F20110410_AAAOHZ morelli_c_Page_084.jp2
d7da81184edf9cf1ae8b2851be076202
d6bc031441777fa59080b1b624dd4258e60db47b
1053954 F20110410_AAAOJC morelli_c_Page_058.tif
1c9739ffee2957755b3ee8fa031e9777
2fdb014ba85383d1987b47a88a6f42fa30dbcb09
26128 F20110410_AAAPLQ morelli_c_Page_079.QC.jpg
8301ea6bdc99f69ced937e5f9cdf6da4
3df95e98c4eb3c86f6448da1d899f1b38ac35917
50668 F20110410_AAAOIO morelli_c_Page_027.pro
9051251e0d639691b2efd864445b3d99
a5c7e11753fc08e108d3dfe875a39ee4cc9f6b30
26402 F20110410_AAAPMF morelli_c_Page_141.QC.jpg
2b3e2cbb9a1b7a594383e39136f7ee89
5efb7d74386de74d18b243046f9d0a8d122bc173
6395 F20110410_AAAPLR morelli_c_Page_049thm.jpg
9e54c88c9dd76771991681cde8909738
e9a4ebeb0420d70c06f56a986b53521dde7e3bca
113871 F20110410_AAAOIP morelli_c_Page_118.jp2
a5ffc78b7a7a4af29718564337f57adc
b311b9c6de46ea34f40b18200d49f594d39831c5
1051983 F20110410_AAAOJD morelli_c_Page_010.jp2
6431a986f254e9c846ad46d92f91f2d3
0cd5cce9645caea2ca3596be6649ba3f63a2e745
27752 F20110410_AAAPMG morelli_c_Page_023.QC.jpg
067fe3a655a3ba783188227ca03b8de4
de33f4097af75e6bff013840cb31bca8b4329c41
25291 F20110410_AAAPLS morelli_c_Page_116.QC.jpg
2874739efd38be56cdb16dfd888f4e75
a90127b77fc6be5851452249883830a7e6773616
112492 F20110410_AAAOIQ morelli_c_Page_072.jp2
d9031dcee97c52a76f9692c2731b2af1
420291aebb3aa484d78c69b26aad7644be18cdb0
6235 F20110410_AAAOJE morelli_c_Page_071thm.jpg
ee90040e82c346a81d4217868e1ae7e8
bdad0ef629f5fc2c19f1d8e2c4844f62a157cb54
28051 F20110410_AAAPMH morelli_c_Page_056.QC.jpg
d72937afc16005e4984d3c20b815b1b8
c6c69937f4bf2960646dc46a2e415fb58ab6e95d
6398 F20110410_AAAPLT morelli_c_Page_135thm.jpg
842ca238ac9948b23969acd6361118e9
d628cd9ba8ec2e01d7d6d6afa233ba9c3496a6dc
81800 F20110410_AAAOIR morelli_c_Page_087.jpg
13d54e169ab71a0269a850e2e1a99c65
3c570d4dbe4ee5d61e446f0da4c2f51f24a71890
1899 F20110410_AAAOJF morelli_c_Page_088.txt
b93db7dafa2ebe0adb47a9069c0ca629
9aaec9688d52d76416edec93a056facf6530a2cb
10426 F20110410_AAAPMI morelli_c_Page_129.QC.jpg
dafca8b17828b53a80ea9553d0c3f801
4f6631f4ab5946ed7184ffae879f914b9bb4c4d0
3112 F20110410_AAAPLU morelli_c_Page_109thm.jpg
4358046abbf247cde481fe560745f2ae
8cf7ab05ecadeb45998c7044caefffb8098abc2f
2043 F20110410_AAAOIS morelli_c_Page_035.txt
eee6fea476da21245acfe36567c44a1a
a7fe578e7dfd22fc3187c5bbc22f396a3792d26e
22984 F20110410_AAAOJG morelli_c_Page_040.QC.jpg
a7318d59bbbe660bdf36bd02ddd3e74c
9615bb15c0e9fc2cc9b0dcc71147cd2612698c86
6146 F20110410_AAAPMJ morelli_c_Page_043thm.jpg
dd1f9129082859e85e5c77039849a6b4
247e0a3325ef2c6f070f194214ad7df9d88e4b58
26131 F20110410_AAAPLV morelli_c_Page_135.QC.jpg
c69956ef9108f669e4ae60ded140aa5b
5fa83f8bbc165ccad9c99eabd4a5186c57921553
104292 F20110410_AAAOIT morelli_c_Page_055.jp2
f69e3c07553b3129f7cc7fd967566744
103b8e774383d9d1d4266c6c0966b5fa9f1c3c89
97945 F20110410_AAAOJH morelli_c_Page_141.jpg
75b02b838d5003213d6ef66c96fa2539
6514a6ae664b2b81d22bb3f73ea0a2fc92dc6955
22043 F20110410_AAAPMK morelli_c_Page_086.QC.jpg
cea6cbdcdd4d004444bbd408fd832a16
5cb05acdce1a7e0ee69be3cdd2775ab7ad1283a4
25138 F20110410_AAAPLW morelli_c_Page_085.QC.jpg
ce06e9f562b3f744b58971b49506bc0b
223a6504ab8745f975498aa81d1f5b6eee6b7823
5519 F20110410_AAAOJI morelli_c_Page_130thm.jpg
7bf2e740c9bacee64f75af84fe3755d1
5c363afeb8e71fa1089218e6f910d88ac8d06826
F20110410_AAAOIU morelli_c_Page_055.tif
2fa4c28639b6cad428d7dea827f66d33
bb4d99407302c797fcedb8b7bd5d76c15adca94c
25637 F20110410_AAAPNA morelli_c_Page_071.QC.jpg
3003a4240c6eb552d691a33f559f0d3c
887ea61ef9afcc5e4b8c7b2246bd37df04209989
6429 F20110410_AAAPML morelli_c_Page_106thm.jpg
2b853fa4366a0dbfb663cfd243d34060
1278dea07c411d78e3320507829720b8e7562eda
27556 F20110410_AAAPLX morelli_c_Page_057.QC.jpg
c52d1b22ba0e88f3827afdffc2afa0f1
501f5c20d18a99b324c45aa64fff07d4f503640d
5713 F20110410_AAAOJJ morelli_c_Page_093thm.jpg
cdd183f56e4c6932012b74d4eda0a484
46aa3f1774876c7bdcfbcd0ad4a5056d3f9dc1e2
6175 F20110410_AAAOIV morelli_c_Page_024thm.jpg
0c4e1ac93c14f76b8b1e49e4fb5aaac1
2e691ab9d1c7ef88030c0fd22f3723560ab89457
18576 F20110410_AAAPNB morelli_c_Page_104.QC.jpg
a085e979029edce2917aff2996452dbf
974aa4341f3ecfb7690dddaf1d7ffe2c5f1832d7
26729 F20110410_AAAPMM morelli_c_Page_027.QC.jpg
1faecf939c1494194af50be52671c084
5f1327d50606b4576e9c13f7a2063dd5126d399d
24393 F20110410_AAAPLY morelli_c_Page_096.QC.jpg
ea74c2dba7ad0a6258d22050937a6463
9fd0eaafc9c224d7ab3605c8874b682428f2cac7
6589 F20110410_AAAOJK morelli_c_Page_063thm.jpg
46139237a83b665c07b53fa5fc379f31
2c88838feec1624b1acec3611ad1af5e4fbd96c3
46926 F20110410_AAAOIW morelli_c_Page_094.pro
a73dec8ce736cac68397106f05cefea1
9fbde38bb397d1770c92026819b59318dc201e9b
23263 F20110410_AAAPNC morelli_c_Page_110.QC.jpg
2398e399a500e45ff7b9e9c033c81fa7
685b6931277f22415d4b89312ed9d47e6908332a
26834 F20110410_AAAPMN morelli_c_Page_075.QC.jpg
4c5b54d52f7e2a7403569458fa8c50cc
791e2df3511d0ff19123a5cec3db91964b77cd2d
6448 F20110410_AAAPLZ morelli_c_Page_057thm.jpg
8254a588e241df3e1cdab286a68a1e89
16163ffdfdb739992269d1ec43769c644a8a555f
21777 F20110410_AAAOKA morelli_c_Page_105.QC.jpg
d69a86045e7d89546494b4270cbdd763
b660cad94468975e5ff78605395a2b1645617747
26925 F20110410_AAAOJL morelli_c_Page_118.QC.jpg
772e93285b60f2dcf05e3f822e37763f
22836c2e49cae7aedd0a35af19e2eabdbcf5293a
112455 F20110410_AAAOIX morelli_c_Page_034.jp2
392ec5287391e4ac2efc1ff647d8cc4b
88402fc30ab7c0d5a3abb255382b52df1fc59c3c
26655 F20110410_AAAPND morelli_c_Page_114.QC.jpg
d9a5bc8a6cdfdea5ce4535b3ed8d9169
80456fbfb696c4193ed550d33c48095ea3baad1d
26802 F20110410_AAAPMO morelli_c_Page_060.QC.jpg
925b10e05529c7d8050793d3b4340438
d515bd1b4e77cccc42e202b118e319dd40cca127
6498 F20110410_AAAOKB morelli_c_Page_059thm.jpg
43225a2bae374075bb9ceb09374b852d
8c65518dfca6f7dc28bff763cd85f95e1111cae9
85153 F20110410_AAAOJM morelli_c_Page_080.jpg
b34596ca62ebbc1aee0e8c3b49616ed2
bf765d0c2d375362efa32776b841df66b5ef1700
1150 F20110410_AAAOIY morelli_c_Page_083thm.jpg
12c287afcf1d0c4f07d196710504bfab
2363cf2f724ced06daa2993e6f5bc1839d71fb4d
24714 F20110410_AAAPNE morelli_c_Page_115.QC.jpg
fbd7297591b9212f4c04051bcf10bb63
3713a270bd5b3d59e040276f2af7b99c7bad54fc
6332 F20110410_AAAPMP morelli_c_Page_092thm.jpg
50dda741db50f643a46f8b0a330b835d
10c6192e8600881d10453b3bc53bbdbf9768b87d
47163 F20110410_AAAOKC morelli_c_Page_077.pro
bfc02ebcc923eb1c0a7cd27792d6c45c
7bbb7ab2c2bb2015498097183b30704a02274910
6225 F20110410_AAAOJN morelli_c_Page_080thm.jpg
9c7bd5fba038cbf45b7bef67a54dc15d
82443f3f852eac0fcd37b2fb2650575139231fc6
F20110410_AAAOIZ morelli_c_Page_146.tif
7d50f76a47428d49472bcaf97052d79a
9cf17d6b3b85a928296b51e546a13f771a500f3b
25935 F20110410_AAAPNF morelli_c_Page_120.QC.jpg
8460b984a7665185a568c79a197d458f
3b3ae109dc675ee840e914652085e1fe4a300af1
21734 F20110410_AAAPMQ morelli_c_Page_082.QC.jpg
9f6e907a593ea725a8250a907948dccd
63895c5471c24b80c9fcc417e20e5d63770a896e
1952 F20110410_AAAOKD morelli_c_Page_115.txt
2dc2be53f1680a056d194c65f4764f01
57cdeef4d06592635996006952000dbb56566b26
112708 F20110410_AAAOJO morelli_c_Page_067.jp2
e9d39d6f53fdb2b45c57c8d25880ff73
6adf29f0fa0fc706f6e75d4b8a0409cb6d906b2d
6132 F20110410_AAAPMR morelli_c_Page_007thm.jpg
393fdf3562923df5500b4c08080a82af
ea83578c6fe54de7b3f1ca8ee3d80e4706e448a2
51316 F20110410_AAAOJP morelli_c_Page_058.pro
a7873d02f8ace70c656978e4ab34f126
69bbef7a8c0cef959da110be7ea7954f03d72792
539 F20110410_AAAPNG morelli_c_Page_002thm.jpg
5368b427a15f720b607fb6f917e0d653
961dcc424439c5cc0e7ed6620da469c42b3033f4
2830 F20110410_AAAPMS morelli_c_Page_129thm.jpg
691ce066ddbb05f536589c10abd4bd4f
e12ba4603378abd599d44cf9d4058d8eb47da2a1
25130 F20110410_AAAOKE morelli_c_Page_026.QC.jpg
9f7cf8f3a076a892f1af331dc99cc658
87f778c162dedf85cf702341729b099f5f77b76d
114799 F20110410_AAAOJQ morelli_c_Page_119.jp2
6437f8486bd94f8a364475ede553b07e
2592782e5c43ea4e4bb49739104b65eb7e8dcc41
1105 F20110410_AAAPNH morelli_c_Page_003thm.jpg
b0e2eb834eba8d2e418a92693c380ac7
5411da66763e48a21367b4b5c3656980346e5960
25985 F20110410_AAAPMT morelli_c_Page_146.QC.jpg
91aa553e1c365667ad525ebed9f2c01a
aa9bfee2bddafaebaf4f736dcc0bfd85bcf6028b
110822 F20110410_AAAOKF morelli_c_Page_031.jp2
027dc58b3b20beb4560e1d860f2baef8
1afe647334f2040bae936b63bb657f861cbaa9fc
84909 F20110410_AAAOJR morelli_c_Page_068.jpg
a746b8e518bd5a57920e7a18dff4e4f4
e14b6440b70640926b058623432527495f3dcfd1
6234 F20110410_AAAPNI morelli_c_Page_016thm.jpg
0beeb3f8b192d730a4aef0cbc7138669
4e8c38c13fdcc974ade543acfa9d0da82ef3978d
22209 F20110410_AAAPMU morelli_c_Page_090.QC.jpg
715c47d4d6325b38db62b60999b5108d
036bf9d682acd838aae099231801a8446bc0c392
F20110410_AAAOKG morelli_c_Page_020.tif
f8cc7b3905e93128ce4cd7d093d440ea
a439e76f5705c785bbb0df7137110af9b2114d46
F20110410_AAAOJS morelli_c_Page_056.tif
ceeca655e0dede40ae587a1ff5bd9694
9ed0482f2b83938ef90fef0711cae0b6c5d0ee6b
6439 F20110410_AAAPNJ morelli_c_Page_065thm.jpg
d1889344542a432e9f30092472a2232f
ac8168bd6f7b7cc841d8e6c519a75e30aa420b53
241429 F20110410_AAAPMV UFE0015420_00001.xml FULL
e317377526344ed59cefc3a0da6a40d4
93aecd14b1fbbf09c6267e27524b217dc799b670
F20110410_AAAOKH morelli_c_Page_049.tif
374350fbd153deea6080910d33320f54
3397d7a9cf1b8229e7c09e4a4a13ee2eb942e09c
5783 F20110410_AAAOJT morelli_c_Page_083.pro
c2e5089bc2f10ac81ed7d0597654fe43
27b0ab2fda045d234b881824a811a99d0af797a1
6449 F20110410_AAAPNK morelli_c_Page_079thm.jpg
584a2e26906d92252e2a9462de589fe6
2bca67d9b2ff44487f32d6a66403af921e151e81
25407 F20110410_AAAPMW morelli_c_Page_024.QC.jpg
dc09a544dc17f0eb7e836a3f64bb7c88
b9c2109f413a6c04a75fc8e709ce640799c8942b
86280 F20110410_AAAOKI morelli_c_Page_067.jpg
5d5cd7a2059f90b6e2e2d9fc9366602b
a3bd7761168a34df824440e4267a8d141105bb1c
101730 F20110410_AAAOJU morelli_c_Page_143.jpg
0af4eac5a4d1925e3dfc6d50adab4601
d55a011ecff33376006613e7609bea8750053181
6044 F20110410_AAAPNL morelli_c_Page_085thm.jpg
5df2a24dd3e338d279cf54d45ad40052
f08691569b289fa61d3b4711bcf994c0d580885c
27131 F20110410_AAAPMX morelli_c_Page_028.QC.jpg
743976960fa122fac9748cd3ba56a0a7
d9a3b7de0a38dee3f2fd7da4709c4f7d5b9b7576
108719 F20110410_AAAOKJ morelli_c_Page_071.jp2
5d4b59b27a6469b54261ef55ac815e0c
9078ac45008d1bca735253329ed46b47cbff962b
F20110410_AAAOJV morelli_c_Page_014.tif
dac5f8adaa5161c619f1cfc846677514
02be6b3c7483700d491ca98702fdae2620d1c494
6102 F20110410_AAAPNM morelli_c_Page_094thm.jpg
772214af0d20f5ef70ee18fa7523381e
5d7cc48d03abe363ddcb22a4e0386d67d381f123
26525 F20110410_AAAPMY morelli_c_Page_030.QC.jpg
dbfedb0056fd2fe475a45390f438f495
5fe001de868076c875d7e3a62ea504f371af8ff1
11483 F20110410_AAAOKK morelli_c_Page_133.pro
1fa8a12592f6c9f49d902f19cdb7649f
a6f959dd5e9148299d9bcf1c5d838c5fea4093fb
2099 F20110410_AAAOJW morelli_c_Page_092.txt
d688f5c5eb955ee5efbcf0187fcb466c
1882db90ad65c94dd6fb010e4efac3a1d376ff61
5746 F20110410_AAAPNN morelli_c_Page_103thm.jpg
1b73cca9797dbcc7fc3e0d4b872c98f1
f35411b67fc541a1627a99a2b075e454688e8ae6
26113 F20110410_AAAPMZ morelli_c_Page_068.QC.jpg
330e6192032347e6cc9df237e3f50186
758f3652a51baeac7588646684ae5ffc3cc721e6
108993 F20110410_AAAOKL morelli_c_Page_117.jp2
33bf879d6b36cc2fc1831988bb7d1a3d
6a2e493dfa0661e61115963a90fbfcfb3a99b358
5914 F20110410_AAAOJX morelli_c_Page_112thm.jpg
db074491a53c705fcf71aafa7c75ad67
3195fdef9da1e1cfc0ed0ea42a766324c810a74b
F20110410_AAAOLA morelli_c_Page_057.tif
eeb1a2595ef5a40e7ebcb3577b288c3d
4f5e72be38aee5fcfedb510c3d5155380863c1ed
6097 F20110410_AAAPNO morelli_c_Page_141thm.jpg
d051bd81c53af80778303f8f722afbbe
afe5073ee58a8295c2c4b5e6fc78eb66b4a58e07
85990 F20110410_AAAOKM morelli_c_Page_073.jpg
49870fa407cf28ca0d22216dc6c4e5a3
fdcc6a6c22b5b2ec2174b8f0b38f3266ee98f047
88459 F20110410_AAAOJY morelli_c_Page_099.jp2
99305195dac23c37adf11bd6376abbc4
19a634af448ef0a0fd69df8e1c6ad1a5d8814889
95640 F20110410_AAAOLB morelli_c_Page_146.jpg
dd7a34c5027a18287d42bd0e706a5cdb
82ebd4f8e890c2687044006b52b303aaa1447c19
F20110410_AAAOKN morelli_c_Page_100.tif
ae63d5291667b1589d4eb44b9d358c59
472ffd8e6398a183cfcce1e7c46c271073d441ab
111710 F20110410_AAAOJZ morelli_c_Page_134.jp2
0dec9f2039fb525b3ecb07958242f3a4
7784bcbb6d14d410d911b68b3af037e381a7b7c5
6401 F20110410_AAAOLC morelli_c_Page_038thm.jpg
63a620e672d61048d3db2eaa453cb37d
3a38278683e1741f30647c9a4a75af83f91ce1bb
6232 F20110410_AAAOKO morelli_c_Page_036thm.jpg
ce6b4e46d4738e63140cac11f90dafad
4319f460d48777421e2b7f19a147caea5c731697
49144 F20110410_AAAOLD morelli_c_Page_051.pro
ae30ce2ec5c576c63e7861d1ac53b621
237d2f66c5d1f28c6d93a473ff3a2088e51383dd
1956 F20110410_AAAOKP morelli_c_Page_036.txt
cd2ff3db1f183800a795e16079051d24
aa4bb100abcfe53c65010403a27c97a7ff4aa296
F20110410_AAAOLE morelli_c_Page_105thm.jpg
1fd9b88009235b8e8fb52d933a1af655
c241f923b0d5da3ffacb2fb40cad015af3dc5f92
1869 F20110410_AAAOKQ morelli_c_Page_077.txt
c5866a543862b09953b621864175c086
60e3575e67b6d032d44c6daf9eb34f0bbec5eed9
2437 F20110410_AAAOKR morelli_c_Page_140.txt
0c977cedbdcaf6ac7dcf08221c01bc26
d42de338719e770674e2e26d871750ecc2a92971
84389 F20110410_AAAOLF morelli_c_Page_035.jpg
9fc8560372b95048621bdaedd40b180f
ed1848cd19016d1853a59b0c6c91719d88909e59
1865 F20110410_AAAOKS morelli_c_Page_110.txt
1310b8b8159a6b0ef16aed1755e15bee
f24526e0f893e4d25f73a4bc0e46e7999b66149a
1835 F20110410_AAAOLG morelli_c_Page_012thm.jpg
584491571e79cb12a7faed031b1f8c1a
6f9bf083b8a154497fca54e4df698e70cca10df5
112421 F20110410_AAAOKT morelli_c_Page_029.jp2
7d4851a9dbd3ab59736fea3f20beb685
c23813cbbf9085ef98588066fb53512b1bd7b65c
6366 F20110410_AAAOLH morelli_c_Page_030thm.jpg
ea82f04a81d4cf8dd6c1bfb23dcf36af
3e640fff4bf5dc4cfc906d649eb7adea152d99d1
47600 F20110410_AAAOKU morelli_c_Page_101.pro
245a2fd1b79ab32dd25ccd4f2b4b4436
864491380cfb0a88d6837c040d5772a872772c34
F20110410_AAAOLI morelli_c_Page_050.tif
6a422bf8eea270ee9410d85116a3c0ac
7eaf3043d6ddec75f7973367f7469b0f0afaf692
26367 F20110410_AAAOKV morelli_c_Page_091.QC.jpg
c11bd9c577331fd7b99afcb42e77ed45
2e5b82662998ba0fe5b3a74d55dccd23d06fb792
57090 F20110410_AAAOLJ morelli_c_Page_135.pro
e0ce3ad02d57966aeb672bb3e09f46ab
6a175cc1c90a7a1a37891acce89e5039940735d6
6470 F20110410_AAAOKW morelli_c_Page_075thm.jpg
85e2dcff5b68d1f83bf3b3b481694c73
518859aec00e46daf16e4f58d69f75877789b35b
83202 F20110410_AAAOLK morelli_c_Page_045.jpg
5b728615bb852b33818e4bf3d2991261
3e0c0deadf603886103cd93f0c691dc9aa084bb0
6344 F20110410_AAAOKX morelli_c_Page_145thm.jpg
c6a9df3fe93820ed1256e6d622541e4c
52b17c794565078ba4ac157e450c427ea53c602d
F20110410_AAAOMA morelli_c_Page_053.tif
0f600eba3dd71baa66603013d76e82da
af770a379d34d113105b995fc3ce4c4de605efb6
F20110410_AAAOLL morelli_c_Page_075.txt
d80b00dba4ced39f9530143d02019940
2d6ffbb4de43dacd2192151312548548f3c65d2e
5646 F20110410_AAAOKY morelli_c_Page_002.jp2
e9e520a8bbd8b2ac8ea578538a268d67
18efd34dafa3490a312c251a1c25849ff85f3328
51196 F20110410_AAAOMB morelli_c_Page_052.pro
aefb29fbbe878933d47a75f6b3191cec
7aac3a118835d8cc95e1c5260007ba3388017963
83234 F20110410_AAAOLM morelli_c_Page_046.jpg
0a90318e787e0d36a7ad8e8234390edf
8f4d7c29f53d85839bca0058664eca002f191fb9
94563 F20110410_AAAOKZ morelli_c_Page_040.jp2
1c46ff42cece22f4466a2e8fd24e02ad
c32cd5a3b71efa2b5dee1876cd6975120f6a48fd
2115 F20110410_AAAOMC morelli_c_Page_044.txt
cdf7c4bfb5c1fae6580995bcccc820fe
ea55b1793441e03a7783b2db4aa86d5215343fd1
2010 F20110410_AAAOLN morelli_c_Page_068.txt
ed78b7ec9959509b79874be329aae29c
166f92e348039acd6ab393071984d44c7faa612b
25570 F20110410_AAAOMD morelli_c_Page_033.QC.jpg
79df909f14189b1bcafdaac050505a1d
758880dfd8cbe15b68435a6f295570b4e39f97a6
102169 F20110410_AAAOLO morelli_c_Page_094.jp2
4a5ceb84b97f7e377115c0493744596b
032db1b835eb285750b8b4fcba4cd0c6fbfe1dc5
50550 F20110410_AAAOME morelli_c_Page_074.pro
c69195cea5129890bf845149bafda047
4e17d4603bf71ec51f9a7dd4522fb3eac20aa446
127979 F20110410_AAAOLP morelli_c_Page_140.jp2
d08cbcff499b0f463ab93a4b0a690404
ecb7579c3241923534b5aa0223d2caa10d841577
125898 F20110410_AAAOMF morelli_c_Page_146.jp2
cb7a531c61cee54fa341986133514f43
06e418fd882113c15f7e8d10cafb3e30172cd948
5848 F20110410_AAAOLQ morelli_c_Page_121thm.jpg
70d6abe43de9de90946fb1e116e221d4
37409caf3e2ea18b8b794c6e65774c4c9a75b6d2
40559 F20110410_AAAOLR morelli_c_Page_086.pro
90dc6355b2f851caf9664848421ec2e4
26653e4a367190b6e8ac0283408af208e0a379b4
52117 F20110410_AAAOMG morelli_c_Page_120.pro
34407974c1dbe35247555f358aaaa6e6
94dc31ff68b312231c0c3f711f1766f1dd7f0d07
6378 F20110410_AAAOLS morelli_c_Page_035thm.jpg
f0338398c47a3eca4e9a606bcdbec317
4ec2bed6b3d34c2150b8825565d92b13eb6badea
103594 F20110410_AAAOMH morelli_c_Page_042.jp2
caa9884afb10796691218956606b2034
947dd183b2aa3ffdaba47df8742735988b4dee2a
87481 F20110410_AAAOLT morelli_c_Page_063.jpg
e204c6a59127f434209cf24914c18d17
4e54cb804075218d072eccf62d81ee3233a3ef01
109420 F20110410_AAAOMI morelli_c_Page_079.jp2
9e3909437e615aa03cbf212b95d947c0
d72340572fc5a6f8c98a94275d0db1ace3cf5fff
5793 F20110410_AAAOLU morelli_c_Page_090thm.jpg
d5a7fdacf9ece0b48b5ff260e9c9e4e9
92adf174f22722f7372715c02b8c808602946355
2085 F20110410_AAAOMJ morelli_c_Page_054.txt
e58cb42020cf5f463204f81d25a6c58b
c07d276d349abdfc1f6874a3757c93a706782893
5514 F20110410_AAAOLV morelli_c_Page_084thm.jpg
56013dc5d10e552e02d5d091576e28d8
bdf0cdb3903db1592cced209d19518fcea94bbca
77178 F20110410_AAAOMK morelli_c_Page_103.jpg
e8db44d623b93a9720f06d9517b8d77b
fa44605538c4189eeb859cb1527f9638e864497a
F20110410_AAAOLW morelli_c_Page_036.tif
34a94b597088fdf4ea7c82c4e883661d
9f32ec4db5596a106b62c1713e2cf818f08de3df
1975 F20110410_AAAONA morelli_c_Page_079.txt
b80904a9a651e15694085a7f970e87d4
9ef9c3310b79e9c9443500c9c2f775e887a8ca3a
F20110410_AAAOML morelli_c_Page_133.tif
f273b0c37b19173a26c924c39bc0b598
100749237c70bd2920534bdf87c1a8945faaa3b1
F20110410_AAAOLX morelli_c_Page_093.tif
29ae00510810093e8a187e74883fe01b
ce50b8fe23d9eaf97a841c9cb9680a7effd52e53
F20110410_AAAONB morelli_c_Page_065.txt
dc44f9f9acf19d7fb92dd7fb355754f8
c568dc95410df26896dcf6cfe445dfdb911274dc
84532 F20110410_AAAOMM morelli_c_Page_102.jpg
83ff3e9a22a93cd942bcb927d1b981d9
28629de19e4632f730f9fd1e3729817165f93621
5865 F20110410_AAAOLY morelli_c_Page_088thm.jpg
09e05f453592f3bcff09f98d6680664c
4482143630c8c7b22f754e408551decdba15edd6
56333 F20110410_AAAONC morelli_c_Page_009.pro
e887aed00f839b499e781095f7139086
3f27dabb604a6b726207c2cc8c4f4d97ffdd96ca
F20110410_AAAOMN morelli_c_Page_149.tif
28f291fed4a769a4ebb01ff5c138ea64
d325602697ad01f59d6075a5b0f547887a8cd46a
38365 F20110410_AAAOLZ morelli_c_Page_105.pro
30c34f4a367c96d53e2b2dc6ac1bff0d
15569374d3261f920e23190ec4f7305b4bf1c910
47636 F20110410_AAAOND morelli_c_Page_093.pro
68bce57a90dfe89575fa54e63b12bcfd
7fd70f60df6032198733263b53ad9c38f606aabb
25212 F20110410_AAAOMO morelli_c_Page_101.QC.jpg
b9a8109451d65517b8cb12520cb41eac
807e09ebd46a87368d1b3706998cd4c7c3a53512
6407 F20110410_AAAONE morelli_c_Page_005thm.jpg
7577f68f4e7d505644218efb753fa45e
b210c6bccbcfc778c5d7e87b3cb075a14fb224ee
6409 F20110410_AAAOMP morelli_c_Page_017thm.jpg
e7e18efa7688a33494649d678284a80d
ec91561491430cdd56fe2683ef2e73d270328ac6
19879 F20110410_AAAONF morelli_c_Page_011.QC.jpg
6b14258d5825e11b938b395ac6f4273e
671f4610063f97ce86321feb043eba29d5fdf975
1992 F20110410_AAAOMQ morelli_c_Page_066.txt
43982d99c79911f073f9b9eae0d76941
ba487aeaf47c5dabbf185ca17aa3d07c2c296110
113432 F20110410_AAAONG morelli_c_Page_075.jp2
d48932ce074d3b975ac5232566fe218b
c8934ce347ccf23e5ea39928cc58e00141935ba9
F20110410_AAAOMR morelli_c_Page_114.tif
00ca141057814c6c51e98db81414a391
8869b18231d1403cf49f6f5a5b11db862bd8ea52
103676 F20110410_AAAOMS morelli_c_Page_006.jp2
a0d60bf4f80838b8ecabc5c25faebc68
76db0a1b6eea2e57bc4c5d4726b99221a1a05562
F20110410_AAAONH morelli_c_Page_058thm.jpg
5f5f036504b4a82c1a161f7fbf2436a1
8a2177b7565bb448375e03242b018f453f30c0fc
49863 F20110410_AAAOMT morelli_c_Page_045.pro
b2adaf745b4640614cd61a44f1b31e55
9a411ab0ff9207178951b0eaaa99406b39258f8b
99144 F20110410_AAAONI morelli_c_Page_004.jp2
264f4d3d44fec49fc70f82fc09740ee0
986003997e4bbd52f9a437539e9b2b7015a32f64
2052 F20110410_AAAOMU morelli_c_Page_120.txt
efa019d9bc9ada753176498a105a0ddc
e8e95a09d07b4ddab4c47c78d82d77022c87e842
F20110410_AAAONJ morelli_c_Page_048.tif
bda83b20c3f3ccdc8c9462cd04e79da9
ca9d07afc121ce5c06c1c6ab88faaf30574ba0d1
25263 F20110410_AAAOMV morelli_c_Page_050.QC.jpg
6648f766190217b99394117a10c7ddfa
1c13a1ff01b9e2c08914ee836c46416eac27db9c
25271604 F20110410_AAAONK morelli_c_Page_105.tif
e41e61633ba73ca9c649f936a984bbe6
1527e43534428fffb2f4688661955591edfe26b2
2460 F20110410_AAAOMW morelli_c_Page_133thm.jpg
a664cfd2b256872b80e39328e8ca39bf
7b9712b839bb3ac16d2e8ce22713bf8cc07e522d
F20110410_AAAONL morelli_c_Page_026.tif
cf5440c1eabc50a17853a38f708b3f8f
c52fad6e02e18554ed9e9476032ac6f48cd74259
6350 F20110410_AAAOMX morelli_c_Page_144thm.jpg
79472797aedbdefc94b0990d25d86b04
5fab158ccf7b3b8e2bbf8c0c75a1ca9aefbe1452
79331 F20110410_AAAOOA morelli_c_Page_009.jpg
3455c76bf8415c267e15f198f33c63b3
3259878573eec9d2e0c1ecbf0e6c9e325fedec02
140763 F20110410_AAAONM morelli_c_Page_147.jp2
87f235442bff80ace14a2cc9c49e4147
e775c9c5f56f1c33209fedb52794be8c7f140b51
102910 F20110410_AAAOMY morelli_c_Page_138.jpg
160d5d9715397174d717394a669c1473
ed74d8fa926ea95afc294f22acf8984291786964
F20110410_AAAOOB morelli_c_Page_111.tif
a11ef3e0f0dc68d84ca695f93afdf778
f88a3069f32f4c8f669ea2c91c62b87b9d744e08
6558 F20110410_AAAONN morelli_c_Page_041thm.jpg
2d3c94e9c910cea08c212febed23e0ae
09567ac9dbd94b959c94e662c46b3eb4a77548b8
1855 F20110410_AAAOMZ morelli_c_Page_148.txt
c84d59f3cadd5a88c73f9dbad56f54fd
c0f8b40be9c0c759abd1485e842672346d8cb31c
6412 F20110410_AAAOOC morelli_c_Page_107thm.jpg
4af64b4eb06cf9e1209c6a0658fc6b68
3b197ca49a41f0b2d6e8c4329202afdccd9a86a7
F20110410_AAAONO morelli_c_Page_009.tif
73b09c59fb1e9d22414666aad2227a15
f82e8d2a1db3cb4fdab2f02bb0ba6a415bf49a36
86984 F20110410_AAAOOD morelli_c_Page_048.jpg
3e6e1766cb9ca7b3c3afb89f4b0b6727
25c50444014fe3361f1706ab6b13987ef018dee7
16729 F20110410_AAAONP morelli_c_Page_098.QC.jpg
1067bb1dae1e82e4093673f82f34a83a
50baf74ece3441cc02efd32e666c2a8f30785be7
86233 F20110410_AAAOOE morelli_c_Page_107.jpg
91062c20bd65755a6a3b244714e3896e
78cffa017ad24b80ab3907734c98563d769278e8
1996 F20110410_AAAONQ morelli_c_Page_018.txt
94a1272f1eee0647cfdc76d95278c4d6
ad66e662d4dbb57b504ad2adc8a23ce798e06973
6597 F20110410_AAAOOF morelli_c_Page_023thm.jpg
adbcda2d7ff72cf330b69f1b6e7e4618
3476c70da4c660d4fc7f9f46b48ad843d4aec014
F20110410_AAAOOG morelli_c_Page_022.tif
874aad5872012531ac4a05ef84d958dd
8c5a377382f2b460ed1bc8f11154bbdee248f3cb
F20110410_AAAONR morelli_c_Page_043.tif
82841ea3243f1fd1d02126db472074d7
f3cd33a5f7142321152cf94ff87e8bedb8b45457
52582 F20110410_AAAOOH morelli_c_Page_064.pro
7318216c593d9b7ab4134439db1c68d3
2f7b2b22b7fbaf7462584a27b4b297fbf20e0a88
101442 F20110410_AAAONS morelli_c_Page_145.jpg
d571e1dc038c6bfd57bb876ba14dd853
b2ec2dd7aa424fde935e56958e32d0b0bf8cb267
78820 F20110410_AAAONT morelli_c_Page_055.jpg
b39fd16bcc24fe910070af638001d4aa
cd162c389fab23446e270dc9add9c11f30806b6e
445552 F20110410_AAAOOI morelli_c_Page_012.jp2
6479ea882e99baf6afe0250cfa90156e
78a4982327f537aa4f2ab2126a8838154f2f24cd
84887 F20110410_AAAONU morelli_c_Page_065.jpg
4f5240ac4bfeca901f05f64851a07db8
b49592f04fa9dfb3423a6693863b9b8d0931b85d
61180 F20110410_AAAOOJ morelli_c_Page_131.jp2
70e5956f2ab77cfd972fa15555e282ca
76b29f425c7f2d9eeade034c0892e76dd81b4a10
2008 F20110410_AAAONV morelli_c_Page_122.txt
2402cba8eef65a4498b558b9bb79a689
74757d07d489824b8fc88175039ba757e6fbf04b
4967 F20110410_AAAOOK morelli_c_Page_013thm.jpg
c3c32bd71a685bbd230db5ac230df412
8192aefe677c8cd87469b60587bedb4dfd133469
1968 F20110410_AAAONW morelli_c_Page_116.txt
09611839c25f4e77663acb0c607628d3
fdb914ff9db4b9aff86dc47685ebe4aca6c46b25
2128 F20110410_AAAOPA morelli_c_Page_134.txt
eb97dd902b49d0b5a1052823b9cc2bf1
5a20b4d205b2a69c8af08afe749e7caf03c25430
8524 F20110410_AAAOOL morelli_c_Page_128.QC.jpg
e5899d54e5db618461f0245f65b3a5a3
7757d727452bb0d1ffefc63b0ec49f2ed7f55fc3
28403 F20110410_AAAONX morelli_c_Page_137.QC.jpg
7410b4f0993ac16e0bb03e72698f54d1
9c68c4e358b7aa73daa63f5b20df2af66d639f52
105663 F20110410_AAAOPB morelli_c_Page_112.jp2
d2e40dab5be4b41f0378825b11b42308
c0b9bc6d0ed4ea01c1669a268badb39720a54f86
84495 F20110410_AAAOOM morelli_c_Page_120.jpg
058653468ab3d25c0ec9a4e014fbd966
b68d589d28948749065771fffe89755e8503b269
39773 F20110410_AAAONY morelli_c_Page_109.jpg
757d899b8cabe17c1e6960a5c9d6b953
8ae39e8e13198ef9948ce9a21f1ac2f2e62e1e4a
110377 F20110410_AAAOPC morelli_c_Page_027.jp2
6753d8d09b57cd08e2fd051e00685883
69e1b6582ba583908f580aaf9b38f6c55ee4f570
F20110410_AAAOON morelli_c_Page_076.txt
98dc54dcde1908b39a5143e10b7935c4
f507819930486b4e85a7d4153b2f71e7bcfbc8c8
F20110410_AAAONZ morelli_c_Page_130.tif
5902ef5c893a11a541e679ef397c4e6a
7b30f62dc6f55c3c8b578a95dd9280e0fe970ccb
612 F20110410_AAAOPD morelli_c_Page_127thm.jpg
4ebfb9ee8c71bc465e217bb87b33a12c
d85c7e2c0682c0626b25059c49d840b7b3a97336
2053 F20110410_AAAOOO morelli_c_Page_114.txt
a7a71dcd820fd0c75665ca2e144225e8
acaa381b1c8def5ccb50630b416dc498bad58098
49815 F20110410_AAAOPE morelli_c_Page_116.pro
64e8aae40b8b1841bb3fc5c3ad0af13a
03390bd4b60fc8439413fb9c8c1a92aa8314be69
6548 F20110410_AAAOOP morelli_c_Page_029thm.jpg
c35b8593c686dcb3beb0ac03880d91e2
14b468195ff381a566386c169ff0160625858487
28658 F20110410_AAAOPF morelli_c_Page_132.pro
40b3e9213c38b3c8ec2d3b5cf98b6184
bdce91fd2d7355c1d74d906c6c5e9e0e9086446d
84286 F20110410_AAAOOQ morelli_c_Page_047.jpg
46109554020c60a01f2b6055cadf296d
ed79753f208b4b33edbf2caeb3c11e9c13019f79
53214 F20110410_AAAOPG morelli_c_Page_063.pro
65c2f501afbf3fbd392b2416cd3905ca
6f191bb0ea77a04948724065552e26ab0f60bb8b
85010 F20110410_AAAOOR morelli_c_Page_113.jpg
6fbc3f91742f0ae53cc845477ad156ed
dc8dfef493e57a0a0b86b1d3c22c66d3d83cdee1
87914 F20110410_AAAOPH morelli_c_Page_032.jpg
6772854571f1499505b9a6a102a053e1
e4ba262c7a8dd51efdb772abef1f64f50743b005
5742 F20110410_AAAOOS morelli_c_Page_097thm.jpg
3c701f322ba2b5035fa598581bab46a1
e4c8be949d756d882e6e222b35e96865dff7a5fc
21306 F20110410_AAAOPI morelli_c_Page_108.QC.jpg
e3ecc1007420d18f124879835563a15e
e96b6fc861bbe5e56d46e61647fbe803c2a3d6c8
52300 F20110410_AAAOOT morelli_c_Page_073.pro
3085187db4f1ead9c6ee85f5e1876503
f71714f1923025eee3c50a33f2f6a286fe39cb44
F20110410_AAAOOU morelli_c_Page_016.tif
790eea70d4434e4998decc2601da780c
eb8b5e5493e141bf9e15ee490005c71a00a21356
F20110410_AAAOPJ morelli_c_Page_033.tif
77e221a15e829ea2aa282162935e6dcc
25c736b66f83e7daeed005025b45c28f604a08c2
4118 F20110410_AAAOOV morelli_c_Page_039.QC.jpg
74926946e9ce2a2536364623580ceead
b4b4bb00d0d3428b931dbd8757787815ec15beb2
81774 F20110410_AAAOPK morelli_c_Page_085.jpg
65465961029bcbd8e85fbac30f21939a
53ecd7939d4bb532a10fa49fbb79a2c8837a3cde
1659 F20110410_AAAOOW morelli_c_Page_008thm.jpg
c711c84dbae0c7df6c4681d9a42eefd1
d316a27dec9d108b376234abb473f18e39bc9df4
86835 F20110410_AAAOPL morelli_c_Page_072.jpg
fbbd0898b58663f40cf2643b278cbf1b
a46026a86e6cbd6793d974ff8275eef9b1e6e623
26779 F20110410_AAAOOX morelli_c_Page_126.QC.jpg
09b8099117a86c095339b86a655d332c
0fa9bf5c97ebb65d1192f6ab32dd89cc83eb5a6b
112219 F20110410_AAAOQA morelli_c_Page_058.jp2
c29b011c542cd9cefbd499cd723cadd6
393d007e516adb81e10f58e9210e1fffec41f3a7
85451 F20110410_AAAOPM morelli_c_Page_066.jpg
d0653f480a57f3c7c8115325441fb335
d892fc084b2fe2559868a6e9c61dac07011b6445
6725 F20110410_AAAOOY morelli_c_Page_139thm.jpg
c97a3e09e4add215e5ce340db20e4434
da9c84226e311f3ff961cfbe9ba36155bf0d1680
58456 F20110410_AAAOQB morelli_c_Page_143.pro
e066e4e19375db49e3602f54112d0988
f8b363b5f6b3b02087f46e2e985428f59ef8f124
43453 F20110410_AAAOPN morelli_c_Page_090.pro
eb6bb9543bf79a485e4fee00a5b044e8
dea09875e663fb15573645a9662f394831de5b84
1963 F20110410_AAAOOZ morelli_c_Page_045.txt
0d6237e595adc843ea4ff16ffbe1957f
2610c288203eeed41ebf94be32bef6125ff6c5ff
F20110410_AAAOQC morelli_c_Page_051.tif
f161013ba68a8864671784129e2d5a88
6c239e15da859d11fc2e1c57d14896357514fed7
23940 F20110410_AAAOPO morelli_c_Page_125.QC.jpg
ee99b2c1c2b0cc49ca06a9a9d5b7b239
9df44d0332950e8d34bb0570e3092477607c2a44
52802 F20110410_AAAOQD morelli_c_Page_118.pro
b82d0a8d47f121125c3240ab6cbde570
d9c8c2170b4877eebf1bdfe3e20aec93cc7116c0
102552 F20110410_AAAOPP morelli_c_Page_096.jp2
e4afcf80d7123483fb7d3f4e79a166b6
a1390e2dfa2f623a9b76f088f715ac5baed859d4
6133 F20110410_AAAOQE morelli_c_Page_116thm.jpg
5108233eac54082eace6c98affa987d7
1ea09e04e51b8094fb8bc0a1a78a59f861b07ea0
4494 F20110410_AAAOPQ morelli_c_Page_132thm.jpg
8c878f23fc56fb8ce99d37c6dca57c80
5240dd95484565a8a8690073ccea8f6769e258bb
82626 F20110410_AAAOQF morelli_c_Page_076.jpg
5fa61ed73d664c3f341348a607f33239
16149d50453701db823ebfd75f08d4a66a5192ea
F20110410_AAAOPR morelli_c_Page_076.tif
aa31d4d7b0a12a9fee56de61c842e251
e6c0185156605f900e038637405bc028fd1dad1a
83155 F20110410_AAAOQG morelli_c_Page_027.jpg
4307cc6dbb8665b40d4906e1aa39b53d
ce55815523f5914620bb730efc012d0805e020c4
27171 F20110410_AAAOPS morelli_c_Page_145.QC.jpg
1a186252f9e79de5e522a00383f8c67c
815af235bd164d64a619cfe9bc6d65aeecdb150d
F20110410_AAAOQH morelli_c_Page_059.tif
1f637cf2fd6417a4ea29c0e92576ce66
d99ea7c2f9e294622b836026b6e75220ed86fa0d
3763 F20110410_AAAOPT morelli_c_Page_124.pro
a39f9b8f4032f7e76b42d42ec9814b06
ccdfdc82a7538d35515f6b0153f377c303b7105e
5707 F20110410_AAAOQI morelli_c_Page_134thm.jpg
39fbca3cee6ef01043257db071d6a5b3
c40654bf877696be8ddcdc3efeb49a81d5c37182
F20110410_AAAOPU morelli_c_Page_064thm.jpg
78ca0f947226bd3bfb8769b7007fb776
56a589eaceb0ddb20effcb3c19d674e3ae7386e9
4795 F20110410_AAAOQJ morelli_c_Page_010thm.jpg
e8248c35eaaaa0e4e8ade1f7505ee5e2
c979d6ab0746d390c53c4304c1dbcb9515a5e210
117371 F20110410_AAAOPV morelli_c_Page_056.jp2
cceff39f983d49570ff92a240c711a9c
e1de43df7c4caf32ab95a66c6d58fad76040e1e0
6444 F20110410_AAAOPW morelli_c_Page_032thm.jpg
914c0f328e943bdb846628536186f9ae
5ef80141957e81cdf6953fa3b1ad6a08770493dc
6229 F20110410_AAAOQK morelli_c_Page_046thm.jpg
471ffd79c1b0bb25f4d6161a64f6ff68
bae5ebf3e47b8629b86c33b5f73b3620b1513496
F20110410_AAAOPX morelli_c_Page_095.tif
ec3504162f2d987f980088a56f5d7f9d
24b49705e815f2f16f74c9458557e87c7f9be79a
27056 F20110410_AAAORA morelli_c_Page_107.QC.jpg
78b20b8289afd5edb2d1cf86ad2f9955
5efe596678a65a7b5941804500b13068d6fce882
6092 F20110410_AAAOQL morelli_c_Page_050thm.jpg
b65f4befe8acd886f673b0d990bfcef5
0480c3fcb7f1481f50931b12764e61105ae5c4c5
25945 F20110410_AAAOPY morelli_c_Page_070.QC.jpg
67111e9266959670ed34f4fbd41d686d
811f4827dd8887ea06fa0f63bd45016e8f7f00b6
111699 F20110410_AAAORB morelli_c_Page_062.jp2
e20b6a304bb8c1ddc5ab1dfc5e4bde29
f035a2a9f07167c446f0c74a21a01a7b38c793c4
35905 F20110410_AAAOQM morelli_c_Page_021.jp2
f95956f3a8f57c7ec9b92daafbfb3e99
bb60e5fe3e339962d6b12802887be6df93a15dc6
F20110410_AAAOPZ morelli_c_Page_084.tif
856ce5d35abd243434803ae08ba13c7f
2edb32bf65c0ea2692446754c2c9759f727fb577
27399 F20110410_AAAORC morelli_c_Page_021.jpg
0673e02cb827f4975964e2a6c73d40d2
89dcab683ff663eb5e96f914200d1bb03b153ead
48707 F20110410_AAAOQN morelli_c_Page_125.pro
976fcc9852ce8b2db61dc42a322d4a01
0286cbe030a8b621d7b3ecc0b759a2de76a25430
103812 F20110410_AAAORD morelli_c_Page_093.jp2
86ee8e467e3ddac980cc0724c568f685
3415c1864f63b80314d2cc24a13180fddf6f8fc4
113226 F20110410_AAAOQO morelli_c_Page_064.jp2
d6d34b33f3d4c173140a695eccecb2eb
d6482b440615a6ab0c921f80285a0abafe254ce6
2058 F20110410_AAAORE morelli_c_Page_073.txt
3771072732108e7c7349dff43a3045b1
5108cf5309732a9b339f544d4e7c9b90a39f35b1
6099 F20110410_AAAOQP morelli_c_Page_076thm.jpg
5fd2dfa07371f839e07d27f416e06851
b648896790230926c4836f7bec383e46341d30f4
101013 F20110410_AAAORF morelli_c_Page_015.jp2
e88235ff88a0451208400f00d79000a3
087b1145044f58cfd46790b2c824b94c3966d8d9
108688 F20110410_AAAOQQ morelli_c_Page_017.jp2
bffcedda10451c08dff93fe8f3f2c6a2
059de1800cf97697b9537c435ba123c2525703cb
84575 F20110410_AAAORG morelli_c_Page_018.jpg
0dee73e105dbeed1b38ba4d5ac285323
5ff6230d1ae9894a291234c9644c382dcc6ab8e9
1289 F20110410_AAAOQR morelli_c_Page_129.txt
aeb62bf0f695262323e448749e2e3d6b
53c765363f1deb06859fb62cbd72f569f8d4c309
83594 F20110410_AAAORH morelli_c_Page_091.jpg
3fb6953b2ce533300132fc30c19f078c
6a6f444e36a684e0842d4753d8bc088db481adb0
47795 F20110410_AAAOQS morelli_c_Page_006.pro
7d5ca84aa75c746c75145a85fd7dafd4
85759a7a7df65449e2c9ba9b066a180b9c1ffb75
1486 F20110410_AAAORI morelli_c_Page_130.txt
0b864a486614b919e07d937bed584496
293f5be3b09914d6265c2f7ef77337c9231b7be9
45186 F20110410_AAAOQT morelli_c_Page_022.pro
22c8a9bde6e9076e47aa9076fb240934
a177ffa7b807398342ae96e431ead3df1a1eb10b
8423998 F20110410_AAAORJ morelli_c_Page_104.tif
42c5a1181aaef30cbd77f18ceaab6710
74ce980d9ab95b88bff3fb4b671854d4ff6f14ec
1674 F20110410_AAAOQU morelli_c_Page_105.txt
1fb3461ffb6d5685de028857d59c4554
7846f0bf818c18692ee04827ee1e7aa2a81ecd7a
6281 F20110410_AAAORK morelli_c_Page_027thm.jpg
679bf945be78f9aabc35611b95d680de
697751ac6bf1fabc0b66e3ff3c3e0e9b03ef5d14
31375 F20110410_AAAOQV morelli_c_Page_131.pro
306a285202e2dd8eed61b7cf9f955c42
de6ec44ed1b87d88c82a7f4d24be24da0a32316c
18654 F20110410_AAAOQW morelli_c_Page_003.jp2
886821b191fd80d6146c8b551335a25e
09fbcedbd94c3036a43f47a6aa2ef9add09ff593
1937 F20110410_AAAOSA morelli_c_Page_085.txt
3681d74251958a90db1800f10b08a5d0
0c424af927ff1ed518559e12a4760f1cdd5a6f35
F20110410_AAAORL morelli_c_Page_121.tif
540e7a3c028784fe93b72ee9499893e5
875e14da2a43f8b5bd0c582e171a3ba1ef79e3f3
F20110410_AAAOQX morelli_c_Page_001.tif
a6eb90381f1ec28cf2bc0dd90b99e5dc
3f7f13dfa7f9fa3a083980de7c53c18782050db7
2187 F20110410_AAAOSB morelli_c_Page_127.QC.jpg
76dd46e53f620d6f0ec49afccd5efbd8
d394568582722c5af8360d63a914e9c815f0ab62
210 F20110410_AAAORM morelli_c_Page_039.txt
03ef5eba2463d085b52a3583df95a162
bdd30e9dd4cc193bd85dbea4959bcf1e8c089e37
27093 F20110410_AAAOQY morelli_c_Page_063.QC.jpg
0950f8a5ecaa847c81ca9dc9e6bf2140
0d846061b1b9b405ef749ea7b971af38ef668c1c
2075 F20110410_AAAOSC morelli_c_Page_048.txt
d8ed7b8c8a54fc29bf9b17df664e55bc
3ce6e453999c3f6a3c7d577a5f64f1d0e08e8593
26826 F20110410_AAAORN morelli_c_Page_072.QC.jpg
a5f3d4ade69f888a7cad99f5c8c91331
a57d7fa7c5086c207244af4ec383306cdff3c45b
18434 F20110410_AAAOQZ morelli_c_Page_014.QC.jpg
9d7c8fdf1754c97c86d9103633561b39
c3ce7cf3ccb0de909838cbf2da718328ebf823c6
79072 F20110410_AAAOSD morelli_c_Page_096.jpg
ad6705ff9ffaa23571a29b8fbf87f408
4921f3af5e53d791acfa8a49b351398c7fb4641d
25074 F20110410_AAAORO morelli_c_Page_007.QC.jpg
0c3987246098e29d6dad806b15a60fec
3a63e57c2a1e40c8a551cf5495324a0f4aa117c5
82942 F20110410_AAAOSE morelli_c_Page_037.jpg
811d8bef7df5775fee919465790fd4db
44507cd35f6df526e25cf8f5a623c9d21f760290
34627 F20110410_AAAORP morelli_c_Page_133.jpg
a3bb6502376f958d74bb0be6dc7426aa
c26c76502aaec3cca06568d787996f45166b778a
F20110410_AAAOSF morelli_c_Page_079.tif
ad2a5cdbe55aa608c9cceddc5c584df7
6ec897a77160f3df47192e3c583eec0d055fb709
6546 F20110410_AAAORQ morelli_c_Page_137thm.jpg
a9feb7f514259fa0f585a0e8dacacf3a
77fc3579849162b19fb6c1e1219c5a3d7f6f8a2e
106985 F20110410_AAAOSG morelli_c_Page_050.jp2
0af6ecf180cff3da64ad1be6f7da895d
bc0212782cb2748378ee79e0d5f22f26c3d447dc
52075 F20110410_AAAORR morelli_c_Page_091.pro
ff9924dbf85b7c1fda4d908b0045a19d
f471628f03d1fc174781247d59b1a476a4b09798
109200 F20110410_AAAOSH morelli_c_Page_005.jp2
021bd3eed04a890d5ca6ed62d9e22435
aca9f52845f6d34ed2a73b7b877403253376ebbd
82727 F20110410_AAAORS morelli_c_Page_050.jpg
8e6b02d20e68b93ff6e171e7a5108e98
dca3903f0fdbbca4cf691df365e206a69e72622d
1926 F20110410_AAAOSI morelli_c_Page_050.txt
977cfea8786ae2ec739cb289b956a16a
9775eca7997ba888cb368c75ee38e3795ecf4f72
F20110410_AAAORT morelli_c_Page_064.tif
71d66c96786ae9777ebbce21eadff21c
7a69af171a6f97bd777ea51d6cd525a5a3c071b9
F20110410_AAAOSJ morelli_c_Page_027.tif
a1288a919da4435e14a871d8b2141389
08e67c7081fe7a70d1ca83a0b17fa2d788d903bf
F20110410_AAAORU morelli_c_Page_047.tif
ad3947aa8e63207468bab3c1f60b2526
f1b1b42abb73349454aacec76963ef00761b39fc
1983 F20110410_AAAOSK morelli_c_Page_017.txt
be38612e1fcfbc6c91f331ddf23d40f8
e74d84360542bde94ada5909f313e4aff13005eb
107724 F20110410_AAAORV morelli_c_Page_051.jp2
c30feaf186d353d933c7acc8d8c3fc5f
1392778360a27d191e7c8bc01d5e79ebb26d3c86
2150 F20110410_AAAOSL morelli_c_Page_089.txt
3acabf7ecbdf4552c05e487dbf463b29
59b6f3df70c610ececa8fc35997bbc05984fc910
12421 F20110410_AAAORW morelli_c_Page_109.QC.jpg
a9a1665c927e534cdeb1311ec02fd3b0
3c53b5ad8e5c7650c3780512a692a1006f53fbf9
24483 F20110410_AAAORX morelli_c_Page_055.QC.jpg
997b2106fc5b66cc069bf29e933dfca6
c56da1c181034f640d27d3ffc29a0149b71d8764
26045 F20110410_AAAOTA morelli_c_Page_052.QC.jpg
a2bbd14abb30ab3d3e89a3fc6a52150a
781df14ff02d416fdeca08d21ac107f790a4aea8
95660 F20110410_AAAOSM morelli_c_Page_144.jpg
30d84e0707da580be31415555a0eac34
e3997b62493544d79a57b3ec91306bd4f8ed7cad
46666 F20110410_AAAORY morelli_c_Page_149.jpg
efbb7cfb7ffe7a237fb5893a636c63ff
6cd5982f5f4a40973d8b0bd63221cbfa3a58148e
31313 F20110410_AAAOTB morelli_c_Page_129.pro
96cd41fd51b9b6514a6a98144fcceab0
7ea1aa7efe31fde07e1756e2c448b7eaf03607ed
51843 F20110410_AAAOSN morelli_c_Page_061.pro
f7fd0794a6f0b2821bc6b23ba8974d1e
347ca07ea939b99f716d4e5c6cf8fa0b9aacdb4f
6152 F20110410_AAAORZ morelli_c_Page_087thm.jpg
aeca4bb5b6e664ae4725024633ea9155
8dc92aa35a5dbcbf55708eecdf65af6a4499884b
604 F20110410_AAAOTC morelli_c_Page_021.txt
7bb9f37cd599659d5a64c409bb9f79f7
7c8e0a15114e09ecf60bc481718efac81944ec8b
F20110410_AAAOTD morelli_c_Page_013.tif
a8516ff4fe187cabee69c0ae8542f904
f9686421b1d704cbeb525d219323784b0688ea80
49940 F20110410_AAAOSO morelli_c_Page_024.pro
27f8e867f14760b48c261cf871a780e2
ddb7b9e1e7bcaf09920eee1a5f42ce6c6ed56740
F20110410_AAAOTE morelli_c_Page_147.tif
026c493410df9348c83a7bc6ce7a0cb1
40f7b1bb5b4ebb1ee3c257da85dbf9162748bf4a
F20110410_AAAOSP morelli_c_Page_025thm.jpg
25c0737dbdb9f3fe3f9ab89efad2f323
ec787bb3962df38ec03e4da3709820417c724444
25534 F20110410_AAAOTF morelli_c_Page_069.QC.jpg
5ca1a659fefd6ea1e604e918234da773
40828f4b7a587af43fc0a93b652c118fa58a06c0
2074 F20110410_AAAOSQ morelli_c_Page_102.txt
992224c8bbb513657038e427c5763bf7
d680d3f89c087b8167a25c5e79c65d9efdbbc631
1756 F20110410_AAAOTG morelli_c_Page_040.txt
95ef3f04bdfdfd72fa778e0c114afc90
d5d4b17c4612fc549082440fc87977e948831c86
F20110410_AAAOSR morelli_c_Page_054.tif
63e8b37fc445f7d31afa285567cf1c04
9371be015cf4eab9570b1023003fc26f3d8551f9
26334 F20110410_AAAOTH morelli_c_Page_066.QC.jpg
294ac321af509ddcc8d39ebeef343013
98bea102ff0ffe18b4d2f6a6339c564d7b85da4f
80031 F20110410_AAAOSS morelli_c_Page_121.jpg
2221c63579f86c2232aba5e2f9bcc5ee
fd352e9cc2a9af7165c97ab9a767430fb62b97ad
84717 F20110410_AAAOTI morelli_c_Page_031.jpg
dc839411c7c29e4b606ef8da3646bce9
38ece9284eb8593ab9f8bf32027fb48466af28c3
105556 F20110410_AAAOST morelli_c_Page_078.jp2
e6ed0f0a743a279295d0b1de221c6265
84d7882afd8354a870d314cf3e2684a8d2441269
75610 F20110410_AAAOTJ morelli_c_Page_110.jpg
3891ff8796c8c0a86122ca3785a844ab
0e05af477374a12a6e738b38881908eeeef17fbf
1998 F20110410_AAAOSU morelli_c_Page_117.txt
01367511d937d6d8b06b917a8fc44190
164b6f7b6fe5420a895176621dd8200ff8245880
1785 F20110410_AAAOTK morelli_c_Page_082.txt
3ebe7a3dd3bc7bd93069eb37c3a532b6
5ade20b02d5521b664c3a2579152f1947da98df7
105426 F20110410_AAAOSV morelli_c_Page_077.jp2
2e6dd4b22826139ea535b41ea6dcee54
ef1602093107092e13c23f3ee791d688bad4b8d8
25484 F20110410_AAAOTL morelli_c_Page_017.QC.jpg
d2524c333786ca175f431df4eeacfd7f
d36a236a420820af8a7112ebad52e4c5ab21b802
6228 F20110410_AAAOSW morelli_c_Page_122thm.jpg
2a606284b05394cd2b050479483dc4d2
67e77ef0b759b692f4ec4552d29329af7af0a320
116164 F20110410_AAAOUA morelli_c_Page_023.jp2
6e730945e36bdb984e53cafdbee397f1
88206842baf9344178d5cdb0458371f940d301bc
88790 F20110410_AAAOTM morelli_c_Page_023.jpg
3cde32800e5d005aba8b27442cb563f4
e2d842f55c6b1e3cc2cd1fc29428710ad59ab2bb
51481 F20110410_AAAOSX morelli_c_Page_037.pro
92f4c70574b43c74e416082f0594a4a6
a669ada791961afe1c22bdc68a7b77c6a5efa726
7127 F20110410_AAAOUB morelli_c_Page_001.QC.jpg
5b4648abe342ac8d1919fa8022ec7696
d215a1522c90a4af1f35a9c7be13f8016167ac7d
37898 F20110410_AAAOSY morelli_c_Page_013.pro
9b91f91eeb6df527430ecfda764c924f
7ffa0bc2c8b574758c5a9aa5c94f33e986730334
191 F20110410_AAAOUC morelli_c_Page_124.txt
b4bfd435579f58f31a1781e67bc02a3d
ee57117c2268200957cbaf557e2211584d479d3c
67792 F20110410_AAAOTN morelli_c_Page_098.jp2
e5c6f3eabe3d2d7005724451677082f5
36c98f20179d51709b1abedd140822a4e14d8415
26851 F20110410_AAAOSZ morelli_c_Page_047.QC.jpg
2289d9ccafae50ccdf6e4387aab29a47
78954215c5b335fb8b6b9ce480cb2bda170a417a
112134 F20110410_AAAOUD morelli_c_Page_052.jp2
ef2038e41bb25aca854b179788dbed12
d33c9ce7d568528e621c7f415382b97b18f0d7a7
110399 F20110410_AAAOTO morelli_c_Page_070.jp2
5baf7abc06b472057c32d4a068b4bac6
b760c68f8c3c965cc39c300f6ae94b6c6b2cd518
11300 F20110410_AAAOUE morelli_c_Page_124.jp2
fb151e9c05cbaa00a5be0e9d766e18c8
2c70f68c744beea38b720fa54361ef0a87aa0e9c
2054 F20110410_AAAOTP morelli_c_Page_091.txt
2159319f83470cd816d69eca041f5990
1aff9bc3347608a755a5cf6a3fe1af9eaaa11209
81939 F20110410_AAAOUF morelli_c_Page_115.jpg
b809fd60ab565830e68299837366b995
996193497faab8e3ca0dd6e272cb799df7b3a0cc
84743 F20110410_AAAOTQ morelli_c_Page_052.jpg
021464d5dc171813fc65b9451f24ec33
3c41362d45735befb5340db78d735cbf8747eb17
26830 F20110410_AAAOUG morelli_c_Page_080.QC.jpg
070ad265d3bd3d54a806ba056d192c63
6e5c8f6dd3203730e158d407b7704eb69f6d7bfb
82388 F20110410_AAAOTR morelli_c_Page_069.jpg
9f436a4f60291f5f19a08862c5243744
c07a83d910ee323cec4143556f4966cf25ca9ce8
112830 F20110410_AAAPAA morelli_c_Page_107.jp2
4126bb1cc324428f909fd881bb521691
384e22ffb568421935d9cacb915d5327347e7eb7
6483 F20110410_AAAOUH morelli_c_Page_118thm.jpg
d0c927e2054884fe51feba7e5692bb2f
5c5350a61977485f92fc0aaed2d00cc4a5326a9a
6623 F20110410_AAAOTS morelli_c_Page_126thm.jpg
bd45d97b48e263278460e3630681dc33
9c5babed9a3a25d869ebc85328cd7d26a9d58d46
98837 F20110410_AAAPAB morelli_c_Page_110.jp2
3d830848701c9207ef3185aad4015b46
9d4d866bf2af37db5b9eae6eee98bf5930b79ee2
112895 F20110410_AAAOUI morelli_c_Page_025.jp2
4df34f1039691d5904ff4562ac1d86da
865497970e3da000ef6435777d0ac09382220caf
85394 F20110410_AAAOTT morelli_c_Page_020.jpg
5685478514038777272c41d44cf83fe0
da077dd87290029b87c59af4e3e9e98e6965d84d
107753 F20110410_AAAPAC morelli_c_Page_111.jp2
fcf1eea5bd005f4b1192ae2d1ab2b118
384b80d60d4c5390f093014c5a15de8a263b2fcf
29348 F20110410_AAAOUJ morelli_c_Page_044.QC.jpg
37eb16d0ded5c61e7f6735c5ac9a804a
a26d35d99734d004e02dc9836bd5c4a896c40a9d
83153 F20110410_AAAOTU morelli_c_Page_016.jpg
f9554281816a0803a6fa643d036913c3
9b84f7ee76d060a278df206dc58fa3107cb3f199
106601 F20110410_AAAPAD morelli_c_Page_116.jp2
6e131caec2c53aa38e56d24a16c3a42f
7cb726759b7cebd4bfcb5e783e868debc84477bb
113918 F20110410_AAAOUK morelli_c_Page_048.jp2
ddfb8589301bda1715744bea09da942f
0ebf580a085cfafc5fe807bc24b293552736b434
50696 F20110410_AAAOTV morelli_c_Page_018.pro
81cdc4d7c9dad2c0851371653f611694
d89bc8000ade6ff0680cbd32cc5a37ac9362b374
109473 F20110410_AAAPAE morelli_c_Page_122.jp2
5a3345f874bfa23dcb453e9d962b3f3f
018e613f4d49e4f79a0b3ca53136b9eba612da7d
109722 F20110410_AAAOUL morelli_c_Page_080.jp2
499f6ea9859deb53166775b0bd1b7359
396e021f005318956988e8f2d718f0b9eda1fa79
79817 F20110410_AAAOTW morelli_c_Page_112.jpg
78d4afba26dfb2a05dc938befbee7d2e
ac207ac7ed9af1d20457cb356e84f97f5928d46c
111398 F20110410_AAAPAF morelli_c_Page_123.jp2
a3c78b61c6fd02c1a4aefd37770f197b
2ce746b446b1f32981ee997a36cf5d13eccb19cb
6190 F20110410_AAAOUM morelli_c_Page_037thm.jpg
dd991a24882c200859a6c148f3d0bbeb
54986eb74a00323b36da1638a5854daeac87fbeb
47271 F20110410_AAAOTX morelli_c_Page_096.pro
197e1605497b56ab63f03f6d613e22ee
097ca5f6ab239c03a6ab89eabc926569132e83a3
1051980 F20110410_AAAPAG morelli_c_Page_126.jp2
c0e0ef7f920b5d9e94606ffe4d5be705
e98df479a0355084f6b033dacea5e46fb383a672
114432 F20110410_AAAOVA morelli_c_Page_032.jp2
6057e3d6b22d2bbef0fdd21946a349f9
daed316b0415cdb47b1b64af68a2e7f1cfed5461
6011 F20110410_AAAOUN morelli_c_Page_078thm.jpg
6556cdef34b43e458f401b9e576f1572
3696de3a9409d21d0d9d311a768743b9086be351
2039 F20110410_AAAOTY morelli_c_Page_100.txt
cf1ef14f0f87de12960aa0ac60573eec
9dcfbf9f80d34960805b02fde1bf009eadd8894b
7442 F20110410_AAAPAH morelli_c_Page_127.jp2
3d4ecafae016316eb909ad32662311ac
895b43366cd1fecb8dc77cb76d64cdfda9046692
6081 F20110410_AAAOVB morelli_c_Page_115thm.jpg
02747444cf9b93f62b5808861c1649e4
5a2d83e7a17a3037d79a0996707b383dae7989dc
86221 F20110410_AAAOTZ morelli_c_Page_134.jpg
7879a41ab716272e0b8eaeb34d3758dc
b77270866e0c84df530788cd30f0634a6b6ca07b
60924 F20110410_AAAPAI morelli_c_Page_128.jp2
d79a09ef2280773ecbecc6bf007d54e1
3c34ef8fa438cdd35196015cf439d907d243c8a4
51042 F20110410_AAAOVC morelli_c_Page_049.pro
4caeee0103c896ac89ed6a0134f2361d
deee2144c372903d8b25aed9d2d449a9b041341d
4808 F20110410_AAAOUO morelli_c_Page_011thm.jpg
53ff0705630046100921cc37633a4d33
245d55f72ab085535ba482118170445b7138c1ac
79113 F20110410_AAAPAJ morelli_c_Page_130.jp2
5a5d023b1d81edd837cfd3e57057de72
6984bea4a24504069668eb7be2a2697394c9e00d
51191 F20110410_AAAOVD morelli_c_Page_109.jp2
238667a2789fd64ba4ac5def3b4e99e6
35817a38b7bac447684a1f0801f84aa9948dda37
80891 F20110410_AAAOUP morelli_c_Page_007.jpg
28c24e10d66e8b5ff7a77f301a9a8c92
3177ade9796e16c09ba19b220006e3a4e8d61301
29525 F20110410_AAAPAK morelli_c_Page_133.jp2
9e792224f36c1ea4a07a2fcabc4c0a43
4c848178674a1a52477847c3d5e52092fb99f4ff
25227 F20110410_AAAOVE morelli_c_Page_008.jp2
ab1d7a2a420514417bc7502b2bc6a97c
82128a004292b05a5a12ba6620950640ba1c5434
6486 F20110410_AAAOUQ morelli_c_Page_060thm.jpg
cb9581f92e9d05738977f3179c81b530
c9c17efcec157dbcfd1a6be85dfa409a726d3947
140145 F20110410_AAAPAL morelli_c_Page_136.jp2
1dd2d3f1a451313768473ec792dccf23
f4720d701180ad1224d92c80cfd30c44ece2b30d
6031 F20110410_AAAOVF morelli_c_Page_077thm.jpg
04f2fe4c407f1f96f3e4bcbfd373355d
dbdc0b9b2a042f95db8aad0acdbeacc5ad39833b
1081 F20110410_AAAOUR morelli_c_Page_039thm.jpg
ddd40b9123ba71151af5c3ec31f78f82
a65c2e814da2714c8740aaee16c8c7f387d7f2a5
F20110410_AAAPBA morelli_c_Page_017.tif
84c9ae7529fd68fd4bec0ce429dab400
7525f588e8e3376bb2de14e8bd513ebcfe24fca7
134106 F20110410_AAAPAM morelli_c_Page_137.jp2
6eea6c06eadd739ec60933f2994c0cbd
8a042f018974e0330a9ca805e1975565ccc4a235
5905 F20110410_AAAOVG morelli_c_Page_081thm.jpg
18d913f07076ae7f0b5d5de5b9e73e73
6a127a7825cdacfffae40cdb0b915cd216e712d3
48323 F20110410_AAAOUS morelli_c_Page_121.pro
188a3aa0fa269b9409e0cce7f64f0b5a
34f594f183c00f5e92ce5935517fea59279bc431
F20110410_AAAPBB morelli_c_Page_018.tif
de41ce638aa0bb064b9d745b4b3b4c75
cea473af0691ec071930b5f85b79745768a0cc2b
134476 F20110410_AAAPAN morelli_c_Page_138.jp2
63a0eca82950dfaf6b68a244c072106b
7bb57609dc074bbb805d6b3a385b89c2f8cd56d1
6478 F20110410_AAAOVH morelli_c_Page_056thm.jpg
75d78d32c4d7668685afa6536cf9e737
d4b981c4956d56ad9f7a81bcfd9a65718ad3355a
84046 F20110410_AAAOUT morelli_c_Page_005.jpg
ed63f41f3f69f79ca4df8f66356b98a7
8838b37a20e6e4ad4e833093cc1d1f2ad9f0146b
F20110410_AAAPBC morelli_c_Page_019.tif
b1f8d563349be84d4aad82568bc55187
3303998b94104ad6d0ffe33e7d349fede86f8cc6
131800 F20110410_AAAPAO morelli_c_Page_139.jp2
e70cd4f06d067455bd41061aa3173a14
4ff774cbb09803f692e8839a80879641385dd536
46292 F20110410_AAAOVI morelli_c_Page_103.pro
41c7a3d276f5e295befb293b4457598e
fd28fc92d151fcb9a9af7ea5676040888a82cdd2
2034 F20110410_AAAOUU morelli_c_Page_061.txt
4ad7c669f0bb6321f29c12b14af6cdda
54da8b34a52b5529e615967f27e72397c7a47d03
F20110410_AAAPBD morelli_c_Page_023.tif
aa2be9a78ebfdd2390d595dca1fa6e90
508061c0aa4c1ade56519725cafc0d6a1192e28b
123246 F20110410_AAAPAP morelli_c_Page_141.jp2
9bd03cd86747f57575b0c5778fa6cee6
6a955242867a4a936e3dbbe88d2ab9af96bd96d7
F20110410_AAAOVJ morelli_c_Page_074.tif
8e0c2d6dcb4cfca0759707e3a9d9ce10
f0cfeb62c0a6ea082d5cf890bc6aa06b9d53cf6b
26268 F20110410_AAAOUV morelli_c_Page_049.QC.jpg
ba55fc7616d6c5dc6afdff9fa99b5e37
1ca1465d325cd5485ae4e7366303830506a6035c
F20110410_AAAPBE morelli_c_Page_025.tif
6bab2ae6041560480563835abd2c5588
8c1a1c7d1beef09ec3eb18d905426d6f09b42bf1
124023 F20110410_AAAPAQ morelli_c_Page_144.jp2
a1c4f03dec6922befffd795b70ef9a2a
567fdd16890ca71470ce7ccd31e1397bb4402bf3
172765 F20110410_AAAOVK UFE0015420_00001.mets
0a39f0042967ee68db9f8d112b5990cd
b5667ee54377676c3e86762bd0606881b24820d0
4056 F20110410_AAAOUW morelli_c_Page_003.QC.jpg
14e0f7d90ff640080765fce867dbb53f
72d14130c65ef629ee13c23bfdae493da07c0eb2
F20110410_AAAPBF morelli_c_Page_028.tif
a201155f54d4c18f5f7956ee69dfad69
36a7ba9339ffd78b4b68fd9c11973ef094728201
60327 F20110410_AAAPAR morelli_c_Page_149.jp2
1641d216aba84a957bcd6499f060b37b
732facf32f028480e6df464b90efbbfe90351b44
51573 F20110410_AAAOUX morelli_c_Page_041.pro
74355ca066dc219ab8b0ac1828a20a32
e10435d29d3264ec679d75e057ca16c0efb6174b
F20110410_AAAPBG morelli_c_Page_029.tif
4223f1676da79a4e43e2d559ede1967a
66dd524224631f8aa6510c2ac09d48b1b61fe54d
86024 F20110410_AAAOWA morelli_c_Page_025.jpg
7fff5a7cdb127e95b8afb01af27abe1d
d670479abb08c6cacb7f7c5dfa8bda652d15eb99
F20110410_AAAPAS morelli_c_Page_003.tif
bc8f94ed56f53d8b2ccdae7576579bc8
fa977eaa45b737649ae460433ffa47332ed339ab
1054428 F20110410_AAAOUY morelli_c_Page_129.tif
24ede414550883211d155e7efb85b750
58222579e65c0497cec6fe562ea863ee2da10e4a
F20110410_AAAPBH morelli_c_Page_030.tif
7d8b015e0a0b0d7718f5b335ef4fa12e
89fcfc6405cb113e1e9180017767fad6fa0a206d
82933 F20110410_AAAOWB morelli_c_Page_026.jpg
106a3d43ba108ceca8ac32d934b5d069
30dc6c928a3eecce31e07810dadb681a8231a746
F20110410_AAAPAT morelli_c_Page_004.tif
90cdd83bd86be334bd0bba5dbce60942
756d497c2680f9bb13ccb72856333372fa704f8c
23891 F20110410_AAAOVN morelli_c_Page_001.jpg
0c3258d28e457526986928ec9171c433
de535cb957c81fc8dddf5d6f4ac69960eff16e72
115277 F20110410_AAAOUZ morelli_c_Page_054.jp2
d93b23e21419f970083c1481ff829b72
82fba5ee7efa57df9c2d1cf93251c59f224a1335
F20110410_AAAPBI morelli_c_Page_031.tif
3a7af33d66480a5d0ff91bc00243d8eb
eca9bad449c00125f3020b591cbcd6cb4351692c
85419 F20110410_AAAOWC morelli_c_Page_029.jpg
098aecb9b9e5a1644f451458e6fc3dfa
491496d17faa554e132761f26ae3e057e943b5b4
F20110410_AAAPAU morelli_c_Page_006.tif
28f8c3deca6ec624c05f30e7b0a6eafb
e68c00727bd9cf3d13e71e1eec8d2b025cebe6d1
4384 F20110410_AAAOVO morelli_c_Page_002.jpg
4752df978a2e658e0e9290e8bd01c439
424bbc7220582568fefa509c76601a78f09a2cb4
F20110410_AAAPBJ morelli_c_Page_032.tif
494e11dd27400eb4f5b117ae2a509e53
ced4c42ce1cdb3590b3e79765a5ec33b1d42d4be
84966 F20110410_AAAOWD morelli_c_Page_030.jpg
803cb420d218278e7f1f41b1e6b73a95
06d933878add20fefca79f08a2d47ba682d09b47
F20110410_AAAPAV morelli_c_Page_007.tif
61f0e860c1cc630ac6fe3ccf9a6185e0
0a2267202bf3c2bb9b8495a756519362b9f6db36
F20110410_AAAPBK morelli_c_Page_035.tif
4d96c632949330b34aee79bcf3529bed
afd7d656015dbbe7c9e4108b13bfc20336a6cf27
83186 F20110410_AAAOWE morelli_c_Page_033.jpg
3068f21181d2556c341849d3a4496dce
78bdd97ca3e87089fdd5578b474456a7f82d9943
F20110410_AAAPAW morelli_c_Page_008.tif
d6b49b9e52339f950ad8d09cd2845b75
91b6cf236a84d393a92505b468ac5cbb452ea6e0
15252 F20110410_AAAOVP morelli_c_Page_003.jpg
999fb1ae5d4ddde3fe6e6c6850b237cb
543c78db5e2972a3b51c03adc8ad1f1b634bf896
F20110410_AAAPBL morelli_c_Page_038.tif
a09fa26b2fbe37a1ee518e62695d9382
283ce5fe91d7c77d212069cb39dcab56cbde2339
85796 F20110410_AAAOWF morelli_c_Page_034.jpg
affed5c7e53f8fb1956b40c33d9be1cc
de19f315a1764e0cf0985442dbd4b7ee53765adb
F20110410_AAAPAX morelli_c_Page_011.tif
35610726432d92f65bc9e0749309e284
9315ca9441ed0933b65a2addae44a1ebec24bb23
80965 F20110410_AAAOVQ morelli_c_Page_006.jpg
d6249e4860a3f98a90e879aea665e5ad
7a3f94fc4ee9e36ca110521b396a875013635d78
F20110410_AAAPBM morelli_c_Page_039.tif
d76b4be82f0355d86a7ea1505797f400
560892d82accbd788db29a24c85bf486be41ef5b
82647 F20110410_AAAOWG morelli_c_Page_036.jpg
ce5143c76afb1d16f1f52a70527a3718
f31ae8f824dd47c62af7d306611359b54bbb90b9
F20110410_AAAPAY morelli_c_Page_012.tif
69b95bc135aef095da704ea76c0c5de6
f9a7460a309625507e3903e689f28190ad0ba023
19630 F20110410_AAAOVR morelli_c_Page_008.jpg
1844e500fbff6d8995eecd815289e548
ba874f06d5753f25034a87cf537eff5bd6bfd9c1
F20110410_AAAPCA morelli_c_Page_072.tif
98b82a0fb49b413b97b37d49c507d2c2
f40e4ad8c10f778c41ab5265deec29302d83e77e
F20110410_AAAPBN morelli_c_Page_040.tif
44df6c15672cfd7f1f6b9c5ebe9c6233
55c07df9822fd061b1c52480a48a584372923fe4
85525 F20110410_AAAOWH morelli_c_Page_038.jpg
3bd4bcb5f98d857b11731c4d58dd8d3a
b3a538386f138b0acbf282fbb4652a74db03d2d4
73419 F20110410_AAAOVS morelli_c_Page_011.jpg
7561d3c754c1d23e1b813304f3dc7acb
c26c83d38877ed0fc17b473190e02c843212e4d4
F20110410_AAAPCB morelli_c_Page_073.tif
186881645b48ae86f1f22cc004a4226d
eafce14edb1242a631cb19e455cee0335ebb2ee9
F20110410_AAAPBO morelli_c_Page_042.tif
0f2fe273120ebf4c5cef0cff894104a5
861993ba847ec339ba977f22ea01fbfd65314173
73084 F20110410_AAAOWI morelli_c_Page_040.jpg
963b9125369b2c72bc30b23ee0d3ad78
9ec58cd31b07cdb5196a2e2a91ab0f5103487d18
F20110410_AAAPAZ morelli_c_Page_015.tif
3e6d5d5021c852341915778cd6d22efc
4727c3755714e5f1a8d4a68fba6e8df673fa7c1a
22233 F20110410_AAAOVT morelli_c_Page_012.jpg
6a03dba3c569007f06d4e38274d46078
d4ffbb9ad179907bc6d75e52d1197f4aa37c7180
F20110410_AAAPCC morelli_c_Page_077.tif
1ad2b88542abc96636c8fd3d90340cb6
a320e2d037196b9f621b0847186114d4a22e641b
F20110410_AAAPBP morelli_c_Page_045.tif
72d20d1aa5ab157b8871a0ec9c456de0
54947270be63fe5e8f3e634961f80e1cbe17529c
85501 F20110410_AAAOWJ morelli_c_Page_041.jpg
1c9d64a35fb83c4ff097e11fc1dc4535
1ca6d272dca911842f5dc43ea98da66379f1b822
66319 F20110410_AAAOVU morelli_c_Page_013.jpg
97c37f7453a7ee1a38a34a8fbb5df3b1
e49d118099bab450f03533a77e7c8ad52cbb83b8
F20110410_AAAPCD morelli_c_Page_086.tif
d6bff39ffe7068d89882aa010c0c4da7
65e3d3813b3cd0ebcb55e30bb53450a78e067b80
F20110410_AAAPBQ morelli_c_Page_046.tif
d40e839b9af272b7d0fed5c866d848f8
6e380bb368463c8ffa40210571e2609e1f24aea0
76635 F20110410_AAAOWK morelli_c_Page_043.jpg
c83737525ffd3fbc2864ff1be24a1fee
328b70b52e61ebf4251061a5503536f12cb2e5ab
58679 F20110410_AAAOVV morelli_c_Page_014.jpg
fe984c24295b96d2de59a24cc8ef11a5
edc7d57ff6c744a1f4702e4257963f6a9227608d
F20110410_AAAPCE morelli_c_Page_087.tif
aacd06388df0e7336fdef3520ce177fc
1a44a57ea6e7a31652e8952677615e4a7c29eb5e
F20110410_AAAPBR morelli_c_Page_052.tif
406557100f72fc166aa3719e6ca32b68
9e952e2f1d9701e921b96459d761516dd57efeb1
91459 F20110410_AAAOWL morelli_c_Page_044.jpg
0821c18220427a5fa60ee821b55aafbb
009602c5c0502f5e1ae35259328684c415aadc7d
83152 F20110410_AAAOVW morelli_c_Page_017.jpg
44c84577defc213964f8007f7d901491
d143ab8aaba95ae1fabbe8bdff000bfc44fd3a98
F20110410_AAAPCF morelli_c_Page_088.tif
a3555d923de634cc1f7b0ed18a603dec
87e733011f79500c21d63f89fcb65f89f9156348
12038 F20110410_AAAOXA morelli_c_Page_083.jpg
f79d342da92b78ac394b46c520baf3ca
c3e5d5c0cfc1e370572256c4249afac11c1c7909
F20110410_AAAPBS morelli_c_Page_061.tif
e7c2bc7636c732ecec80b3112259591c
9d3cad9297ac36f9e56a21be52e6aa6440aadc79
84395 F20110410_AAAOWM morelli_c_Page_049.jpg
66c2fa18e5d4d1fb2f26d44ad10d562b
e6e161b56207d8af91a55b9586dd02181c900ff5
82496 F20110410_AAAOVX morelli_c_Page_019.jpg
ac4767bafefcde6eef55005c3966bf08
14388614d7f9732595713d576cf1a21930b01e63
F20110410_AAAPCG morelli_c_Page_089.tif
a283e33a93352662c799b2173522a6c3
69ca16f05801db5683395476633acfec26a1f4aa
75301 F20110410_AAAOXB morelli_c_Page_084.jpg
f0d8f46ab1305805e5431694b30c6c71
2647c979b32ede8768fd2c566bf7a2e79d82b5d7
F20110410_AAAPBT morelli_c_Page_062.tif
7ad42dc24aad6067a5fd42aec452c07a
cae3f7059e9139db64b59a12461f71a2ba321638
81121 F20110410_AAAOWN morelli_c_Page_051.jpg
63db1f8be7b41b565a88fdeeabba5df9
ed6a3d647735dfd4c153895a885d32b58b8e01e6
77971 F20110410_AAAOVY morelli_c_Page_022.jpg
0b8ac03cd3c3958fea269e7e68e8dc63
dd7252d426316a01681ea93bf2b407d26d17fe8f
F20110410_AAAPCH morelli_c_Page_092.tif
6167bd4c0ac14b9a4a245686501f958d
85a2fbd9c2707ff25f555d5007f21f7d35328533
79844 F20110410_AAAOXC morelli_c_Page_088.jpg
8ef5fabd78d6696f22fc7b902aa4fc85
af5ca9f0ef7dc2f69226023b79243309520bc25b
F20110410_AAAPBU morelli_c_Page_065.tif
fffc4c62548b8caa93459a316fd7bf9d
fb8e588ea4c559aff95f6ea2a556b1d51baf203d
89775 F20110410_AAAOWO morelli_c_Page_056.jpg
058217af68193b7d53408ee11414d359
499d8f196ca43ced241b97b5e5c24854de4e424a
82144 F20110410_AAAOVZ morelli_c_Page_024.jpg
ed4695f2dd64fe9e8c2ad6995d1f2948
39c19cd43a662f437a36caf1ec6ffa3327ccc2d6
F20110410_AAAPCI morelli_c_Page_096.tif
e8efe0e0fabb19f0a487affeead62516
be9fc705045bf3df72074d4ef153f9c904ff7ba8
90391 F20110410_AAAOXD morelli_c_Page_089.jpg
78ef42aceb4e404dbadd4dd888030b9b
140e8e48b2608832eb3c6a178328693eade136c3
F20110410_AAAPBV morelli_c_Page_067.tif
9e9aefe9908ff3bb41f34a867105b049
2dfefbe32547c04fd7ca761c85b297680812d0a6
84881 F20110410_AAAOWP morelli_c_Page_060.jpg
5e3de1dcb0b4f3c93c176d2885b15322
f9ff93da393e8569c5369cbbe2cbe8fc212fc7d5
F20110410_AAAPCJ morelli_c_Page_098.tif
8f1016b46c292c25c6f593df845e256e
94bd61f6505b4076b247737e47965ee22de37398
74221 F20110410_AAAOXE morelli_c_Page_090.jpg
1787a48f9d35f9e2724bbfb60015910f
50ebc60d7dbc573639b8bc10d8ad8e0496a8bbf6
F20110410_AAAPBW morelli_c_Page_068.tif
12afbbd433fce6ff802af0ea0650943a
4b1c23a055e3c570d4cf55621a3f5c6cb111e139
F20110410_AAAPCK morelli_c_Page_099.tif
b891530702b59dcd6882120bcb56becd
6035e0a52c91dabf3f97e90810f057a8588f4abc
86985 F20110410_AAAOXF morelli_c_Page_092.jpg
24151a5fb53a24952f427a9b0a08ea84
a069cbeb2af456d0e99c839bc151eae5e4cef7e1
F20110410_AAAPBX morelli_c_Page_069.tif
51e45af256f84596b4ecb5357c9b9e6e
c465a8fb9e0c5203cbaf0669e120ea0a7f83b7fd
84624 F20110410_AAAOWQ morelli_c_Page_061.jpg
8f40fcf91f6ef416a2faed4fa8ad9078
f9784afa65d869f88d2be9e3ed580a09bc2f791c
F20110410_AAAPCL morelli_c_Page_101.tif
ca1a7d17ed4019aa54c3d975c05765c4
a1a4208f4d925865edaab2b3e9f94b8b4c9b8ad5
77824 F20110410_AAAOXG morelli_c_Page_095.jpg
563d9f340052b53286f656a57ac52b0a
d26561de1e343d1138c282f890fd453e8cb4e1ba
F20110410_AAAPBY morelli_c_Page_070.tif
3dabdd4bac7e307ac769bb817b68e162
f55c2bba2b72f7dc111cc139ee10d701b46e6f61
85718 F20110410_AAAOWR morelli_c_Page_064.jpg
43cab185e5e294e39ec411f8d605cf6a
a7b8f233d88eef58e6b801a2f6328d0fbab6ff20
F20110410_AAAPDA morelli_c_Page_132.tif
7d465f70fef1f6962829828cef4caa55
1ac45e8fed2b83fd1bf7f8a60e76465252a156ba
F20110410_AAAPCM morelli_c_Page_102.tif
766d3f027db042ff7535495bfc2634dc
b9e3f0db0ab1227c66e545458fb1872a87a6a014
52045 F20110410_AAAOXH morelli_c_Page_098.jpg
8dcbfcbae49af4b630ee574d9c09ece6
dc9601d46a165648276e78112c18cad07bd04ae7
F20110410_AAAPBZ morelli_c_Page_071.tif
f97e91e09b67dd6f754cc5d7d5767af8
e887d627246e8cd53ad6d35a4f1913aff34c2884
84604 F20110410_AAAOWS morelli_c_Page_070.jpg
a1c1eb5885881340fc56bd6a4ef4e984
68c436c5473f10e6108c6ecce383a22a3d7f3f99
F20110410_AAAPDB morelli_c_Page_134.tif
dbb4855675bb2b4887a8887c0e1cc5a2
4960aac23732e53a3bfd878f8edf9f3c9c44b314
F20110410_AAAPCN morelli_c_Page_106.tif
120e17d8ac8ccd62a99a795f16602cf5
eddbace1be43efe10725d525bf3edcfc9a718ab5
68356 F20110410_AAAOXI morelli_c_Page_099.jpg
a37b8a406a370f376af711a6ccf9bd37
0d7484b191165fb60e3f16e96bc6c54ac858aa7a
82434 F20110410_AAAOWT morelli_c_Page_071.jpg
d32402798565e7fdda1d06081bbba166
33dce6516fc58e94553f1bd481e3349db99096b9
125495 F20110410_AAAOAA morelli_c_Page_145.jp2
2874e97fb143c32cb7ce7f551f9b7821
c4594c1ba4df9253c901b58ae65a4e44098b4070
F20110410_AAAPDC morelli_c_Page_135.tif
e9a08cdbf7f410dc46b1dec521f828a3
21f66eb32a8aa8ae4de3d7767f0834946524356a
F20110410_AAAPCO morelli_c_Page_109.tif
c0f37d13249a5cd516c30a5f34fb14d2
03f2aa20091a28c228b356a667e9c62e37c6597d
84317 F20110410_AAAOXJ morelli_c_Page_100.jpg
07e39ed7ee3959575aca75b8fb2db365
e6e527b65e264c0bfffe35c1404c7b2fa18d0fea
85186 F20110410_AAAOWU morelli_c_Page_074.jpg
d0b6722998b29939c24bb392d29ae839
be49d021490eae84ff1b3e9b9c03b69896f1104b
101930 F20110410_AAAOAB morelli_c_Page_007.jp2
2899b2c2d208fe594ff4ce804d54745f
b39685ed22f373cd23ea3fe5f69943bb127583ad
F20110410_AAAPDD morelli_c_Page_136.tif
b341fdac3df2a04fcaaef0ffe6ecd87c
af893965cedd2e9afd5bb8d84d241cfef550560a
F20110410_AAAPCP morelli_c_Page_112.tif
c00b591f78dc224b58e9c00a4902b676
2df2905330d10aa4510ceae0d7280066f020e522
80112 F20110410_AAAOXK morelli_c_Page_101.jpg
bd8673b1fcead4fd0c87ae15358aa258
647854fa7037a5fcdd894e19d6a0e96b6da688b0
86397 F20110410_AAAOWV morelli_c_Page_075.jpg
cfd7dc8c2b79241725080b5d0836bcf5
89bac287eef24902339c09cecc8c2af9acad95be
46324 F20110410_AAAOAC morelli_c_Page_043.pro
ea0e4ace5381e096ab08242790b12d3d
d3b27a10cc53c50bd6c1e9ef1941afed9caa79d5
F20110410_AAAPDE morelli_c_Page_137.tif
d10bf13218892afc42ea8e3595019ec2
fe7da5292de20c7fe600d4688148bd022b042ed3
F20110410_AAAPCQ morelli_c_Page_113.tif
2598e944bb0a9a35ed78145ba3b95908
22921b9b52c5546c7c4acda471ab0e660a18d23e
58764 F20110410_AAAOXL morelli_c_Page_104.jpg
316f2ad326876c3399804d2316f485b0
f228f4e57684e09ec85f6aa44706f378cf11e7ea
79484 F20110410_AAAOWW morelli_c_Page_077.jpg
461e42e2e3592da23159d23d33354b6a
339db918cedac804501b5c9ed5b4eb32117a04d1
25439 F20110410_AAAOAD morelli_c_Page_037.QC.jpg
94486c145eb15f2077466a4c4bed6672
55c17042c0cb08800cf3dc8a894c56489da5d06b
F20110410_AAAPDF morelli_c_Page_138.tif
9b64266314d60c737e31d687052c8dda
076a51a7aa5bd6fc367763f03962303784156a0f
F20110410_AAAPCR morelli_c_Page_115.tif
eae4e8322160ea0c79828720a277636c
2ecc83d432a9d88765526e632e2d0cdfaa69ded0
80943 F20110410_AAAOWX morelli_c_Page_078.jpg
a37ddac55c63668ab89904ac99a0957d
66238d709527ac7efc878dd2424311be1497ee68
113436 F20110410_AAAOAE morelli_c_Page_114.jp2
902871741e570596f9c3ab5bd9fd263f
5464eeefbb98dc4caf63153a22c4632a1677874b
F20110410_AAAPDG morelli_c_Page_139.tif
c09a1825b9a74bd878e16296562a5044
4e916ae9bd62c0efdb77e47a685397a53a872f26
104646 F20110410_AAAOYA morelli_c_Page_137.jpg
f56ac2d722fe01909afedc58e12e3dfb
cb95d5f99740df045e349c4546d9c1e92ac0348b
F20110410_AAAPCS morelli_c_Page_116.tif
771974ade1c7b58aaab9a17534f7d820
e13129d7a9d22ddeebd38ebbc7f7dc8281a8f1f0
70092 F20110410_AAAOXM morelli_c_Page_105.jpg
0edc0129fd414736453f89c786742132
1860750060706e12938af0c3e3531b858976e557
84588 F20110410_AAAOWY morelli_c_Page_079.jpg
23d4d3378c22deb4ead729ddbe093720
cffe43bd57470614c5932604af648d0bf4a4d0a8
F20110410_AAAOAF morelli_c_Page_081.tif
db6011ac893ebf569a83ff06198445fe
6256b299ddd43562d4c3bc657334e25c63c5e1d8
F20110410_AAAPDH morelli_c_Page_141.tif
fa083ed3562406fdd817ba23133a58ed
a097449570fb72b548cca1fd32dc6cdb253d8df3
106319 F20110410_AAAOYB morelli_c_Page_139.jpg
1ba8a39adf519fc117e22b22764ee950
67494bc539419b34a2e83e70c2859ecc97302314
F20110410_AAAPCT morelli_c_Page_117.tif
51a5e2ba092732849831f988d94f3e91
88417a27c737ba0310c4c81bc29d47b4de4edc57
64626 F20110410_AAAOXN morelli_c_Page_108.jpg
971ae9973193c03fd23625f1a99be5d5
b931ffd7510540e2e1e1880c48e24afede4096b8
71758 F20110410_AAAOWZ morelli_c_Page_082.jpg
6e938205ed4796845cd758321799ac49
0ba8c781d80837be4ee4ed1b0dac0e903693ba67
F20110410_AAAOAG morelli_c_Page_041.tif
e0304037dcbec4301aaa37ddddfb03ce
6bfe49efc27e67e2cf7869b4433489cd51b82b1e
F20110410_AAAPDI morelli_c_Page_143.tif
2812c2b5696e09744be0b5cc87366676
6c17b056bd2cf8cc8802f25d0910d9a8d135d6a4
105740 F20110410_AAAOYC morelli_c_Page_142.jpg
095e72acbd6e7d447c5b005eea4acce9
1e3fd9bb922f7ec66d4c0e19ce54833ef3f9fb5c
F20110410_AAAPCU morelli_c_Page_119.tif
14c77e8f04805898c47c32bda20addb1
c4fbc9676aa98ac70bac7ca7ba5c53f31e6c68a6
80810 F20110410_AAAOXO morelli_c_Page_111.jpg
4b5d03cd94f7193f4a9e16823232c27f
b55084cd4d04e1777c7428c2a8c209be4665bacb
112352 F20110410_AAAOAH morelli_c_Page_113.jp2
5c36dc20de0245b30511f690e35414e3
220b1cc62c1fb6cd24411271c9c72a07e5ebabdf
F20110410_AAAPDJ morelli_c_Page_145.tif
a72ae7cc957d3bf14b236b8f5b437607
d27c26f175bfadb549a47d04606219b1f06e44bc
108930 F20110410_AAAOYD morelli_c_Page_147.jpg
298f66a474750bb8ba145abb47fcdd99
93db2e9b5daea909858824b0d6db2eef6170aa0f
F20110410_AAAPCV morelli_c_Page_120.tif
232d35dfe847747c089110e145d3fbad
d7cebca31027edb57df5231a12bdaca9c9219e14
85801 F20110410_AAAOXP morelli_c_Page_114.jpg
98b49b915c530207143ec55576d2440b
28149d92e50c1cf9b0ed95c285bd316ea5aff5c4
99393 F20110410_AAAOAI morelli_c_Page_103.jp2
f70b6e1edc96697bae774534290abe2d
60ffdc2d0199af67fece425d3a77bdfe6abf625b
F20110410_AAAPDK morelli_c_Page_148.tif
862cc40b3ebe2e8cafd98e58ab7699fe
755d95340d06be22e843c91e5f3faee27d942587
72472 F20110410_AAAOYE morelli_c_Page_148.jpg
6a2f8b769c8929c016364b4c5baaaced
414dd8288db6057410dd9e2aedf92361b2ece5fc
F20110410_AAAPCW morelli_c_Page_122.tif
3e8be4bba2d2b5284b20308c1ab126a6
b17ca9bcf87414e5210b445fb73e3732c84559da
F20110410_AAAOXQ morelli_c_Page_118.jpg
a9524658a0feffe9b64171c7bdeee064
022b4322ec407f9a6381f9ed39b29c7299f2ba86
5863 F20110410_AAAOAJ morelli_c_Page_095thm.jpg
42e80cc25a738791730a6c537cde49ed
006b39aee16c14ebea94f3f4edb175ba688ca9e5
8971 F20110410_AAAPDL morelli_c_Page_001.pro
3e2f75be779bd3f69b5a9d6637f056ad
8464b15e4c71abd3ee6381cce71083b943aabed6
25980 F20110410_AAAOYF morelli_c_Page_001.jp2
8fe4eaf5da204f703cdd00b1e7875d89
60863e6499bd5c2cf5c320b738e304acf8cd3989
F20110410_AAAPCX morelli_c_Page_126.tif
4443761489f34e78d929aa3fd5a13ee5
a465f3e6bcff51d60bcbbb43a450e78c9cca72bb
42251 F20110410_AAAPEA morelli_c_Page_040.pro
e0a34f504183f0c5dd8e2696afb3375c
6798f2b823703f21432111fde7ac7e48862e4b9f
36265 F20110410_AAAOAK morelli_c_Page_130.pro
7994a3f5d7c89fb5c47b56ca3ecf010c
9f98405f66df5bc71e993168e967e3aca5779e81
7948 F20110410_AAAPDM morelli_c_Page_003.pro
2a95441e34816586b225931f48e5ed08
e2b5d0a85b7ad8cc59e38848d0fa4446664b3ce6
1051969 F20110410_AAAOYG morelli_c_Page_009.jp2
3b4d1ef31adabc069dcc8a29e5169fc7
a31c349c5232f5ab54e4c12c6adb5a424769dce2
F20110410_AAAPCY morelli_c_Page_127.tif
b6ccdbec63adad4e5653185056216ce5
0dfbc7d5e60f4b1431bb48ea850e63f4d7aa0e6e
87648 F20110410_AAAOXR morelli_c_Page_119.jpg
0ad556b6cfcb1b083017edb0a5c5ae37
c7898c9f85fa2924e674837b5ddd70ff4375ffee
47463 F20110410_AAAPEB morelli_c_Page_042.pro
034ad6ab3eb2fff890fe223fde448c7f
454efad2c99493f6c83fd3523da0004494343712
47469 F20110410_AAAPDN morelli_c_Page_007.pro
e0a4a731cb7e368e4ee9f023d72ea555
ac7c3659f4f6fc87dd582b233c73cf08d870819c
110983 F20110410_AAAOAL morelli_c_Page_074.jp2
90c3e6b941d5de130c66368090183a17
90eb04f2383947d731173b8bc7195fd638866d7b
1051977 F20110410_AAAOYH morelli_c_Page_011.jp2
3a6ecf4bedc17d95e653f46799fe5ddb
a99165a482c3690825c006e8f206b7333323dadf
F20110410_AAAPCZ morelli_c_Page_128.tif
658dcb6bca9343cb0ac120276f4607a8
da20960eaabf40a055551d530d7f38ce83dc2785
83580 F20110410_AAAOXS morelli_c_Page_122.jpg
6fd2f3950664608ac915487d665abeb6
30f2e06443a58c53b05cb58fb0963239ece10718
49847 F20110410_AAAPEC morelli_c_Page_046.pro
fe897d793f437af9657e147b4ba2be7c
61abc224583942e5b1bfa39be87b52efcf2aa432
9609 F20110410_AAAPDO morelli_c_Page_012.pro
7a37f5dd6528f5608681cedda67b8a2f
3992a551f7877b5d1e26aff65271c3b86dd80c52
106615 F20110410_AAAOAM morelli_c_Page_076.jp2
efdc703edc9dfd3f4741846fd7ca8f7e
bbaae8148754f05777b76837e9d2a5e11b6116b2
84370 F20110410_AAAOYI morelli_c_Page_013.jp2
f60bb7e512bb055be18f6d38d8ef0e8b
b13dfeb5c8ed585d19703cd813f6ccbea5e66b23
84424 F20110410_AAAOXT morelli_c_Page_123.jpg
b0e4387a7c7bc85b0d4d36451f516af8
beb6584fb4d34e01366331cf52eeca717f1e8a94
20033 F20110410_AAAOBA morelli_c_Page_010.QC.jpg
d0b6667740b86f89798d6bcf5e1310c7
9ec7d62edab9bb743c8ef8a845ee9c7b692ee79a
50043 F20110410_AAAPED morelli_c_Page_047.pro
e5d62997e8fd1a32584ddc2b105592c0
b33fd470bed4c95f33310ab3d46ff61aebf314ce
45811 F20110410_AAAPDP morelli_c_Page_015.pro
2cbb54fef3841ba2c2b53593b267afaa
934da6ead557fdbcf318a479895a3e348be346f0
97591 F20110410_AAAOAN morelli_c_Page_126.jpg
640d51e3915e94ae4a288b66daa4236b
66fe2f42b36e9d6523b9b877c378f2394c1deb45
108312 F20110410_AAAOYJ morelli_c_Page_016.jp2
8383582e2e831f7eb64d22043889f25a
a9fe99d07ccc8d604757fa6a864e00694884c813
8650 F20110410_AAAOXU morelli_c_Page_124.jpg
38eabcc7238aac019274cef42ab2e423
294eba8b16d3bfb2db4c93ddcbb8e713b50da5fd
2100 F20110410_AAAOBB morelli_c_Page_119.txt
353f8e5bc107c5c81b0c6cd009fafe7b
a07d62ceaad07c58079cf2f91b2396bf159d67bb
52926 F20110410_AAAPEE morelli_c_Page_048.pro
2148af2a0eeca0e46fac8b3f168451c2
f700232294c6fce3825beaadf7f2240a734bb468
48104 F20110410_AAAPDQ morelli_c_Page_016.pro
e24a53ab886acc18dfa03bc83d86bae8
113a4f35830973f53adb78ce4337005b7941fad5
126560 F20110410_AAAOAO morelli_c_Page_143.jp2
d09511ce58fa9bec57fe68b6e55d5cc3
55c454a71e324908574c411cc67213b0e4c94a81
111777 F20110410_AAAOYK morelli_c_Page_018.jp2
39504783924bece4fbe0b4c1360ee594
af1b0981db26176177511feb5285cea862db922d
90692 F20110410_AAAOXV morelli_c_Page_125.jpg
4b91fc64d0c6e17352873637928cc7de
6bd63a5fd3f5f9851ef83d241b106ab811ff400b
26415 F20110410_AAAOBC morelli_c_Page_113.QC.jpg
bade7ade157477bf0c8e9084f91852b0
3d32a8944e2eeb86eba6bf4c3893cdfc3a075cc5
48587 F20110410_AAAPEF morelli_c_Page_050.pro
5532c811c06fdeda3090d1e23e2cc99a
47613519b69a940e0191df4efd4d47e4d40fa182
50308 F20110410_AAAPDR morelli_c_Page_017.pro
f1b74cc25f652348fee98962b236c194
8bf118690e8be9d2ecb6c3813d2812c910de24a5
2112 F20110410_AAAOAP morelli_c_Page_057.txt
fafc8f2666afe79b76b38f48e962838a
a1f0649244c7d13c33b956c9d2fd91d716f96cbc
108176 F20110410_AAAOYL morelli_c_Page_019.jp2
9421ad7300510725061f011c89c0953b
c3cc09c9fe3ff024d941ffb1b583a48d21df7d07
35630 F20110410_AAAOXW morelli_c_Page_129.jpg
54d2cad6110874cd6918709435796514
16ad8a60648bdd33cb51b4910772b12fc50d5759
1856 F20110410_AAAOBD morelli_c_Page_084.txt
d9ae664354a6220053f53f27e9c215e4
ce1be9f3e0f864e6e955b488e4ea54af1271d11a
53621 F20110410_AAAPEG morelli_c_Page_056.pro
77562690483ce611e475dd2963ff72a1
92675cf5f1be6a051c76c527a31cdd8c3f8a372c
48499 F20110410_AAAPDS morelli_c_Page_019.pro
da0541a125189a0d66b23530415a1caf
c0ccdd3ef4c0e77b673984955b9eb8878aae677a
F20110410_AAAOAQ morelli_c_Page_078.tif
aaa74a3bf1ec213c0795989ba2466315
00f9f0d6bed220dc8d16f8e98cd84c895f9c3f65
111549 F20110410_AAAOZA morelli_c_Page_047.jp2
15f90a4a95c77be03d869dc8b6eb9b9d
3227aced4dbbb2a35e5b61706f1d9fa6180ac362
110489 F20110410_AAAOYM morelli_c_Page_020.jp2
6e2d8a82287b722da61f7695558d9a51
6b08b49bb8785768469ca7ae0ace7731c58a0c5e
81983 F20110410_AAAOXX morelli_c_Page_130.jpg
56e56e6259cc06eb167954b4804fc43c
ade512c960708a273f068b877560a7ada0455445
1826 F20110410_AAAOBE morelli_c_Page_103.txt
5a82acb098359b1a556f4c832a88ef76
4283210917a50aa3cee6f8e2c12e92142f797701
53326 F20110410_AAAPEH morelli_c_Page_057.pro
a93396fd040ba521ca2935579a550208
2a6d4bc432caf095b4bd6e235b3f8ed74728df13
52765 F20110410_AAAPDT morelli_c_Page_023.pro
bef025c318d65d92b9533f3c4d91150c
83fe26a5088f555e9b8ec24e14ab3e846687e677
45856 F20110410_AAAOAR morelli_c_Page_004.pro
7f870690703a69c9e80dc8500bafd523
e3aaa0dec5c8496dd1911a00727dc1006af6cdda
114833 F20110410_AAAOZB morelli_c_Page_057.jp2
083d458144a309be0553331575083857
88376e88f086eef6335de38002b88230691a6fa1
99352 F20110410_AAAOYN morelli_c_Page_022.jp2
85e7fa7b13fca191c493615879eff39f
c1b27c159e2a24755c973c348db1dab856de2627
91945 F20110410_AAAOXY morelli_c_Page_135.jpg
7b59fc4a0b7f4dbb87e0908e04c7cb4b
a44385e364929729f7d13371ed3887dbf38cc5f3
26780 F20110410_AAAOBF morelli_c_Page_059.QC.jpg
7df999250e0f120da14f806d80d21687
95863f3f1c2bbec74504f5616810f193931c22d9
52510 F20110410_AAAPEI morelli_c_Page_059.pro
248610f42f7695114017cc992a4effd2
d7e62c6cbc16b67023a1b1291eba9bfe1d7d908d
53252 F20110410_AAAPDU morelli_c_Page_028.pro
c5659396fe98fff911b59e0d15d1e0b2
8a718982b341bb64a6d5aceb7b6e1dab23fcb33b
78941 F20110410_AAAOAS morelli_c_Page_042.jpg
e9b0cf53043f5206d42e9dab54a5945e
6c90e84a58543a0aeb14796fed9345e6dded8934
112053 F20110410_AAAOZC morelli_c_Page_060.jp2
65a0435d183484545cbf96d686c814e6
9e85add54e32c3e87f9e9d51ac985eeedde8fc18
107721 F20110410_AAAOYO morelli_c_Page_024.jp2
d1a1b0f26974248267fd248a0c1354d0
502f1dedf5489fa8b5a7afcdbbf520f2d4e9422f
100712 F20110410_AAAOXZ morelli_c_Page_136.jpg
97c088181115fd50ede6cfb741e0246b
0b847129672a059bd31d5d1f02a3edfa4ef44b80
F20110410_AAAOBG morelli_c_Page_131.tif
bd049c1f13d8c7a6e07f2736ea7ae924
63386adb2c807c25d51c35e5d18771c117210d39
51811 F20110410_AAAPEJ morelli_c_Page_060.pro
04a1ceb62b3c058bce13da2ef6808b8b
40b443462ea22fc5ab663220610848a6b2da42ab
51992 F20110410_AAAPDV morelli_c_Page_029.pro
dfa20784bc5119ee406138b0a32f4b0b
e541638c2ba74ade30d2d63ca89e34ca149edd5b
F20110410_AAAOAT morelli_c_Page_103.tif
1bffd7dc1c8f2046e9f6b14f30b66814
fc8e4ca1e212c4bf207da96d2658af032af339d4
111340 F20110410_AAAOZD morelli_c_Page_061.jp2
fa0532b96357f97bc4bc5296c95ebd2a
853665d73042e620faaaca10c1adafbb805fbf70
108848 F20110410_AAAOYP morelli_c_Page_026.jp2
ef0172710146f958a03fd4c453fa8963
0b5e4e09e8a7d5d0d77fd9faecbf7b9df24c3712
6530 F20110410_AAAOBH morelli_c_Page_054thm.jpg
fd2fce98060d51d775596953d201b993
19261d62c865347804857b4d6da37d5dcb3ce0be
51637 F20110410_AAAPEK morelli_c_Page_062.pro
0f9b4ac995e8b391c744604a6966c3e2
593bef84af3edc8529c8e911bb30f705d3d748f1
52262 F20110410_AAAPDW morelli_c_Page_031.pro
af13770e47f010a08afc23af85c3ea6e
10edb544337c053837629117379e1dbb20fc9ae9
6380 F20110410_AAAOAU morelli_c_Page_091thm.jpg
01e4ae1d4fa285d24021b703bebc586b
5e3aaa0e32a993253ec035e90f5dd527a6967cc0
115290 F20110410_AAAOZE morelli_c_Page_063.jp2
0c0eedbe56c549867c0647deea2ff6aa
debcb05ff97a14cb4ee7f1b12365b5ed32ad71c5
114999 F20110410_AAAOYQ morelli_c_Page_028.jp2
6f9b9683e860cdc42eed2f07bb6a7e00
ba212ec55f3ffc4599b948d40af576e843bcdb3c
2022 F20110410_AAAOBI morelli_c_Page_074.txt
f22e4d05fb7f7bc58fc576ecdc011cac
abfc4bc34e4a5652ebfa80bc086a08f2aad06f3a
51934 F20110410_AAAPEL morelli_c_Page_065.pro
8f52f4b074897385714084345d8deb1b
234287dc8d517b34ad160a9898c4a237001f762d
49311 F20110410_AAAPDX morelli_c_Page_033.pro
535f3a8ba5bd94c32ec509e251aa3733
59a93084b532101bdc803e978471b21e90f1cffc
F20110410_AAAOAV morelli_c_Page_094.tif
6968c66a78c0b6f8384725e09aaf6e18
d98e0845d49be50fc2718db94ad5b71dab3f5cd3
111423 F20110410_AAAOZF morelli_c_Page_065.jp2
12fc6f996f52230004c23130a0d58df8
a8c8031ec9d860e53ea43292e27e34580cfc2850
110246 F20110410_AAAOYR morelli_c_Page_030.jp2
801d9872ff845f37f96866d160115012
23175c1e920a362ba007cf1a95f70a7fddbebec3
F20110410_AAAOBJ morelli_c_Page_085.tif
1ba198d6ecd257d1e3e7e2efa3f8c16a
bcb4b3c1d3f28c6790e1cb5152dfbf0a2a3071e1
54618 F20110410_AAAPFA morelli_c_Page_089.pro
04b8553f03db3739ebc308f02fff2d25
bbc6c6bbf0cbd0abde955bd33f25253720d8f828
50748 F20110410_AAAPEM morelli_c_Page_066.pro
670b1cd94c5c0adc7076f6cf13b46f2f
881e26bfff457ef3aa6a21f1a8d0beeb7368f673
51929 F20110410_AAAPDY morelli_c_Page_035.pro
96fb70f2a1437f6ced93bff70c3099f4
99eba15a5a5e384b2c80d57c72e833f68ff91e55
6062 F20110410_AAAOAW morelli_c_Page_006thm.jpg
63010298faeb48b4ce3d0ddf0f8d4829
a60bfa8741ce53da8ba49856ea31da06407ec4f6
111652 F20110410_AAAOZG morelli_c_Page_066.jp2
3dfda6cab88795fe544f9466a6130144
cb419bd630a833d2eb0aecf5c4124eab30f44a60
24170 F20110410_AAAOBK morelli_c_Page_103.QC.jpg
bad194dfb19d5dd475632acc95ef62cd
9c161ff75d79bbdcd4de098900334aa10efab11a
53445 F20110410_AAAPFB morelli_c_Page_092.pro
30b78201fa8806b53c5812989f9f2af8
2233d26ece759bc210b7e7ad3666df55a9c5cc1e
52889 F20110410_AAAPEN morelli_c_Page_067.pro
51ed4091228cf0db88db75a496310637
a37ec7d8c93830859e61b7d9011c99876f207292
49697 F20110410_AAAPDZ morelli_c_Page_036.pro
c181d1544ecd638a62d6962451f8699e
0c31fb82461667eca2d5dbc7645d88e42443f9d6
6188 F20110410_AAAOAX morelli_c_Page_026thm.jpg
274b53434bd2ae7bc88372419061eee3
45d2a3f32dd11c5dc42fe82f4ef6bda11915d071
110586 F20110410_AAAOZH morelli_c_Page_068.jp2
ccfc38259a4f8eec9e429a4840894ba9
5b52f50810f8f24076065553a93754d4a38d9afc
107975 F20110410_AAAOYS morelli_c_Page_033.jp2
511f5717284c9fc3070f6438984a9c3c
c52ca62b277dbaeb88bc5acdb2172de28f251cd2
F20110410_AAAOBL morelli_c_Page_069thm.jpg
f2cda0767307486e5f2c6760e3e6a436
1a99361b16649ba8aa0bf148bd4277264495c995
44825 F20110410_AAAPFC morelli_c_Page_097.pro
3726b2dc115ff89d05264b195b06cc34
cbaccd0407a58c58422b86534d60f7a5934691bd
51225 F20110410_AAAPEO morelli_c_Page_068.pro
77fcc861c10a8fa9ed5c1079565f641b
40e8c90dff0af5bb0f88d805a4469d3f60f806d7
63192 F20110410_AAAOAY morelli_c_Page_131.jpg
0e67a7c4b0d18c2f506a2f1770c8df1b
1a37cfc15ff6c3a8264fc7e3f43fb9a1f0dae2cf
108071 F20110410_AAAOZI morelli_c_Page_069.jp2
3213ed855b2d475c4dd527acfb734db9
3ea35d49ab7c7a88a030cd75488972ecde40e996
110815 F20110410_AAAOYT morelli_c_Page_035.jp2
a00a1b3db20119cb1d5ea80c93f173e9
25cf35a34141d7bc14cd8b93781281d35554bf57
1883 F20110410_AAAOCA morelli_c_Page_007.txt
3c954ad2845344be38c5fe28303ce98a
c5d58c649eb4419c7892a9bdc189dbbda160ee33
27452 F20110410_AAAOBM morelli_c_Page_032.QC.jpg
e851b5aeb5122aca412328e8e9182bb5
c6eb2d6341f07def76cda0ca7261380ddd1a64bd
29040 F20110410_AAAPFD morelli_c_Page_098.pro
3fcf1a1636a3472c9d89c808d355cbba
b06523893980a7dd497eb641430433cc33fb8aa1
52107 F20110410_AAAPEP morelli_c_Page_070.pro
fcc8e3b410d798561301cdbca60e4541
8f2a5b0660e26ccc838254071e179f77311c1d03
86037 F20110410_AAAOAZ morelli_c_Page_059.jpg
8d1a1eef38b29d0b53ef83db19fbb5ac
d1be5c1b7efb8fd7c7764006ab8ed5e81c61b299
111212 F20110410_AAAOZJ morelli_c_Page_073.jp2
18cad6dd8f91999d659523bf23501797
3b823067a386062cbbc3c732788ebb3e97cd5533
107014 F20110410_AAAOYU morelli_c_Page_036.jp2
078817eaba0eff8e1ffdecdf80fda93f
fc87c4cd81faeec9a180338de2f7497df2fe59c0
27627 F20110410_AAAOCB morelli_c_Page_092.QC.jpg
c016d1b41532f3cef4baadda9e2b73e3
fb5b6bd6a935ab0a8ef55af2d5d49349721e361b
1828 F20110410_AAAOBN morelli_c_Page_022.txt
eca863a33e9ac5c71bb11933ff76c3b8
81a967055c8d7c4e0c2fe816e9a93fa0b485bdd8
50991 F20110410_AAAPFE morelli_c_Page_100.pro
c856f256f24baed693f6e4ee794e1a28
df4e9feb25dbcd4e80f47c7911daea10a9b8afb4
50035 F20110410_AAAPEQ morelli_c_Page_071.pro
94637df6b6a2af388273ca03bfb75373
9ad8f02ef29df8c21c57590744093f487f9836d3
94783 F20110410_AAAOZK morelli_c_Page_081.jp2
df25348a11fac1fcfdc280e822131caa
8721018810b5a83bfd83e63cb20f5d1f5f01a23c
107419 F20110410_AAAOYV morelli_c_Page_037.jp2
c30fd4b7450359570bab3cefab20afb0
643872d19ab88fb5322f426174520c0ecd330d02
1668 F20110410_AAAOCC morelli_c_Page_086.txt
bc04c8cd35219f53000ff290c6e76b51
c4eb67fde4766b4e5665158671352af63de9bbea
23597 F20110410_AAAOBO morelli_c_Page_084.QC.jpg
cf50c67c78100fe35584b2fe1361c750
d7d1101d5dace5afde190164a7790206a6e96a8d
33857 F20110410_AAAPFF morelli_c_Page_104.pro
ea32fdd0cbc6935123efc68d59ea13b6
69bbd47fa1b21909cb2a4023104547565b992b76
52799 F20110410_AAAPER morelli_c_Page_072.pro
54a5fbaba352b21d85bf35392982492d
19b2ac8ce3c0b29061d4faaea1ba467b6f14e814
93361 F20110410_AAAOZL morelli_c_Page_082.jp2
5a7d373ba568a9661f395443580426fe
6f2fd80be0ff82799f8409807d9894f17240dae3
112695 F20110410_AAAOYW morelli_c_Page_038.jp2
8880678321fbc25a2d665a4441b42c31
bf0775fee03bc4593c2f342728014a864f65bde0
5123 F20110410_AAAOCD morelli_c_Page_039.pro
c3e555986ddc7ec3ed03334b69d5a759
cf50ac62094ffdf93b88eaf496460b33ab59fcf8
49985 F20110410_AAAOBP morelli_c_Page_069.pro
aa45e239de76a91fb60f5e11e64ad7a7
357a9279ee45175ace0d6f01a29f47235a41afaa
51592 F20110410_AAAPFG morelli_c_Page_106.pro
211c981972454fd79efaccd431048eca
311b989c8eb5fe7fb9c936640c0edfaa5b655d06
51924 F20110410_AAAPES morelli_c_Page_075.pro
e6cf131ba16758f5a8a77de93b0cac82
2f16552949bbfbd631c88141d4e18706f796d03f
15380 F20110410_AAAOZM morelli_c_Page_083.jp2
e13deb08a2b3993a7b5aa3905fd95136
f4d46445d92506be12cbdb3ec0a5fa24233246a0
102460 F20110410_AAAOYX morelli_c_Page_043.jp2
9023e37fd2e49187efb476de53feba8d
b0e12a94f5571e460aaaf2f5b53aa668286aa5e1
26416 F20110410_AAAOCE morelli_c_Page_061.QC.jpg
a7079583f163f0930dd88189b6cd606b
fecf58ce8ea8aacc474d5d67dc982e463e1f359e
F20110410_AAAOBQ morelli_c_Page_097.tif
43466e6e48d68f42e0e6db64c17cfd20
181a8492da28325eedaa20affa7f9d47f43a6a2f
34270 F20110410_AAAPFH morelli_c_Page_108.pro
29d2b44684124215a35de9da0fe3d185
0a46d741eddc87dbe613b1a08650de947d3c4136
49565 F20110410_AAAPET morelli_c_Page_076.pro
c7eab7f2e823631477bf77543362a16e
0194b862d6694e9a66eda207e4505af8f65dd741
87058 F20110410_AAAOZN morelli_c_Page_086.jp2
c096c34abb8a1d396bac1de84508e3ae
6fd3ed6c4c064a59f8848ffe33627fec7f770cfc
108750 F20110410_AAAOYY morelli_c_Page_045.jp2
393919531608ce7dac91998dfa69fe67
4ab64174dd37cccf0a6a6413e297c06c8d96580f
77891 F20110410_AAAOCF morelli_c_Page_015.jpg
008e7805c09e618a7e0157f8dba93e0e
fa93e1410318e67d8a7696b479c1ae13cf3ae223
6779 F20110410_AAAOBR morelli_c_Page_147thm.jpg
cc5cf4d3d99ca28849a8306ec619d51c
a91477546c75bc1ba8aec77821639ef07c8a000d
22494 F20110410_AAAPFI morelli_c_Page_109.pro
f3e597acbc821837d9a3635bdb6ae8cb
bc228a95ffc151ac57b5835c3c38a96b684c8bd1
50100 F20110410_AAAPEU morelli_c_Page_079.pro
8258944c48f72294c8f306c17a3c6dbb
a368aa8b5d177acf27cb6901cf0ec5c7b7fb44ff
108106 F20110410_AAAOZO morelli_c_Page_087.jp2
1cccf43d76a9180fb6247212282996af
f55a71830d77ba0f38fc6019b3a5ecb956a5201a
108970 F20110410_AAAOYZ morelli_c_Page_046.jp2
5f6c326f4cb8c54f4a5912649145e686
9676847d2260502eb43ec5961bcb2acf1bee994c
473 F20110410_AAAOCG morelli_c_Page_133.txt
9a90feeef0177ff7c1ce9f626adf4f12
61d33402c5d8819027f926dab5d3447284684aab
26601 F20110410_AAAOBS morelli_c_Page_031.QC.jpg
015379212da63a8e63dab9d53f37c8cd
104a4e1f499230dfbb2ae2adbb253616c4ef27ab
45334 F20110410_AAAPFJ morelli_c_Page_110.pro
43f507a071ab0786f0f08c3f205ac044
10110300979ac9d9f6f3e1a7bfe22404573ef6e8
51285 F20110410_AAAPEV morelli_c_Page_080.pro
a91aa8003c40130b5a0b8cb8dfe2228b
62c51734cb2d0ec4e677de720ba2c8f3240b781e
104155 F20110410_AAAOZP morelli_c_Page_088.jp2
0b0399d5929b978c0cfce2a3c883c787
66abb493554ff0cdf9e849a7aa799ac26c268a9f
6539 F20110410_AAAOCH morelli_c_Page_048thm.jpg
9d8136b80b75ad67eff558c9ecbe98ed
6ef2b002bd8454e5f5bd6ede315347e90d69168d
52821 F20110410_AAAOBT morelli_c_Page_032.pro
a251522f06bda826a355614e53a90a61
01ec05c85483158eca77bbf4e7fa8f4bf07d12d3
49792 F20110410_AAAPFK morelli_c_Page_111.pro
f462fb1bd9128002e09c5e9a4543291a
30dd9943af0c6c4ff822bfc1eb8af8446dd61ca0
42899 F20110410_AAAPEW morelli_c_Page_081.pro
e7d4ae23ac52eefa598143089e33630f
2bb532e953f69d025a279189eafc926b316701a8
95451 F20110410_AAAOZQ morelli_c_Page_090.jp2
90b3cdc9367db326464e61c5bdfa42d5
37c57bee000a4305b0b85d67613bd21c1db76ca7
1194 F20110410_AAAOCI morelli_c_Page_098.txt
67634ef4d623f7e78626caf73791ee5e
afb4e6a2a17b9d4601874b6031c00f0f86a4449c
1421 F20110410_AAAOBU morelli_c_Page_104.txt
8102df75029bc6294bfbc5229c0e56ce
cb72a3876ddb995a569fbfa920ee1c79532a7fb6
52142 F20110410_AAAPFL morelli_c_Page_113.pro
e4c6edd547440174473498d8af01fc2a
41d210644e4f3ed2510183105fccf6b9f0968de5
42305 F20110410_AAAPEX morelli_c_Page_082.pro
d35a45c070626a0323adff566a028c36
30d93c2680e8839baa3d059d38dc1713ef00634a
111232 F20110410_AAAOZR morelli_c_Page_092.jp2
5b33e2c4357abb87fb4b2bda2981cdd5
6f76508adc0e35ab61c4258efec018f9f7d31306
2015 F20110410_AAAOCJ morelli_c_Page_080.txt
5494476458baa6edd2c93d0ef70316a2
e25f2eafaae488a21a1a78a630f3a030eae6c43f
82605 F20110410_AAAOBV morelli_c_Page_117.jpg
0c5b02a9b0a260caed0e36dae8a786c7
18c86fec5e49c9d009e655f8a9fe71c5e31e9e06
25997 F20110410_AAAPGA morelli_c_Page_149.pro
10702a391bd0448c6a9c9389dc0dc437
f069f535206569455c594488ad5db2f9d3620489
52148 F20110410_AAAPFM morelli_c_Page_114.pro
88992946ae7f6857019bd007ac9301a7
1f0d556da938e59b116f97b00c458ccd7760f4e5
45177 F20110410_AAAPEY morelli_c_Page_084.pro
957a47f83431757443d54de219a5cc54
563e7773c0bc70f1059962c2a533b267dbe320b1
105014 F20110410_AAAOZS morelli_c_Page_095.jp2
8c8e608257a4f28b73575550270d0ce0
331c6d178adefc8b9f7e164349bd50f0e5397e48
F20110410_AAAOCK morelli_c_Page_011.txt
bad84c93d50d08e010e02fe6d41a3489
bc7fcf3c7096373d5542c57d10e98e950d17890f
52568 F20110410_AAAOBW morelli_c_Page_025.pro
6ebe3b7cfaac98d18a4d4316bbe6dd9c
b2fd08da381f0e66520c67948efe301ca224f093
484 F20110410_AAAPGB morelli_c_Page_001.txt
37f5cc316d08d93db4977d41ebaa1c5e
582a0ce7a64f85bf9462446de948ca7b7750c5a7
49603 F20110410_AAAPFN morelli_c_Page_115.pro
4cc7f4fd0e777b8324d010f43c2caae2
20698af687a09fbf2dc4117bf4f66aee8c3a2d25
48138 F20110410_AAAPEZ morelli_c_Page_088.pro
f14619fa9e769dd9b3ce16bca9f782df
03d9e95202ead8082350a71134b1d5a2ae5fb73e
51581 F20110410_AAAOCL morelli_c_Page_053.pro
a0d93eb5a5e7f5aa418f7765af5e0ced
039500054059bcf2734936e9fac722cb26278769
F20110410_AAAOBX morelli_c_Page_140.tif
e60a8ed09833d67f9291efa47b903744
37b55fb7bd24c27a6f259858f86478b9bfa76d7d
114 F20110410_AAAPGC morelli_c_Page_002.txt
3c96613394bb3f7181187a0a582d6f43
379caf3a3b24a0c00301706a230f66145eeaaab5
53407 F20110410_AAAPFO morelli_c_Page_119.pro
62ab0bf41ec80f0cf6765a8832e3f83b
19bcc753d3d760d24b43a23d9f4bf57b00f65920
98488 F20110410_AAAOZT morelli_c_Page_097.jp2
50474b435c82cc9fc7e7deb3c4f9e353
451b52c1b071f8ed801d971bcd4723e520bc3bc2
F20110410_AAAODA morelli_c_Page_034.tif
2e8e63f0ef15a7260899357e74efd23f
541c37773989cb967586fc17b555f4ae5aca793f
77435 F20110410_AAAOCM morelli_c_Page_004.jpg
84dee5203c9a634aecaab57da7ccfc01
e4e8e57124271db0c9fad4343c18585dc6106f30
25580 F20110410_AAAOBY morelli_c_Page_036.QC.jpg
ebdfa5429705555da9fac366542ebb98
36ecf057cc981ed3da8b0c6fec1babf34b14f40a
387 F20110410_AAAPGD morelli_c_Page_003.txt
71af987b011f58eebe9ab78e1eb60330
0ef01e315a8a6344010edbd6cb8bbf42558189e2
50999 F20110410_AAAPFP morelli_c_Page_122.pro
9182adecb13ceb26f026387cc5d14365
850ee406293de6db947663e64497382a9cbeabb9
108542 F20110410_AAAOZU morelli_c_Page_100.jp2
e97c3dcfbf61c8e05cafc59a2539ba6f
ea6f6c229875e6b89c722a4d92e713b706db0d45
F20110410_AAAODB morelli_c_Page_107.tif
e46c6372858acb04bb465f97d8825e7b
cba77602bc284a64ddcb521eb8cc857de9d9ee59
14895 F20110410_AAAOCN morelli_c_Page_039.jp2
2374cc925b0c31dbb16fef6a20fb5064
21c0dde475fd2ab9cdb75e6d4dd3e487e0c242d8
F20110410_AAAOBZ morelli_c_Page_142.tif
010e00b2e14879a4ecfd126b6760972c
9e38316d1dc14f93e13fdd946a183c1ae022d215
1843 F20110410_AAAPGE morelli_c_Page_004.txt
ef80071d96b0c88a168a725d73f5dff8
615d730497fc277595fbb5c7e675a7b875935d13
F20110410_AAAPFQ morelli_c_Page_123.pro
0a932df26d397e51f132de7204cd8c34
432b9ddd6614ccd36c5c1424a8efc5c3ee3e431e
102440 F20110410_AAAOZV morelli_c_Page_101.jp2
1bde83ead88292429c6892ce4799dd94
eb510646d2236360a3168831219b398e9af5cf14
2049 F20110410_AAAODC morelli_c_Page_031.txt
1a7042df8a7675b23f1d8f8518c5f835
9401fa8416dba0063df504dee625745b99c7f4ab
2411 F20110410_AAAOCO morelli_c_Page_143.txt
99e95364dbaa95d129ff6af43133fed6
d2f21553ae6a7e674c94813c50ac80684bcfd11b
1984 F20110410_AAAPGF morelli_c_Page_005.txt
fc0beb3de614bef2f1983642aac8c98f
0ebe7558a87972cfa0085620398a255bfb32aa18
49634 F20110410_AAAPFR morelli_c_Page_126.pro
6a77f731a77c9f269fe32c5dc197661a
46589cafbea36eb01447908c3500f280967e664e
111074 F20110410_AAAOZW morelli_c_Page_102.jp2
6bc226b2957bddd43e8f3b289001376c
abc32ddd936f00255afe28dfe9142400c5897f0c
23539 F20110410_AAAODD morelli_c_Page_097.QC.jpg
843e097a3115bd2287ba537dda033147
1a02077500f33535cc78b40347c33e1f2e8d760a
27065 F20110410_AAAOCP morelli_c_Page_140.QC.jpg
bb415d84dc3bd23b7f047e163216118f
1ccf2adbe66ee637a813b951dcf7aa37b2846ca6
1886 F20110410_AAAPGG morelli_c_Page_006.txt
73d1f77c4ed79eda860786ac352cfc3f
18ed451ce407a87039257262e53a8a60ec536ef3
1782 F20110410_AAAPFS morelli_c_Page_127.pro
0505573009d62746f06d7d24eb931ae8
700ba09c010a3c277d6d6d1d5f189534ab9cf6b8
733115 F20110410_AAAOZX morelli_c_Page_104.jp2
0a5af548f082995a8fbd3c4c675dc2c1
0501f62856b77e6dbb303937137f06423c1304d4
6611 F20110410_AAAODE morelli_c_Page_138thm.jpg
c38a4402157e05840c32f11a047fc9bd
420957566846be64e7cd54a902d7301fea8b1a20
1970 F20110410_AAAOCQ morelli_c_Page_069.txt
26628596645900ef30cd156114cc1e41
1ba4c32a8f2a1771cfbb2bc5d7c9702d8e0472a2
391 F20110410_AAAPGH morelli_c_Page_008.txt
ba61828bbb31521e07e083132ae465ae
32c9134875ae98563937df8a1c8132f3ec5aabf2
26789 F20110410_AAAPFT morelli_c_Page_128.pro
583be9f7ee6d4247caecd1bc3cb719ff
3a4f4226adfd9b105bb83b8428b8b23e9b1ec7aa
863449 F20110410_AAAOZY morelli_c_Page_105.jp2
bdabc5c4083f1804dc65eb49dbd3515b
e48ec872bc5d93a9d7bb17fa08327ce4cf99d6b3
26241 F20110410_AAAODF morelli_c_Page_045.QC.jpg
2010e4fa71f62a9105080e62457bc460
0d3f4da893f3f4498aea511dee068ce8b8b62b3f
2066 F20110410_AAAOCR morelli_c_Page_059.txt
f8a57b4613ff0e8452345586a428e3a9
f6120146523f65c021639bd3e4aa6884e45e9f73
2472 F20110410_AAAPGI morelli_c_Page_009.txt
9d25c47537c3a81b8f5599b5cc089074
be59f47b0a8b64051fbc83b5a95e3857600f7f5a
51073 F20110410_AAAPFU morelli_c_Page_134.pro
709a78e048d0ddbac4be25e54b42f3dc
25951a7ca4eaae8e9ffd3d4a4b649e14193591ea
108706 F20110410_AAAOZZ morelli_c_Page_106.jp2
2a419a912bf4535b6ffba89c0c3f65a4
a7b61dbba0fa4416014cf2ca8aafc1e0e2713093
49681 F20110410_AAAODG morelli_c_Page_026.pro
b61ec9ba566897d31753635f6d2515bf
5c45eade7dc1f352ca8cd39cb81dff83cf0e2446
53113 F20110410_AAAOCS morelli_c_Page_107.pro
91cbd136b8ada36a975c26a15f0e1a0e
e5adba93799ebc4c6cb091a5d9a26ac6211b8cb5
2585 F20110410_AAAPGJ morelli_c_Page_010.txt
74d61cb8c473079a445d55afe92f80dd
f73179beb8404ef74b7fe66144c4c21c18793b77
65074 F20110410_AAAPFV morelli_c_Page_136.pro
e3ef09730279af724eed27a4fd0c59a2
79fcbffad40bbbc96cd2d0e2ddd33fb7ef1314e4
124647 F20110410_AAAODH morelli_c_Page_135.jp2
79b7f0abb0409cc58f569e4797ca3d24
ee4f33ecbc155738efb399f1c73111c112bf80f2
87984 F20110410_AAAOCT morelli_c_Page_057.jpg
037893941f2404f9d7a520316a71cd44
83d4cfc55fe2a4f4aa626b4705a5e88db4577ace
1706 F20110410_AAAPGK morelli_c_Page_013.txt
8d44d141f18eb97479c5a0d42ed226fc
b464774e4ad66b2d1c82e28d85829fa765f62002
64278 F20110410_AAAPFW morelli_c_Page_137.pro
cb9857c096704d3ea637fd7258c3a8d8
acfd8e1319da610509d7c2b51f988219448a11f4
106086 F20110410_AAAODI morelli_c_Page_085.jp2
4ba0511898906e27db790b17a33ecd43
d82f69e48625af1a2f6379197a431e6a088ce4f6
26383 F20110410_AAAOCU morelli_c_Page_020.QC.jpg
c28c140a659198d024dbb8a4ff2fa9a9
9fbe9b7725df95b6ad914979340f766efc6707ed
1881 F20110410_AAAPGL morelli_c_Page_015.txt
221db3c25ff11627d28d44f9a8f4bb5c
5d78717c7946a5d7364aa60a025ea2f7b72aee81
57741 F20110410_AAAPFX morelli_c_Page_141.pro
28d56937951643d5f605b679e12df691
8146d68748395ef9da6019e9e82b4712199af09e
26164 F20110410_AAAODJ morelli_c_Page_122.QC.jpg
36d5ec4618333025fe80d410fff0606c
d8a207f10dabf7da92b162f33b76f6fcc9ec14eb
50539 F20110410_AAAOCV morelli_c_Page_087.pro
e31a894a421d94c7485ab635b5a79061
4513fd35d305c2cf41a1e8806b154e3dcc6cef8c
2007 F20110410_AAAPHA morelli_c_Page_049.txt
cbb3fe1ff1a1df93489a6b21ba3e70b7
42b9c5b890444f55d11418f520489f700de8c41e
1895 F20110410_AAAPGM morelli_c_Page_016.txt
6214bb0fa3b3f4e6b330d147bf3765d2
fffd72632bc7ea62ab88ab31d2530f5f0efc38d5
57789 F20110410_AAAPFY morelli_c_Page_144.pro
e8f7b987436187d8d38850bf56b054a6
9fe871853b1b29934bd8782034cb2d79c80d6dbe
F20110410_AAAODK morelli_c_Page_010.tif
35d9cbdec21f5afa1e5b7de29b456ff9
bfa97b421ed7bb708400cfef531f38fdc1eae293
9989 F20110410_AAAOCW morelli_c_Page_133.QC.jpg
de9eeddce1874427f0c5c22348904114
66dc5d0fc7e4e6e4fd6f8453c0925de94ca1c0ba
1938 F20110410_AAAPHB morelli_c_Page_051.txt
68a3ad66f4f7480d89cea7226d976942
bb45bbee62259ff95042784a30d9c76811bb616e
2077 F20110410_AAAPGN morelli_c_Page_023.txt
4364fae7232b11c82f00d0207d88f2d0
b6b36902cfe4f045ecc5418b485cec6f8ce1daa8
57980 F20110410_AAAPFZ morelli_c_Page_146.pro
3d39e45cef60a4d8fc68c1952f2f7f91
aa9bbc096964553edb0b5c8882645580ed87c5e0
F20110410_AAAODL morelli_c_Page_047.txt
5983db1c08fa2aac56ffc4e45de645f0
be6bc239b21ff439163d206f82fa7b1f1dc44081
27198 F20110410_AAAOCX morelli_c_Page_048.QC.jpg
2508d7176d67bfe1a08b5f086d4d638d
7b50a77257322974498e007d814ab3066a706d0d
F20110410_AAAPHC morelli_c_Page_052.txt
97f4069d011c15d8dcbac201de7d0ef3
6b89e0c351e69a6cf498958621c5ee84f5da1c1a
2064 F20110410_AAAPGO morelli_c_Page_025.txt
bc2c8d5380ce85e05390a6d8239f9984
7e332c66d3eb476a895c1fef4680534d6e695669
F20110410_AAAODM morelli_c_Page_140thm.jpg
ccd735676d1edb2406732d514c20baed
e4817c328bfce985809b94b63b60690c9b76c856
2398 F20110410_AAAOCY morelli_c_Page_141.txt
75f8510f3444a40d8fbf5b6c954036aa
42bcce61f524afb6ce39acc6538dd4f836f4ba30
11555 F20110410_AAAOEA morelli_c_Page_039.jpg
22e95b45627c7e14c3fd74e240ce6d83
d0b8d1592534c9f013b67965c8443f823ec3b569
2026 F20110410_AAAPHD morelli_c_Page_053.txt
976b801a9c8a8f4329cfd794f145f3c9
8e16cd1b55e222d0345ee004e535d801f2b6a619
1957 F20110410_AAAPGP morelli_c_Page_026.txt
3f1712106f78076c40f1592a2f29d8e2
ae67dd6c171e65b20df31648b7d2287cba9fa077
3677 F20110410_AAAODN morelli_c_Page_149thm.jpg
d01d4f143e13d7e9dff69d9f1fe3b211
28b0431da31c8f248f321b745deef98240406828
1051974 F20110410_AAAOCZ morelli_c_Page_044.jp2
6c17697ae101ad38ed371eecc4207f76
4f9daf56c16301a105dfba8918cd8b2cc88360ca
1976 F20110410_AAAOEB morelli_c_Page_071.txt
0ecb3333ffb198d225adf6c77519518b
56ea27bed6d1da9e828a2a7b7e0b7c1fc8233b7c
1854 F20110410_AAAPHE morelli_c_Page_055.txt
1986697fa9f6d2f5206de7e137776c82
9540229cd78f3d53645e30849156f5f0fb476a1f
F20110410_AAAPGQ morelli_c_Page_027.txt
6817116cb41a2e010aa5b68b9ac5f3d0
3049c633667bccc195cb6df76dbfeb4add9b078e
50336 F20110410_AAAODO morelli_c_Page_030.pro
500744c546f3a1508cd9af1c9dbfca40
10bd83458c8a72a18a21e34a1dcc450e55800914
40201 F20110410_AAAOEC morelli_c_Page_099.pro
9c00e3b18a1ccc9a2797ba10f8ffc208
03232163b25870712dfdd2732d47fa10bbda85eb
2118 F20110410_AAAPHF morelli_c_Page_056.txt
f9b03750446c290d9fa3684f10478821
9c2f359bd31fbc6149b97cd4aa92092a52888146
2089 F20110410_AAAPGR morelli_c_Page_028.txt
f3b332710a29c2d402d90b92a5bb4994
8f47de220e21dabc66666b419f7550255ad3ee4c
47990 F20110410_AAAODP morelli_c_Page_085.pro
30852c416fd6b76f14f1bdd81b95020a
193220e1bf8a40bfa6459cc78935974cc8800ace
796934 F20110410_AAAOED morelli_c_Page_108.jp2
4e9351305adf48eaa1a80a10258e0362
d591ff499b401c2a9634dfcb44eb217c1b369b03
2013 F20110410_AAAPHG morelli_c_Page_058.txt
2770eb335cc2b3da8dfd954c446ecb7b
5c1a028e15bbdc4c928ce3f956acd22688e7018c
2042 F20110410_AAAPGS morelli_c_Page_029.txt
2653ab10011151c45cb012856866b06f
f2caa1a025b0e56cc6fdcfc51f67e4b969a65043
6334 F20110410_AAAODQ morelli_c_Page_051thm.jpg
ae75dfad20d7550f407a72ca95aa4608
aaecd4174070b459fa322a4ad1197b0cfe8ecdc7
34881 F20110410_AAAOEE morelli_c_Page_014.pro
c8cf0be43c0fdd80669a1414577e8b7b
be27fc54d81f0b4ace087ce6b2cf1b73492ee74d
2063 F20110410_AAAPHH morelli_c_Page_062.txt
114f2b163e2d45addbf9fae85624a091
d4ba0c7cfda2a5b4a683d11d9fcab9278f8dfe17
1943 F20110410_AAAPGT morelli_c_Page_033.txt
bfa05a3ab0b7a534a160eb89c496c51c
23180d2f16eb0e81ef7c2c55f9d068328a0d1136
F20110410_AAAODR morelli_c_Page_002.tif
c80a74f5737db472e3b7ce86ed54c0cf
7f1216d6ba0c205b19c80ef91ea0466558226a93
26588 F20110410_AAAOEF morelli_c_Page_064.QC.jpg
8e1714ecd68aaefcd27f6d2d2f776a67
1ddeab020f55782bb9a7b92a181d1c5691fb4e0f
2093 F20110410_AAAPHI morelli_c_Page_063.txt
715a4e09f2a6d448f247da141d847934
1b5f3354220b11a1c28a2e44a4f574c3f16a7fd0
F20110410_AAAPGU morelli_c_Page_034.txt
0df3e09cb96a26b1b515b504d3b5da28
63e11555ea1e57c986be0d2ec50a37b7035b759c
6309 F20110410_AAAODS morelli_c_Page_061thm.jpg
696c09f9450ca20d2eadc55a611498ea
5394647564b9a949e074ce1ee1beb8644ab0d435
F20110410_AAAOEG morelli_c_Page_075.tif
96302d7da9e62a010654f1db6af5c2d7
0c0171d8ac9d9bb5b51e099fcc5b8f3f9d4b52a9
2070 F20110410_AAAPHJ morelli_c_Page_072.txt
0d201ab06289e6cd2030746fd7ed313a
815fc459febd0b56907bf19ebff0977e537a521d
F20110410_AAAPGV morelli_c_Page_037.txt
1e5f95ea0a7fe61297f4c16d42e02505
6860ba6ea245d70eeedd544db459d9a4724ce5e0
6428 F20110410_AAAODT morelli_c_Page_102thm.jpg
179564648bbb17b088586c24de3cee8b
8fd1a6995430a8f7ff4ca7589968f7564ddb3634
F20110410_AAAOEH morelli_c_Page_021.tif
50e315fe378ccf69cb40a38c51c8a2e1
2c702c30cf5e0273b38e0f08ae1a08c01b2b35a6
266 F20110410_AAAPHK morelli_c_Page_083.txt
4b3cd8addc0b097ca6db5f6ecdc61467
d3ba28e05f519cf41a924811ba6753026ab5fc64
2029 F20110410_AAAPGW morelli_c_Page_041.txt
45250846a8288bc8ddbd57bac3fcef7f
23f54ca44e352c57e89d8a21450ea6bca67d83d3
49156 F20110410_AAAODU morelli_c_Page_112.pro
6130b4e639e154dbb455a80324d1fc05
3a4962c3d00a23835becbec1b81c029dbb3481b7
20877 F20110410_AAAOEI morelli_c_Page_148.QC.jpg
9fafde53d20e65761b0806f72c3e496c
56bff6ab8a757d2d5891a1f67911203f25951d56
1941 F20110410_AAAPIA morelli_c_Page_121.txt
11e4f61b773ea7846a4f224ca8af599e
9dd8f56716218b45ae1daf2c84aed896d00904fa
1997 F20110410_AAAPHL morelli_c_Page_087.txt
ecb71b3c2ed2bc352e672fd2ffaf6b9a
6a794126325309da195cc77c1f7c067d52b22bb4
1876 F20110410_AAAPGX morelli_c_Page_042.txt
e82a5995304705f378fd58c97c4c165f
8b46afd60971b2a717883cd3596a6ba5042e5253
F20110410_AAAODV morelli_c_Page_108.tif
388356442ee4fd6858f58208437796a3
8f8fd551586376ebb3f2388e2cb68f813f9e5315
26026 F20110410_AAAOEJ morelli_c_Page_058.QC.jpg
00bfc26626ba5e0891b39293d5d75064
e597549dccf56ac76bd4a308f450f6f1a95967b7
1770 F20110410_AAAPHM morelli_c_Page_090.txt
2df37d26234f751861ccecf60b339117
6f3c565ff78f8e551f4431954c2ad6f8cbdfd55e
F20110410_AAAPGY morelli_c_Page_043.txt
7e7db851d92485969e1e4fdb81f0d0d1
73658ea786a26fd8eb32ceb01ffffa4a62ca4bf0
53383 F20110410_AAAODW morelli_c_Page_044.pro
f34c5a11954d3667cb7f187730882a07
f79f793c0a869e584d30466997ee8b360a3570e6
F20110410_AAAOEK morelli_c_Page_060.tif
0d42eda53ab4dfd8cfaa8a5e9e6b5e3b
7b7ec6bd0b74dc54a334af0165f7596f4e1f5c09
F20110410_AAAPIB morelli_c_Page_123.txt
4a7f5dd8acd17b3693b0f02ea95a6610
48c0a2ad5e1a1d21eb61c9b2bebbd4502700f8ac
1882 F20110410_AAAPHN morelli_c_Page_093.txt
fa1c62d20bf9c5e4ff6c65c03716338a
2e352bd59f6bbb99414cfed605bb957fb5a0d509
1967 F20110410_AAAPGZ morelli_c_Page_046.txt
be5c3372e752cdbfb3204b4568134e14
a73705dacf0b1d65fb90200fbd964e868cf2949c
1936 F20110410_AAAOEL morelli_c_Page_126.txt
c8d967e66e4fd2738ae2a5bd8c8babef
75db3d9f680bada1fd75ac2ded3821e78f3ebf26
F20110410_AAAODX morelli_c_Page_144.tif
d727d018f655ba66e240e5edf97db97f
cc7bfbb94357efe4c027751ebfe4d80d431cd3ca
1987 F20110410_AAAPIC morelli_c_Page_125.txt
d5bd6500bdcaecb76e9d45d93e674e10
095e3478f476aa154af971c6aaf7ce5da2d9c914
1857 F20110410_AAAPHO morelli_c_Page_094.txt
6e6eb26688f531c7dd04f56d4c24bd8d
a8835e549ff33eadd29ec8d083389e677c7ab0dd
67057 F20110410_AAAOFA morelli_c_Page_132.jpg
a989e58a919865494252698743a15def
42d9ed617f24f599b55cb0a1bcf884bc4990f108
86937 F20110410_AAAOEM morelli_c_Page_010.jpg
da24bff76b9b71b9c1d2f89b07b30106
358266a0427c733ada6f090a5d2ab59209d726b5
F20110410_AAAODY morelli_c_Page_125.tif
6ff5b0aea63da60f0e6adcc23462cf85
45ac793395d786c62bc521c721027898e3879def
1126 F20110410_AAAPID morelli_c_Page_128.txt
6c720ffc499c46fc11350540d5ad5e15
5f70b6073da90aad0f2942917cc80aad749e74a1
1933 F20110410_AAAPHP morelli_c_Page_095.txt
a70a60b60020fe060f9a5c259cdc3601
8b55a176295942ceb925c372cb4a3e59176abe5c
25755 F20110410_AAAOFB morelli_c_Page_035.QC.jpg
0327327b9108c9fd37858d82f5509fb3
bb879e3e039f9cdf1790a9c73e934a65dc192691
59927 F20110410_AAAOEN morelli_c_Page_132.jp2
bfb2f37a54187f364fc98d423a0a5629
089e585832f4a8f18cb5a1b3d749992cec7de94f
113445 F20110410_AAANZH morelli_c_Page_059.jp2
cbfb5d108a3cbf4e27f6754dc20b6169
1dc5329e872025b396c79086706670cd0e4b1c53
31107 F20110410_AAAODZ morelli_c_Page_128.jpg
cd77b17398c865e042f7be992d45483f
9afec61a100ccc4693e6146d251f154455b3be7c
1404 F20110410_AAAPIE morelli_c_Page_131.txt
a7e4970e7f7ad7d561644d06efed91d8
a67336a409bca0088e49c033c60900d1d97e0aaa
1910 F20110410_AAAPHQ morelli_c_Page_096.txt
a0d4c0f63b43a51390885c7a1344c067
f07277650353db42c5de216414fc8c4506e20ce1
2041 F20110410_AAAOFC morelli_c_Page_038.txt
deef618adc9a61fcd8737f477035fc4b
d3949e942ed7babc85c74fc8ef65aadf9922b7f3
2141 F20110410_AAAOEO morelli_c_Page_021thm.jpg
2db9df3f7d8cdaa91c20fe722093f78b
c4e030aa8ec2cb24210dff39b4115fb96e0aed41
15166 F20110410_AAANZI morelli_c_Page_021.pro
c3890b674335088482aea21a2a0e6b46
f36a442eb6c8698cdbe08bd2194d549d01c32bef
1231 F20110410_AAAPIF morelli_c_Page_132.txt
d619eac7bf90741d4edb732b5680e10a
8af44247ae13e01c1c7922a4fed0c46a003150a0
1699 F20110410_AAAPHR morelli_c_Page_099.txt
b98f45a9ad34ddf8cc5cd61c8d80163d
1e9c3d59189a50bc2ec2e48ec7bf3c36087dac8e
450 F20110410_AAAOFD morelli_c_Page_012.txt
8371894548a32dd4daf1305f86c44a80
290b7c7d0fb2a00550dcbc6c99ddc21b0ac94181
1821 F20110410_AAAOEP morelli_c_Page_097.txt
a2b15b12fa5840e5b8b73b1f5030f6ed
74a041024b9644c008be8419527550cdbbcd32d2
F20110410_AAANZJ morelli_c_Page_123.tif
a502469a1b0d045f7d5ee660fd023029
57b017811e2ee1dc1e038bdbc88b9f5945a2ce68
2351 F20110410_AAAPIG morelli_c_Page_135.txt
9172fc40c341f210a3516ba061635021
448798e6520ca62663fd71aba32cbfff66a3ea6e
2056 F20110410_AAAPHS morelli_c_Page_106.txt
44e3b692e5132bf04ed19faec5bd775c
5aaf3fdfc73fb3f05b7c3cb815d1fae98489b35d
24202 F20110410_AAAOFE morelli_c_Page_095.QC.jpg
70c28758e8fee0913ca9c3abc69cd212
97d716f5a4aaadff1fe50d6bfeb6fab438e6c1bd
1914 F20110410_AAAOEQ morelli_c_Page_019.txt
30bb914afbe22d9203de31a636a8e18f
8a5eb1553461a7adcae8978d8dc1caeec57a79e5
111989 F20110410_AAANZK morelli_c_Page_053.jp2
52c5ced8ce7ca7f94ef71f3a446a56d6
95a0996092c259bff0d34c650fb1d7383fe4cd51
2659 F20110410_AAAPIH morelli_c_Page_136.txt
6f25d9298653b6589bfb151bb6e2e3ef
03236a666d23e4cdad484a279368a3c6448efe7f
2107 F20110410_AAAPHT morelli_c_Page_107.txt
bf01b2658820f5936e428d273b2b3a61
cb6349c178e78ff6a570592ba942c7816d1f0794
14405 F20110410_AAAOFF morelli_c_Page_149.QC.jpg
46ac2d7c2cbf04c17ea1a61428df5d77
7d93bb4930c425055d7165a03c0892df177c2cac
6298 F20110410_AAAOER morelli_c_Page_127.jpg
6fa7b06a2bae39eee37b51ef5ffb9cff
6fa2b4e7b3102f5d83328f915d285776c87e3ce3
111578 F20110410_AAANZL morelli_c_Page_120.jp2
be49c45197d7c9c9a541e990369adb82
96caec83480ccbd5447195ec38ad7f7a882c78b6
2656 F20110410_AAAPII morelli_c_Page_137.txt
b1e5d7d9adcfde7e8d15ed59df8490df
7e3179296d9569d58f3eb7a03986a2d4c76a383e
1528 F20110410_AAAPHU morelli_c_Page_108.txt
78f5e55ad87e4517e950e9dacbda87a5
74186045037e3719b21d3970509d3a2024c96a5a
2083 F20110410_AAAOFG morelli_c_Page_067.txt
4f6d9a619c9b9e2eda01a6f352323d28
c09c01087cbedeaceb2ee030c9e80f39bfe5a142
6493 F20110410_AAAOES morelli_c_Page_073thm.jpg
c0520475f8d2da935d1116fd59f1d04d
ff1e0a6d400b70b4ee4a93eda3b138efcd768c69
24992 F20110410_AAANZM morelli_c_Page_077.QC.jpg
de1a99cf8f13d5eb9827e3d8cf5290fe
bc995fd4884f1986774927e046050b685357cbea
2527 F20110410_AAAPIJ morelli_c_Page_139.txt
0fcd297e5c4af0f22836157d5de80c3f
f960f81a32e0d353b037a2ac42a10c6fb1ca23cc
895 F20110410_AAAPHV morelli_c_Page_109.txt
7e4f3b607d37bb1d1290b202e4557bdd
8fde42788701c1f4084a1f013021afd7e7f0d315
F20110410_AAAOFH morelli_c_Page_066.tif
a729de3805eb009546164429309da4ef
01b23db0d835fa08c3b3c3b533ff9a41e837e36a
6550 F20110410_AAAOET morelli_c_Page_119thm.jpg
f92f8c755e9f170c0a7b7ec01f9440c3
a028dc47976458ab41255ec661dafca928e2a901
1442 F20110410_AAANZN morelli_c_Page_002.QC.jpg
c6f02b56ad7c4948dddad82f2be439b3
2fca49bb42910246d66cd2da802467e4d3a43185
2682 F20110410_AAAPIK morelli_c_Page_142.txt
06671fbfd6b654ad3517b324362bd050
c94d967d88446e71a030635bbe938377b418028a
1993 F20110410_AAAPHW morelli_c_Page_111.txt
e9a94f8a4af835412561d6891e0c6c24
550a8f935155ea9940f3dab92ef4bd35ecd52d77
52099 F20110410_AAAOFI morelli_c_Page_102.pro
107fe4faf9bd1775e261ce143f4791ff
01eaff830443cfabb4cdb2d37bc4cde9dcf7fc6e
1764 F20110410_AAAOEU morelli_c_Page_081.txt
ddce6f3afc91b12eb850d8bbdfac8c99
2c85b3108afa59239b92fcd4888588c09e1d9758
85099 F20110410_AAANZO morelli_c_Page_062.jpg
d3192fe397831889fc70dbf2e3a6093d
11b424146d4269d0d3b3a9f4530f6b5f5c8ca06e
6014 F20110410_AAAPJA morelli_c_Page_096thm.jpg
26ee90161c40100c23a48502cf7c861e
cc45e19ec0f0fe672d1195b2babee3abe56510ff
2455 F20110410_AAAPIL morelli_c_Page_145.txt
c608781e6db7ecb8fcffb138129d2f6f
d8141f9d5226580af718a24848301fb87b3e970b
1966 F20110410_AAAPHX morelli_c_Page_112.txt
f43d3ae62509721088855fa7ef412af9
ad12bf5b4884d443d409b29cb63542ca73743858
46938 F20110410_AAAOFJ morelli_c_Page_055.pro
d58674b379eb994e9bdd9898a0c78168
e1a591d76b2f0787f5dd2ab6bb5b4fae297d5d52
138248 F20110410_AAAOEV morelli_c_Page_142.jp2
dcd24b4cb994ac42213986570c093aa2
4c1262374fe17f8420198f11bf33ad834a12fea5
84725 F20110410_AAANZP morelli_c_Page_058.jpg
98861c3c833fea087d53edef449f0925
ebb1397a863d79b6db12c391cc5467b30e5d35da
26302 F20110410_AAAPJB morelli_c_Page_065.QC.jpg
2a9f23eba2c85c0ee23a8f1c00ef4d7b
2087b30863792b91211e4c223860e854cf880082
2406 F20110410_AAAPIM morelli_c_Page_146.txt
43ab6d592f0237f508f9d3e0098ad53c
a883aea1538ac2475619a316e87072fd26b47b57
2046 F20110410_AAAPHY morelli_c_Page_113.txt
9456f030877c60d5660ae3e72e48d2c8
e7c8e61c20c954e0d0b766e070c925fcba9b5862
104 F20110410_AAAOFK morelli_c_Page_127.txt
57c438ca7542f4132761a5a578893f7b
a8803f8cfbf83ea94c0492ba6d2d864092cfc298
F20110410_AAAOEW morelli_c_Page_005.tif
d9ae8aab44a12cf014068d2ddc2ae3c2
725644551a1f2508dfa8b1d32a731aa13380250c
F20110410_AAANZQ morelli_c_Page_110.tif
9c1445136e9b94a02bd38c903f160f46
52261ab3f782ad95797020e7dfd559b7d83c6313
2763 F20110410_AAAPIN morelli_c_Page_147.txt
d18255eb2325f290e3a47a8b5c830771
04598aa5deab3ff124f7f828c29d5364205e984a
2076 F20110410_AAAPHZ morelli_c_Page_118.txt
feed71f2ce318b351a9c457f82fb84fb
418cd9cc44e4c1479c231e487e6dfdeaa7fae606
27185 F20110410_AAAOFL morelli_c_Page_102.QC.jpg
0dbe7831adb76e8874ca284921529fe3
4c30f56fc2d7a92466990d73dff72c177438e11b
F20110410_AAAOEX morelli_c_Page_101.txt
85b9309d9a57cddff6296ed668d35983
fa0abc005e26621ddb4ad5d0a7a10936513450be
75131 F20110410_AAANZR morelli_c_Page_097.jpg
52f870c561e8ad3104853bd2d4673446
1f9e37402004dba60b03dca392872a560b1880d6
25409 F20110410_AAAPJC morelli_c_Page_051.QC.jpg
77d8d517e92811f16ec0a80c241c7d3e
9ff1b31b82f6a636169c0e2a93cb567165ac64cc
1083 F20110410_AAAPIO morelli_c_Page_149.txt
271a267c229d1d37d77a05dbc25bae34
bdd41b3c011c257143c18de818fe6cd0c240ff1c
3141 F20110410_AAAOFM morelli_c_Page_124.QC.jpg
ad94f9e6ed7d3a904f5d83ac78e9176c
7147939ad56a82112a5c5aa019d2adfe4899f15c
109996 F20110410_AAAOEY morelli_c_Page_049.jp2
96abe6248f94f926a43ba68a736a1de8
b9cb8b77a0fdb748126a912fd47c1fd48c2d4dd9
6088 F20110410_AAANZS morelli_c_Page_019thm.jpg
a915ac7de0c9c58efd83d7a221975447
c871e740488d268988821112e030d566ce5db91d
4488 F20110410_AAAOGA morelli_c_Page_014thm.jpg
92916dcc39b88c4e6e517aa8a8b51733
42d35dcb362ee1397d859bbf177615b369cef776
26817 F20110410_AAAPJD morelli_c_Page_106.QC.jpg
d8958cfaff6d6827b5606ba73f9a9d7a
c4a2603f3cae3dbfc3f096236506b7fe236f00c4
1715 F20110410_AAAPIP morelli_c_Page_001thm.jpg
40b0c988e1be51cf34d020017e0891bc
770457a702f35dc245430dc62daf0155187ec6eb
2062 F20110410_AAAOFN morelli_c_Page_064.txt
7e9e8f2d9c3c6dc89e5ed64174466392
a700b6cd089ef40aa9e89f4c1af7c567f7d7f676
77181 F20110410_AAAOEZ morelli_c_Page_093.jpg
27d7b4ba29c1f6bfcabc8b96b62b0bfb
78bf13fc8f44bed40c8d8aa4f522a239e246bee8
F20110410_AAANZT morelli_c_Page_118.tif
624e9d37c1f38d4e24e4b2e5c56ead38
a73575eda37f6ef0fc97c82a77ac58afe7764ff8
5721 F20110410_AAAOGB morelli_c_Page_040thm.jpg
97db30e9ea1ab65270b91ca167d96760
1cbdf17ec7b322d9ba98af2b17ddcbe3595c38ec
23810 F20110410_AAAPJE morelli_c_Page_004.QC.jpg
c0dd1aae90596a89905e2cfa837bb7a6
a7c584daa1248c6ab13eb11426d6e5584b8171c2
1313992 F20110410_AAAPIQ morelli_c.pdf
089cd384db7967f30a21cd5bc767ba12
875bfd6674df056c3ee2a6197a04837aeac38503
116148 F20110410_AAAOFO morelli_c_Page_089.jp2
c6d32e6b1d3c1b2a859d1b3570c6f77c
27973eb833bed72c4648f4c831376db0213a2d25
85335 F20110410_AAAOGC morelli_c_Page_053.jpg
2f76b3cc563745cb4748608058d8baed
9e36e5658c82cf6f63acbf158fda7c2ecc3f10a1
6400 F20110410_AAAPJF morelli_c_Page_146thm.jpg
05172003d309d70e793d9c340732d637
6dd68de3bd3071eb5353f1bd4c1ab2c915da049b
6369 F20110410_AAAPIR morelli_c_Page_074thm.jpg
601b5d66443ae3d3981e7f90e4e0aee7
4dbd6c95d591da029414ab924cd56663023c9a73
6299 F20110410_AAAOFP morelli_c_Page_089thm.jpg
5a45dfd5f8fdda77f87a0d176c1a15eb
b31a0e57cb51593cf84e9c7050ee370be22775b8
111323 F20110410_AAANZU morelli_c_Page_041.jp2
d0935ff918078f0e4d056edbc9b7c950
2885366f93d68537bad7dfe01d5e6e81953e33b2
25692 F20110410_AAAOGD morelli_c_Page_016.QC.jpg
d2bd5b2a7ca21f1b4a10fd281ed379b6
66ae4fd630365fac213160c8d20f63799af71bf6
6446 F20110410_AAAPJG morelli_c_Page_018thm.jpg
e501f00638274531e990c253d44f691d
52d156b723070a702c2efbbd9dc1881f1f505247
6455 F20110410_AAAPIS morelli_c_Page_068thm.jpg
3d73011b9a63e0b4eed066b1a4f29f73
465058c07faad3ee31ab03993ea895dd8176f069
6036 F20110410_AAAOFQ morelli_c_Page_055thm.jpg
71624125f637d163545fa6f6401f0882
057cbe5b6918d5182e18423d7b6fe560ae3c876b
F20110410_AAANZV morelli_c_Page_119.QC.jpg
3faeecd26ba48cb13b9a5fe3b768c43c
414e1cd5166c9504ceffa7faea6665948d59afb5
6516 F20110410_AAAOGE morelli_c_Page_028thm.jpg
2224603eced66a097389c3f7221978d1
bb416934831080712e1a57e6c993410b047fc199
6496 F20110410_AAAPJH morelli_c_Page_031thm.jpg
16adee3774c4b8ad2d964a53b4cd829c
7897e526eee7dea18fa8bc960095dcb451918816
4149 F20110410_AAAPIT morelli_c_Page_083.QC.jpg
77f89871be238c206036aa7cd6bbe4ca
37b4da69860cb12a2133696267cb18735233cde2
F20110410_AAAOFR morelli_c_Page_044.tif
5aebc96648b77398c3c2971ba25cc83b
0e7cdf2b535dd2ef54c088571700e61ba3cdd848
53110 F20110410_AAANZW morelli_c_Page_054.pro
1ca19096ec8b0ac0c706821a54c2f09a
459240fe6681f43b0118d24cf5aa4f29b969d963
50379 F20110410_AAAOGF morelli_c_Page_005.pro
fbefe2b09622d606ea372f2fa7516a81
e6b5724fdee4aca0e11a9afa481c476451095e82
5867 F20110410_AAAPJI morelli_c_Page_125thm.jpg
1d0d3bb8a08f5945bf4db6689f86509b
67cb443eac24813cd121b2903ca1ecf366e1ae9a
26513 F20110410_AAAPIU morelli_c_Page_053.QC.jpg
4a56b2c39f1d8d4bb6a0cfe0444c560a
1cc5fc6abf33162b2461d97b7caf4ccccd35e4d2
59632 F20110410_AAAOFS morelli_c_Page_145.pro
71ac4736f787ff460c2e14fd4dbb0674
42db256a73d1d75d6830d17d2b48adf9429c3f56
2602 F20110410_AAANZX morelli_c_Page_138.txt
3988d9965bcf7bcc701cc9200ec395b0
25b42338094665c3b44e316acc0ab31453defddf
2032 F20110410_AAAOGG morelli_c_Page_060.txt
78eaaa923b1ae4e1324f8c7695793bfb
598ba44d3e65b2139c0bb73c7f50b9109825456b
26654 F20110410_AAAPJJ morelli_c_Page_074.QC.jpg
f2b506ce49d7069f82ff38a1f8a74ffe
88b92869a3f4d72dd6e9d7da9bbd0803dbd294c5
23996 F20110410_AAAPIV morelli_c_Page_094.QC.jpg
b00292c5d278a9d436a3ccb90611f078
5bd674b79aeeb4f61ce2de2188a1e6ca87104dd6
27139 F20110410_AAAOFT morelli_c_Page_143.QC.jpg
9e8036b744e159b45aa96d4c14be7074
ad8cd4d2e48c9ff966f37cf509325eadf3c1c769
53027 F20110410_AAANZY morelli_c_Page_034.pro
97c78f79d344aa716d673761d7b0eb4e
b959f0415f559e0e7a5a5f61ce906fd327c40441
F20110410_AAAOGH morelli_c_Page_143thm.jpg
4387f8dbdf89232738c081bfa89508cd
3ddd6528f8703597858beef42ebcd0c0c89f3bba
6341 F20110410_AAAPJK morelli_c_Page_034thm.jpg
0bc98610d31efa6c979abdd26d3aa9f9
56ddc1ca5f5c53657adba4d120a627bafe32e7cd
24700 F20110410_AAAPIW morelli_c_Page_121.QC.jpg
10ed5cffda070cb94ac0573dc167c8ff
9234814e9044319018589b59cf0e59fbb53fbcbc
51879 F20110410_AAAOFU morelli_c_Page_038.pro
edaa4e2e2eb980184ff2933c4bc102fc
bb8dc555ec8d10e141651d22b00dae87504e12e9
72485 F20110410_AAANZZ morelli_c_Page_081.jpg
e49332c71330985c9c06fca9ac065a96
86b4821cb9ba7087ca6f452f35a9e2614841ee85
80831 F20110410_AAAOGI morelli_c_Page_116.jpg
e8020c2bc83992ae9419a26dacb27c1e
1be720128ce092e6fcfa6eb94cc7829b90efaf08
26038 F20110410_AAAPKA morelli_c_Page_046.QC.jpg
7cd14b270cfd54a9754ef473f33d6747
f5c39522dfcf4a52e187e0a9e16b475fb8fb94d1
26098 F20110410_AAAPJL morelli_c_Page_038.QC.jpg
9ca3d647f18c2f60830acf5ef6e10235
b6961e6b4b3e1cbc4c6fb4eea33dbe62647fc74d
4423 F20110410_AAAPIX morelli_c_Page_009thm.jpg
4ce6bf9b398f532b8985fd3e9c6f92a3
bf4fc6e744108bdab859d50d2d1c4f4c653a4f84
100650 F20110410_AAAOFV morelli_c_Page_125.jp2
40010a9a0d5f2075712742d96712a3f0
14a36ebff6833767ce88325db6fdc5d2424f7bd1
6506 F20110410_AAAOGJ morelli_c_Page_114thm.jpg
87fbd231775860b4daa9e8e3fdcfe1bd
ed8e2f7500c252d1ede5b08377064762d1e37607
6462 F20110410_AAAPKB morelli_c_Page_067thm.jpg
3ce8f4e11d9677416621af60fdf8e178
8556dfaa1ef5bbfe15d20333a361f2f651bf8c0a
26457 F20110410_AAAPJM morelli_c_Page_067.QC.jpg
aa7dad2f3076081d2bbe861de5c1db9f
f303603abb75edd5ca28b3771eb1b13745d19a3b
6354 F20110410_AAAPIY morelli_c_Page_047thm.jpg
813e8c18b93776e73f1e5d6b47194712
06af20474de3f27d0a1e875df6b4cf64f80ceccf
101039 F20110410_AAAOFW morelli_c_Page_140.jpg
e65d0d1bc023c5febbdeedcf87315ae9
adf0c5b5a88f0f626ea47a5233b280623d04814a
F20110410_AAAOGK morelli_c_Page_080.tif
652455df85195eb0aec1dcdb233718e8
0d3ccba9a4ad4a931d482f5179a916d1aa33e09d
6233 F20110410_AAAPKC morelli_c_Page_033thm.jpg
24f9db6a037520418f9dbd2651e2f769
206f4aa55e003a3666ca9b74be92bddf269be4fe
6038 F20110410_AAAPJN morelli_c_Page_008.QC.jpg
e922761dc6e7276f609a96736008cac8
db851f79e48012232c0704daa94b40ed623a113c
4144 F20110410_AAAPIZ morelli_c_Page_098thm.jpg
e720f0c5ffbaa261de00573ba25baf80
fb3f528a0f9b4335f6a57dafa7fa4e6fbbdad967
22933 F20110410_AAAOFX morelli_c_Page_134.QC.jpg
d9c3032c6596183d013a05423eb1b04e
cd282cb6a4ecf5b6953bafd9c5376aa2da5336bf
67128 F20110410_AAAOHA morelli_c_Page_147.pro
258ad62fe8ddc44f8451304cba0b4df1
6f70eca971ff1f81f470d28a0499f159b88dc58b
2399 F20110410_AAAOGL morelli_c_Page_144.txt
bb043a472ee1aad9420bdb03fab74666
ce28ad27ff5273b7bc9bdbae693984d54c8b6327
27301 F20110410_AAAPJO morelli_c_Page_089.QC.jpg
ee8324cc274b43bc45b9ce6cc6948f71
1faaf8068d61256e74e50e34482ecbe2269bdea3
25560 F20110410_AAAOFY morelli_c_Page_111.QC.jpg
fb668d7cb31c47e06649324d06ec3c04
db42a67634fdd3bc86c30eef38d0015d568422c5
9601 F20110410_AAAOGM morelli_c_Page_008.pro
9659d4a1889b60f6e0517bb949d08a5d
b7e86771f9fe4aa2af267802680e4f69991339c8
6450 F20110410_AAAPKD morelli_c_Page_053thm.jpg
05775555cd4e8fb337a5a52ec7fc2635
7e1bd5b590e9c1a7275c99c9539b9f5c3f3005d9
18260 F20110410_AAAPJP morelli_c_Page_009.QC.jpg
c36ba3d583659c65bdc393b511c1f00f
943f75fbac65997caf398982a8fd98228bd37d3a
1251 F20110410_AAAOFZ morelli_c_Page_002.pro
beba621f8498b4e87e76d23edcdafc71
773674ef843ed09eb4ed76ce5eab7c8363859810
5934 F20110410_AAAOHB morelli_c_Page_042thm.jpg
87f57ff3eec59433082bd2eede3375e8
28c83c1bed47bded9cce3ad87df757d44e72add2
F20110410_AAAOGN morelli_c_Page_020.txt
eb3156b33efbb8a8ce83bf4c3a15a5be
18e720f4cda3a1fb7d58d572fb89408c0b86f23e
25427 F20110410_AAAPKE morelli_c_Page_076.QC.jpg
3e01bfa02c04507e0036e48a20fdcb74
ee984e2c1428409a4289a49807880d354b9e387b
6381 F20110410_AAAPJQ morelli_c_Page_062thm.jpg
b2350afecbb9f984d0a9e4bd3019cef9
94af173907e85c0acc140edf999d3b43178cc9b9
61427 F20110410_AAAOHC morelli_c_Page_139.pro
37292d50485b2650d30f07fd7bf0a320
fab758c9a56402698930b74265a216e20feb3294
26374 F20110410_AAAOGO morelli_c_Page_025.QC.jpg
e0d1b1976cd18fbd36036de0ad86edea
343a96d8bcd2c7dfc4d95a9f43211d64214de109
19374 F20110410_AAAPKF morelli_c_Page_013.QC.jpg
8ebdc2f824c2a68ec31f9a920598f931
301493a40c39248bb430f4fbefb888af084183d6
6348 F20110410_AAAPJR morelli_c_Page_020thm.jpg
4ac765c4e60ba7daf904bc0b3d6bf83c
e96a56ddef88c73e4172be453962df2771e4f7df
1384 F20110410_AAAOHD morelli_c_Page_014.txt
da1b96cd15551367adab7d529289fcbb
a304ad63365ba490f291cd323372bccd7c12c846
100298 F20110410_AAAOGP morelli_c_Page_148.jp2
c0e762a715a4df5ba9cd229735cd0029
e3cd9c98d6012d76d2781c909c094596e88ec868
6367 F20110410_AAAPKG morelli_c_Page_123thm.jpg
e6dd6cebe52dcc5c992b02385538c288
1fa4c0742a6edc49963b5c1e5d3c054feb7b6d43
6089 F20110410_AAAPJS morelli_c_Page_111thm.jpg
bfa5ed67843a11ec384e8ca5bb534aca
2a6c2343382bea9be88a9a06ee1bbb0eba50e27f
63196 F20110410_AAAOHE morelli_c_Page_138.pro
c0ddfd250727ef0bf2460ed7116312a2
17d6ac64bbbfc3102c8cfc1664a9472f2ac2805e
47946 F20110410_AAAOGQ morelli_c_Page_095.pro
749eccc51faa281679b659ea64401174
7f38bbfdec11fb2b814d73f8e181656c2ac86081
28187 F20110410_AAAPKH morelli_c_Page_142.QC.jpg
de99e39f8f939ffab9ab91dfbc5bfaef
453aeb7bfc4ad07a3e0948991cb6b6aa0bb7fc13
26158 F20110410_AAAPJT morelli_c_Page_123.QC.jpg
2c93f27e8d3a7fa9ba69531f4114e934
b2b8c6bc09e6bae52c89ce243ab8049cf4b91d9f
5473 F20110410_AAAOHF morelli_c_Page_082thm.jpg
1e47117b160331a30c77cb7a7dcdc34c
1b8030ebdbcf751e89a98c434d087405f176a58a
64791 F20110410_AAAOGR morelli_c_Page_142.pro
668eea913438c8a9aea9e444d54b5556
3daf83fc125b67919934aeec2590601c97ccae72
24832 F20110410_AAAPKI morelli_c_Page_088.QC.jpg
de59e407d99a6b81cd1ed4ce25425b23
bac4da16f8cc09b7dbf228d3a454480bb4f2f085
5765 F20110410_AAAPJU morelli_c_Page_022thm.jpg
facb0ec10c23cd02ff682e0584007ce0
8623cfcda2131d6c787d5e7107ba7cddc233ae7b
F20110410_AAAOHG morelli_c_Page_090.tif
4105f1cb873db4fe77870e72173a41be
688d3382fd1299ad7565a2717849e4e0bf47fcd6
77973 F20110410_AAAOGS morelli_c_Page_014.jp2
1b892f496f44af82978c6641d367a3a2
dbb9b2e0905f60db02aa89fd16ee01fb4a6934c8
25276 F20110410_AAAPKJ morelli_c_Page_117.QC.jpg
05a7e1b2947044034c39f90ddaa85296
c6d78500e7438d0ed920849cd2a267edbbab9558
27220 F20110410_AAAPJV morelli_c_Page_062.QC.jpg
6b26d7cc9463f423e11e8a187a03d620
21c18301889a095b6e3853672184791b4186df14
87876 F20110410_AAAOHH morelli_c_Page_054.jpg
6c0557478a9fee38905d9a5a80025e77
108d188142870b532c98cbc93e87687393c22d2d
F20110410_AAAOGT morelli_c_Page_024.tif
d38eaa9fa9b4b774d357ab56f442d256
091b4ec80d39ebb0188475bf2557f21f1d50cce0
21166 F20110410_AAAPKK morelli_c_Page_099.QC.jpg
98762f0549790c2ea3ded1022a5f017f
dd5510309d03c6cc958fc8b0aed4863da6c19f64
26675 F20110410_AAAPJW morelli_c_Page_041.QC.jpg
5f21a88e2a810c2930acc59019b33ab1
df3190e35b60fa6f8c436f16e2f00732b7f56749
28265 F20110410_AAAOHI morelli_c_Page_138.QC.jpg
cdb5887265551a11357fb676eebbe474
ff13c88184e91696b9d61970c84c7e4c42d6dd76
109841 F20110410_AAAOGU morelli_c_Page_091.jp2
cdb3e2cfef7ce74a96939624eb194a67
bd0dbde3aa085fdf24c971e9fbbcd7395508eae8
5289 F20110410_AAAPLA morelli_c_Page_086thm.jpg
52d6651d1dd83fd392ff66bd8737d607
35a13e549c032d2527b6d4813239f30da73d7a62
26294 F20110410_AAAPKL morelli_c_Page_029.QC.jpg
8b1e44f6028c3a6c6f01012e19a3ed8f
64173f1b787bb483009cfbbd48c80a92d31dfe44
6744 F20110410_AAAPJX morelli_c_Page_136thm.jpg
1da0a0d034ebf8ec70b4868fffa48e94
48a5dfdb8c79cb8b1482c8c2cdc7e87d9075494d
25143 F20110410_AAAOHJ morelli_c_Page_087.QC.jpg
fec50a879276a43c8d1bbbeb2b868542
cc5672d78c339242837b682e74e8095989ef85f9
F20110410_AAAOGV morelli_c_Page_070.txt
3f9e49d8bc169e8e25c4da0d3c48a0af
51cce3fa1bf10433d5603b07c305c5bbb8db40d8
6437 F20110410_AAAPLB morelli_c_Page_066thm.jpg
9045cd39bcbfbab537ee3c1801a5d51a
8f39957640db35748625ce90f523967ff828f9b8
27050 F20110410_AAAPKM morelli_c_Page_100.QC.jpg
82cef90082636fae3a9a0cb2ca5f1215
c9217816cdd00b82eb428ea254ce90491bb73807
24403 F20110410_AAAPJY morelli_c_Page_042.QC.jpg
a451d005a315a2d57b812a95364d8bb8
16c09a4de98dd349db8b28c6a4ff91ece6098233
F20110410_AAAOHK morelli_c_Page_032.txt
1332787c473d9c9d6fc10bd635237438
0cfbbb62956a59841a042b9abf0a4d4b2fdbda44
24439 F20110410_AAAOGW morelli_c_Page_093.QC.jpg
15128916f8a2262764b67f9bb6f13ecd
6dae76d455757c16c1a5b5bc9acccd1c9aae2b70
6264 F20110410_AAAPLC morelli_c_Page_070thm.jpg
23e8fe46d475c79c38c9505e69dff829
5cd1812d6acb411cffd689f9335392d9a318d621
24027 F20110410_AAAPKN morelli_c_Page_130.QC.jpg
98b7de9b1ec640ce79333339daf25046
f3f92b16ffac1c03bce1bfeac9b2e700c2f64209
26494 F20110410_AAAPJZ morelli_c_Page_034.QC.jpg
1bef2f0511434b0b9dd3c5cabf013762
fcabb181c40db24abbff02cdf4a1831ee5568ea9
28194 F20110410_AAAOIA morelli_c_Page_139.QC.jpg
bb6715311427806f7e4cec2d16990784
ba97958e58f70edbbdd795499aa54d17f8ed6f46
85714 F20110410_AAAOHL morelli_c_Page_106.jpg
311dd67561ba883bb18ad3ca1f349de3
dc6ddc3381864e433220eb0de3617c65a16395d6
69156 F20110410_AAAOGX morelli_c_Page_129.jp2
86b07091b6c1c96aca6213900323c002
bbeb29a6f55a83260f503250c4ebe8ae461bdc02
6227 F20110410_AAAPLD morelli_c_Page_100thm.jpg
57f1fefb04e7f4e47d0f10e6b3466185
3877ec4893c3827b99923bd27bdd60318964b6f6
4355 F20110410_AAAPKO morelli_c_Page_131thm.jpg
f80eda1e64a6a70929a325a0f19873f7
d50ea09eb502c5907b4036c79036eb7d0658b04f
78402 F20110410_AAAOIB morelli_c_Page_094.jpg
31f8769a9f3c0c1767bf2c3dce6daadc
8e761b6ed679ebe1aaee217ed5f665121c3288bf
26673 F20110410_AAAOHM morelli_c_Page_073.QC.jpg
f7c121c17a48c6bab04df7a41fa19c53
8fcaff165d99d855d1f672f592282e18ca354253
F20110410_AAAOGY morelli_c_Page_124.tif
868f1c147d5fbeac9d5999f4617c844b
622e8ba52f8d143f952c29ebbffc7e9abb8eea6c
6214 F20110410_AAAPKP morelli_c_Page_117thm.jpg
6d915253a010af2946e2794a017d618c
300de57216dbb36b3bfd09eda1bf5fa7755297d5
1916 F20110410_AAAOHN morelli_c_Page_078.txt
df1bf1fbc6930bd09c98168d32c773ae
edcc5debd430f6209c3b1cd268447ae8f5b62115
F20110410_AAAOGZ morelli_c_Page_091.tif
ee64b5d28e343f7dfb30441b5a811d43
f4df4391f332a5daa7c3db9034c2e7917e3075de
22005 F20110410_AAAPLE morelli_c_Page_081.QC.jpg
9117c4c8e0dc2cf4ee89017811d0be9f
e0c9319c1e8ba2a29cd5b3e9950744268f9d7c52
28875 F20110410_AAAPKQ morelli_c_Page_147.QC.jpg
d6094260b21eba55c59498ca9656347b
550057c68cecca00b70c17391d38821d67e8c88d
5735 F20110410_AAAOIC morelli_c_Page_015thm.jpg
e73facd041c5670af6cddc4a960560ae
425210e17d405a37c66868914239507f50be248a
F20110410_AAAOHO morelli_c_Page_082.tif
36248a9f8ceb2563cb1f68f18ff0dd96
144890e348692944fa7bd3af77689b985990a6ee
5627 F20110410_AAAPLF morelli_c_Page_110thm.jpg
48d50d985ecbbae98fb1545a8ad976b6
3d5ed5aeb813a1fa8a664daf19a226b71fce5592
6292 F20110410_AAAPKR morelli_c_Page_101thm.jpg
e3ac1b48b9e27f2042a259e65fe07fe9
bd2218cf55922b0e26a913ad8a6dbab99a87a5a2
51175 F20110410_AAAOID morelli_c_Page_020.pro
2cf60c44cba0ad04d99a48405111fece
e1dbeba692825a62941ec4c5a60e6c68e3e194ca
50124 F20110410_AAAOHP morelli_c_Page_117.pro
f8b05bfa0fc27f0f5b038547f9179161
e644357f510fe263440d6acd1101621e28d796c1
25413 F20110410_AAAPLG morelli_c_Page_078.QC.jpg
75cd33bd2629a4f7e7166d4480ea3dd6
52fc70091063389e6a7676142c74cb748ddf8c8e
6347 F20110410_AAAPKS morelli_c_Page_120thm.jpg
a4a61cdd638a98cd6ed3064d52810517
414799714a5b945c5e65fc7e3cbc117b73a707a8
19125 F20110410_AAAOIE morelli_c_Page_132.QC.jpg
0b41b3bed2570c25741c820912259146
dc34acea5101a9d4d5277f38c1a52a4cdc3e65f6
2000 F20110410_AAAOHQ morelli_c_Page_030.txt
bea65fed3625576376268d81a1ac6da1
112fa17bf5c15fbb111fd191d70601c21b8a0047
28013 F20110410_AAAPLH morelli_c_Page_136.QC.jpg
bb32812bb9526244002ec9ec81eca090
82820ebe4ab37108479f9823d2b1c9927075fc14
5403 F20110410_AAAPKT morelli_c_Page_108thm.jpg
8b256409231adf1b398daca153655494
8fa047e2de7e934210c050f9911d0e535adb1dba
59070 F20110410_AAAOIF morelli_c_Page_140.pro
3e422101cf3d5c5838004c4161ffc303
9c14cd07facd4ef0fc3d1aed960310df6e41e9b3
87518 F20110410_AAAOHR morelli_c_Page_028.jpg
4c1ca184a4cf2845eff991a0e77b2e82
ba226f8bb9993f3f19b762b556a74e9f26b0aa8a
5184 F20110410_AAAPLI morelli_c_Page_099thm.jpg
776e9e014cfadf76e539a28981107589
db1eda822b0bb42e9a40f5c4781237784171f7b9
24207 F20110410_AAAPKU morelli_c_Page_043.QC.jpg
e2561730204a7b84757b8e223a0f5c54
04027b1a7fc756115a8d9746607c39abc8e85646
44620 F20110410_AAAOIG morelli_c_Page_148.pro
d92356e01167b15d748bc551206d901c
b1517323605957db52f82fc1519245a4ec9baa74
24978 F20110410_AAAOHS morelli_c_Page_112.QC.jpg
4400e14bc533a03d5de28aadfcdf739d
d822f8e6b7b3c621ea992cbdb38e162096f795f1
5273 F20110410_AAAPLJ morelli_c_Page_148thm.jpg
26394e162eb7006b22f9e434f32ed496
66f8131cfc239055329f83ab16ba114109fdfbde
26418 F20110410_AAAPKV morelli_c_Page_018.QC.jpg
20c9a01ea67e8e0ebe7b6fc3511f6147
f7ae0bb34bd5a02af3318318cb053d3fd77dbd64
25785 F20110410_AAAOIH morelli_c_Page_005.QC.jpg
3aae49a3f7ff9ef1cd4756c461e28291
b85a66cbbff6560e21ac73d97b908dd69d56cf0b
104308 F20110410_AAAOHT morelli_c_Page_121.jp2
68b6de7ce4b245f0d319af8147abb872
578fb09f58bc63bba152c63f69f359b0af771437
27331 F20110410_AAAPLK morelli_c_Page_054.QC.jpg
3901b1cc17bc629257b2b16f489ace25
918387839daa82d1a52ba9bb0427cab08d167ed8
5702 F20110410_AAAPKW morelli_c_Page_004thm.jpg
c2703c5ce8c1a2ec47c1ca50f1e2240d
4088bc7e4b1bcc728e57dd7e69a0aee38c6be482
F20110410_AAAOII morelli_c_Page_063.tif
dc3daa8ed1c91be41542f5ebc8fb8ecd
9143b64cb60c2df2938db0d6b5bd58e70a7a9560
F20110410_AAAOHU morelli_c_Page_037.tif
766e5ce5c8d64b76d6a46df6ce327cd8
37cb8fd61246de165cd812e2c9631d5d54b112e2
18361 F20110410_AAAPMA morelli_c_Page_131.QC.jpg
96028df532e0131087f788c45408c306
9aa6049b99694f5ecaf098b9067221b2b6fc0336
6573 F20110410_AAAPLL morelli_c_Page_072thm.jpg
abf746c2a11bcef9491532d7f2bbcdf9
d785ef4e6a8b6932ec7e09e5447842caa3cd5fdd
6260 F20110410_AAAPKX morelli_c_Page_045thm.jpg
b9183672fc6371cc8a5011f2b4f7965b
1670f26351c0b74b2e278d2cd9237667af9ac7e8
F20110410_AAAOIJ morelli_c_Page_083.tif
056ed2a8a1e147858332ece94529f84b
0e4f90a066e65ce37a6f022ae2797f130340ada3
6500 F20110410_AAAOHV morelli_c_Page_012.QC.jpg
d734190b373669b76bf1f912f4529f82
172dfc174f7ee6d077eebb9145087220eacd179a



PAGE 1

CHOOSING REMEDIATION TARGETS FOR NAMING DEFICITS IN PROBABLE ALZHEIMER DISEASE: DOES TYPICALITY MATTER? By CLAUDIA A. MORELLI A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Claudia A. Morelli

PAGE 3

This dissertation is dedicated to my in credible husband, Davi d Efros, my amazing mother, Claire Morelli and my sisters; and in memory of my wonderful father, John. They have been an integral part of my life and their belief in me has been a fortress of encouragement, hope, and steadfast love.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I thank and acknowledge each participant and their family and/or caregivers for their time, effort, and for extending themselves and their home to allow me to work with them to complete this research proj ect. I will always remember them and the devastating effects of Alzheimer disease, and this will influence the focus of my future clinical research. I also extend my grat itude and appreciation for the UF Memory Disorder Program, especially David B. Efro s, Dr. Kenneth M. Heilman, Dr. Glen Finney, Dr. Kimford Meador, Dr. Catherine Price, a nd Jennifer Rembisz, whose kind and diligent efforts resulted in referrals for me to recruit these participants. I also express my deep appreciation for my committee. First, I want to thank my mentor, Dr. Lori J.P. Altma nn, for her vast knowledge of ne urolinguistics that provided a refreshing perspective, especially with rega rds to research in adults with probable Alzheimer disease. Working with Dr. Altmann allowed me to broaden my thought process and expand my approach to this diss ertation. These qualities, combined with her guidance, leadership, and patien ce have been of great value to me during the exciting and challenging process of becoming a Ph.D. I also acknowledge Dr. Diane Kendall for her expert opinion on clinical re search in adult neurogenics, and for the many opportunities to learn more about single subject design, es pecially during my pre-doctoral fellowship with her at the VA Brain Rehabilitation Resear ch Center. Her outstandi ng clinical skills and perspective as a compassionate speech-l anguage pathologist combined with her insights have had a great influence on me and have motivated my interest in theoretically

PAGE 5

v driven treatments. I also grat efully acknowledge Dr. Ira Fischl er who shared his extensive knowledge of psychology, which played an important role in this dissertation. Dr. Kenneth Heilman, with his behavioral neurol ogy expertise combined with his incredible commitment and compassion for patients, has ta ught me so much in such inspiring and meaningful ways. Each of these remarkab le individuals has contributed to my development by their expertise and great role modeling. I thank the Department of Communication Sc iences and Disorders at the University of Florida, especially Dr. Christine Sapienza, Dr. Samuel Brown, and Dr. Scott Griffiths, for their support and encouragement, as we ll as the wonderful opportunities to teach the undergraduates. Also, I will always rememb er the incredible opportunities to guest lecture for Dr. Howard Rothman and Dr. Bonnie Johnson (includi ng the lecture swaps with Dr. Johnson). I extend my appreciation to the entire faculty and staff for their professionalism, collegial, and positive appr oach. In particular, Idella King, Cassie Mobley, Debbie Butler, and Addie Pons deserv e a special thanks. Th e computer support from Neal Musson will al ways be appreciated. I also want to acknowledge the members of Dr. Altmanns Language over the Lifespan Lab. First I thank Alexia Frederikse n, who spent hours developing the stimuli, coordinating and working with us, and whose a ttention to details was truly awesome. Her dedication to the project was sincerely appreciated and always will be. Additional thanks go to Katie Chiarella, Andrea Holt, and Angel Ziesk for their wonderful help in preparing the stimuli; and to Maisa Haj Tas, Ashley Mullen, and Deb Gober for lending their incredible artistic talent. Alexia Frederik sen, Erin Hunt, and Rachel Hogue deserve acknowledgement for their excelle nt questions and feedback during the protocol training,

PAGE 6

vi which prepared them for testing the young adul ts for a related project. Becca Huy also played an important role by transcribing a la rge amount of the data and working closely with me with on the reliability checks. Her devoted attention to the details of accurate transcription, combined with her enthusiasm, and willingness to help was wonderful. Also, I thank Charlene Cohen-Deroy for her diligent efforts and commitment to excellence in coding and scori ng the Word Reading subtests as well as calculating the phoneme length for the stimulus words. All of these students demonstrated a keen awareness of the importance of maintaini ng the integrity of the data. Without the combined efforts of these wonderful students, this dissertation woul d have taken longer. Finally, I thank the colle ctive insights of the members of the Language over the Lifespan lab, especially those who provided suggesti ons for the semantic cues. It was their integrative efforts that helped to im prove various aspects of this study. I also would like to thank the Director and members of the Brain Rehabilitation Research Center, at the Malcom Randall Vete rans Affairs Medical Center, Dr. Leslie Gonzalez Rothi, Dr. Stephen Nadeau, a nd Dr. Jay Rosenbek, for the pre-doctoral fellowship opportunity that Dr. Diane Kendall provided. I also thank Haijing Qin for her statistical support. I acknowledge other inve stigators and clinicia ns, especially Nan Musson, Susan Leon, and Amy Rodriguez. I appr eciated the ongoing support of the staff, especially Brenda Stidham, Sue Nad eau, Joy McCallum, Sandy Davis, Lisa DeEmmanuel, and Lynn Dirk. Further appreci ation is extended to the incredible VA library staff, for their expertise, time, a nd consideration: Marsha H. White, Ellen L. Umans, Marylyn Gresser, and Harold A. Boyce.

PAGE 7

vii Two fine clinicians and professors have pl ayed an important, yet earlier role in my career. I extend my thanks and appreciation to Dr. Robert C. Marshall, for inspiring me years ago in my masters program, conti nuing his belief in me, and his incredible mentoring in a supportive, enthusiastic and gent le manner. If it were not for him, I would never have started this Ph.D. endeavor. Al so, I thank Donna Chadwick for teaching me the fundamental aspects of being an eff ective clinician during my undergraduate program. My friends have also been a great sour ce of inspiration and hope. Dr. Sally Ann Giess, whom I met in my first year at the Un iversity of Florida, continues to be a great friend, and role model. I acknowledge my ot her friends and colleagues from the UF CSD Department: Dr. Ann Marie Knight, Dr. Am ber Hollingsworth, Dr. Judith Wingate, Dr. Lynnette Bardolf, Susan Leon, and Maisa Haj Tas. I thank The Reverend Jeremy Hole for his support and encouragement. I will always appreciate my dear friends Ann Case and Nancy Merrifield for their wonderful presence in my life. Most importantly, I am forever grateful for my family. Their patience, ongoing love, support, and belief in me have been truly wonderful. Thus, I thank them: my husband David, mother, Claire, and my sisters and their families, Jeanmarie; Donna and Ryan, Buzz and Charlie; Claire and Ross, Mar tina and Fabiana; as well as Everett, my father-in-law and Marie, my mother-in-law. Also, I thank my cousins and their families: Marybeth, Mary Catherine, Luigi, Lou a nd Joey, and Lee and Mary Anne. Finally, I would like to acknowledge all those who ca me before, paving my way through their loving support and kindness, including my father John; and grandmothers, Florence McNulty and Anna Efros Kramer.

PAGE 8

viii This dissertation was partially suppo rted by my teaching and research assistantships from the UF Department of Communication Sciences a nd Disorders. It was also partially funded by Dr. Altmanns Adva ncing Academic-Research Careers award, which she had received from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. I am grateful for these funding sources.

PAGE 9

ix TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................xi LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................xii ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................xi ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 1: NAMING DEFICITS IN PAD........................8 Semantic Memory Deficit in Probable Alzheimer Disease (PAD)..............................9 Lexical Access Deficit in PAD...................................................................................13 Semantic Impairment and Lexical Access Deficit in PAD........................................16 Naming Treatment Studies in PAD............................................................................18 3 LITERATURE REVIEW 2: A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE ORGANIZATION OF SEMANTIC MEMORY.......................................................................................26 A Brief Overview of Semantic Memory and Categorization.....................................26 Family Resemblance/Prototype View........................................................................30 The Complexity Account of Treatment Efficacy.......................................................42 Connectionist Model and Computer Simulations.......................................................43 Similar Behavioral Studies.........................................................................................48 The Current Study.......................................................................................................60 Rationale for Applying the Trai ning to the PAD Population..............................60 Research Questions and Predictions....................................................................66 4 METHODS.................................................................................................................70 Participants.................................................................................................................71 Experimental Stimuli..................................................................................................72 Procedure....................................................................................................................76 Screening.............................................................................................................76 Pretesting.............................................................................................................76

PAGE 10

x Semantic Training...............................................................................................78 Posttesting............................................................................................................79 Scoring.................................................................................................................79 Statistical Analyses.....................................................................................................81 Research Question 1: Control Items...........................................................................82 Research Question 2: Trained Items in Trained Categories.......................................82 Research Question 3: Untrained Items in Trained Categories....................................83 Research Question 4: Category Generation................................................................84 5 RESULTS...................................................................................................................85 Research Question 1: Control Items...........................................................................85 Research Question 2: Sema ntically Trained Items.....................................................86 Research Question 3: Untrained Items in Trained Categories....................................88 Research Question 4: Category Generation................................................................93 Summary of Results....................................................................................................94 6 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................96 Summary of Findings.................................................................................................97 Implications for Anomia Treatment in PAD..............................................................98 Implications for Methodology..................................................................................103 Future Studies...........................................................................................................107 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT FORM..............................................................................111 B TABLES WITH INFORMATI ON ABOUT THE PARTICIPANTS......................113 Participant Demographics and Select ed Neuropsychological Test Results.............114 Demographics and Performance Before and After Semantic Training....................115 C TABLES WITH INFORMAT ION ABOUT THE STIMULI..................................116 Master List of Stimulus Items Used in the Study.....................................................116 Alternate Names for Stimulus Items Used in the Study...........................................118 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................120 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................135

PAGE 11

xi LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1. Participant Demographics and Scores on Mini Mental Status Exam and Reading Subtest......................................................................................................................72 4-2. Lists of Training Conditions an d Corresponding Training Conditions.....................72 4-3. Example from List 1: Train-Typi cal Vehicles and Train-Atypical Tools.................75 4-4. Means for Complete List of Atypical and Typical Items..........................................76 5-1. Pre and Post Group Accuracy and Re sponse Time Means for Trained Items..........87 5-2. Group Accuracy and Response Time M eans for Trained Items (Train-Atypical; Train-Typical)..........................................................................................................87 5-3. Analysis of Variance for Accuracy Means for Untrained Items in Trained Categories.................................................................................................................89 5-4. Group Response Time Means (ms) for Untrained Items in Trained Categories.......92 B-1. Participant Demographics and Selected Neuropschological Te sting Results from the PAD Diagnosis.................................................................................................114 B-2. Participant Demographics and Pre and Posttest Category Generation and Picture Naming Tasks (i.e., Before and After the Semantic Training, day of study participation in the study).......................................................................................115 C-1. Master List of Stimul us Items Used in the Study. Trained Items are Italicized .....116 C-2. Master List of Stimulus Items Used in the Study. Alternate names for stimuli counted as correct...................................................................................................118

PAGE 12

xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 5-1. Accuracy Means for Untrained Items in Tr ained Categories, Main Effect of Time .90 5-2. Untrained Items in Trained Categorie s: Three-Way Interaction Among Time..........91 5-3. Category Generation, Number of Items Ge nerated at Pre & Posttest for Trained & Control Items............................................................................................................94

PAGE 13

xiii Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy CHOOSING REMEDIATION TARGETS FOR NAMING DEFICITS IN PROBABLE ALZHEIMER DISEASE: DOES TYPICALITY MATTER? By Claudia A. Morelli August 2006 Chair: Lori J.P. Altmann Major Department: Communicatio n Sciences and Disorders The purpose of this single session expl oratory study was to determine if remediation targets could be selected to improve picture naming and promote generalization to untrained items in 12 adu lts with early probable Alzheimer disease (PAD). Because theories support competing pr edictions about the relative effects of training typical versus atypical semantic cate gory members with respect to subsequent generalization, this study contrasted the effect s of training typical a nd atypical semantic category exemplars. Specifically, it examined changes in picture naming and category generation following initial repetition of the items at pretest followed by a semantic training. Stimuli included 24 items from each of 3 semantic categories, half of the items were typical and half atypical based on Ro schs norms. Two categories received training, one using a subset of typical items, one us ing a subset of atypical items; the third category remained untrained to track effects of repetition. The untrain ed category showed

PAGE 14

xiv nonsignificant improvements at post-test. A ccuracy scores improved for all trained categories; however, only trai ned, typical items were named significantly faster at posttest. Generalization was found in the untrained typical items in the ca tegories that were trained with typical items, which were na med more accurately at posttest. Neither atypical items from the categories that were trained with typical items nor any of the items in categories that were trained with atypical items s howed improved accuracy after training. These findings are cons istent with those of other researchers inve stigating the semantic deterioration in adults with PAD. Several studies have found an advantage for typical items in this population. These fi ndings are attributed to the redundant connections among features in t ypical items, which allow them to be more resilient in the face of progressive damage, allowing them to be more responsive to intensive semantic training. Atypical item s lack the redundancy of connections and, thus, are more vulnerable to damage. These findings are extremely enc ouraging for the development of principled strategies for choosing items to encourage gene ralization in the remediation of anomia, as well as for the development of lexical-semantic treatment paradigms for individuals with early PAD.

PAGE 15

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Probable Alzheimer disease (PAD), a progressi ve neurodegenerative disease, is the most prevalent type of acquired cognitive dys function (Thal, 1999) and affects over four million Americans (Kawas & Katzman, 1999). The prevalence of PAD accounts for 5080% of patients with dementia (Chui, 1989) and comprises the greatest percentage of the dementias in the geriatric population (C hui, 1989; Henderson & Fi nch, 1989; Sclan & Kanowski, 2001). Furthermore, PAD is already considered to be a major public health concern, and by 2025, the number of Americans aff ected by the disease is expected to be 12 million (Rosenberg, 2005) and 14 milli on by 2050 (Katzman & Fox, 1999). Although there is no known cure for PAD, and only sympto matic treatment is available at this time, current research endeavors are aiming to halt the progression of the disease as well as prevent its occurrence (Petersen et al., 2001; Rosenberg, 2005). Reducing the disability until this occurs is important (Rothi et al ., 2005). Furthermore, when drug therapies are available that halt the progression of the dis ease, there will be a demand for linguistic and cognitive rehabilitation for this populati on. Therefore, it is incumbent upon speechlanguage pathologists to develop and test appropriate treatmen ts for this population now, so that tested methods are available that address the language difficulties in PAD (ASHA, in press), which largely revolve around word finding Word finding difficulties (i.e., anomia), as measured by poor performance on picture naming tasks have been widely re ported in adults with PAD (Barbarotto, Capitani, Jori, Laiacona, & Molinari, 1998; Bayles, 1982; Bayles & Tomoeda, 1983;

PAGE 16

2 Benson & Geschwind, 1985; Heilman, 2005; Hodges & Patterson, 1995; Hodges, Patterson, Graham, & Dawson, 1996; Huff, Corkin, & Growdon, 1986; Huff, Mack, Mahlmann, & Greenberg, 1988; Kirshner, Webb & Kelly, 1984; Martin & Fedio, 1983; Smith, Faust, Beeman, Kennedy, & Perry, 1995; Smith, Murdoch, & Chenery, 1989; Williams, Mack, & Henderson, 1989; Williamson, Adair, Raymer, & Heilman, 1998). However, to date, there are only three P AD anomia treatment studies (Abrahams & Camp, 1993; Ousset et al., 2002; Rothi et al., 2005), and only one has reported generalization to untrained items (Abraham s & Camp, 1993). Consequently, developing treatments for this population that reduce the word finding di fficulty is important (Rothi et al., 2005), especially those that promote generalization. Generalization of learning, an essentia l objective for rehabi litation (Kearns, 1989; Thompson, 1989), has been described as an obser vation of an occurrence of a particular trained behavior in a context that has not been traine d (McReynolds, 1989). Generalization is important for several reas ons, including the clinical accountability of the speech-language pathologist to use met hodologies to measure the effectiveness of treatment (Kearns, 1989). The mechanism unde rlying generalization has been a longstanding question (Martin, Laine, & Harley, 2002), and although cognitive models have been advanced over time, the construct of generalization remains a mystery (Francis, Clark, & Humphreys, 2002). Perhaps due to this there is still a l ack of generalization reported in the literature (Francis et al., 2002; Kearns, 1989; Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; McNeil et al., 1998; McReynolds, 1989; Ni ckels, 2002; Thompson, 1989; Thompson, Ballard, & Shapiro, 1998; Thompson et al., 1997; Thompson, Shapiro, Kiran, & Sobecks,

PAGE 17

3 2003). Moreover, attempts to replicate methods that have promoted generalization in initial studies have not always been successful (McReynolds, 1989; Thompson, 1989). There are two types of gene ralization that, according to Thompson (1989), play an important role in aphasia rehabilitation: re sponse generalization (i.e ., when an untrained response occurs after other re sponses have been trained (e.g., production of different, untrained items) and stimulus generalization (i.e., when there is carryover of a trained behavior to a different, untra ined stimulus condition, e.g., outs ide of the clinic). Without the former, there would be an inordinate num ber of responses to train, and without the latter, trained behaviors would occur only in the clinic setting (Thompson, 1989). Although both of these are important, th e current study focuses only on response generalization. Several investigators (Hillis, 1998; Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Plaut, 1996; Thompson, 1989) have suggested that treatment studies might be able to influence the recovery of language if they ta rget factors that are modifiab le. A principled selection of materials for training as well as for testing generalization is just one example of this (Hillis, 1998; Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Pl aut, 1996; Thompson, 1989; Thompson et al., 2003). One technique that has successfu lly induced generalization is to have a structural relationship among and across the stimuli (Stokes & Baer, 1977; Thompson, 1989; Thompson et al., 1998; Thompson et al., 1997; Thompson et al., 2003). One approach recommends choosing s timuli that are more versus less complex, a factor that has been shown to be important for increasi ng generalization to untra ined items (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Plaut, 1996; Thompson et al., 1998; Thompson et al., 1997; Thompson et al., 2003). This phenomenon has been referred to as the complexity effect

PAGE 18

4 and the Complexity Account of Treatment Efficacy (Thompson et al., 1998; Thompson et al., 1997; Thompson et al., 2003), which has been successfully used in syntactic treatment studies in the aphasia population. Kiran and Thompson (2003b) have equated th e notion of semantic complexity with category typicality (i.e., by the degree to whic h a semantic category exemplar is similar to the category prototype, as described Ro sch, (1975)) and applied this to a semantic training in adults with aphasia. In this study, Kiran and Thompson (2003b) found generalization to untrained items after atyp ical items from a category were trained. Findings from this study replicated similar re sults from a connectionist model that were simulated in a computer experiment of ac quired dyslexia (Plaut, 1996). In a similar study, Stanczak, Waters, and Caplan (2006) reported ge neralization for one of two participants with aphasia, after training atypical categor y exemplars. However, two other aphasia naming treatment studies (Mayer, Murra y, & Karcher, 2004; Stanczak, Waters, & Caplan, 2005) did not find generalization fo llowing trainings with either atypical and typical items, although treatment effects were observed. Thus it is important to further explore the effectiveness of training typical or atypical category exemplars as a strategy to encourage generalizati on (Murray & Clark, 2005). All of these studies (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Mayer et al ., 2004; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006) have tested the predictions of the Complexity Account of Treatment Efficacy (Thompson et al., 2003), and cont rasted it with an older approach based on the family resemblance/prototype hypothesis by Rosch (1975). Arguments based on this view center around the benefits of training qualities or f eatures that are shared among many members of a semantic category, so that many items in the category might benefit, and thus, it

PAGE 19

5 provides a rationale for training typical items, which contain a larger proportion of shared features. The structure of a semantic category is an essential element in the rationale for treatments based on typicality (Plaut, 1996) ; therefore, a population with preserved category structure such as individuals with PAD (Flicker, Ferris, Crook, & Bartus, 1987; Huff et al., 1986; Martin & Fedio, 19 83; Nebes, Boller, & Holland, 1986; Salmon, Butters, & Chan, 1999; Schwartz, Marin, & Saffran, 1979; Schwartz, Kutas, Butters, Paulsen, & Salmon, 1996; Warrington, 1975) mi ght be optimal for testing these hypotheses. Some theories of how semantic repr esentations are affected by PAD have specifically suggested that item s that have many shared or in tercorrelated features might be more preserved in PAD compared those w ith representations primarily consisting of distinguishing features, with relatively fewer shared f eatures (Altmann, Kempler, & Andersen, 2001; Devlin, Gonnerman, A ndersen, & Seidenberg, 1998; Gonnerman, Andersen, Devlin, Kempler, & Seidenberg, 1997). This literature combined with the evidence that the PAD population has worse pe rformance on atypical items compared to typical items (Sailor, Antoine, Diaz, Ku slansky, & Kluger, 2004; Smith et al., 1995) provides further incentive to compare perf ormance by adults with PAD on typical category exemplars, which have many shared features, and atypical category exemplars, which have relatively fewer shared features. This exploratory study extends the small body of research comparing the effects of training typical and atypical category exempl ars in adults with aphasia (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Mayer et al., 2004; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006) to those with mildmoderate PAD using a modified version of th e semantic feature ge neration task (Boyle,

PAGE 20

6 2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho, McHugh, & Boyle, 2000). Since there were no reports of this type of training with the PAD population, it seemed appropriate to first apply it in a single session to determine its feasibility. Thus, the fi rst aim of the study was to determine if there is a facilitation eff ect (Hickin, Best, Herbert, Howard, & Osborne, 2002; Howard, 1985; Howard, Patterson, Fra nklin, Orchard-Lisle, & Morton, 1985; Patterson, Purell, & Morton, 1983), for trained items from either item repetition alone (Kendall, personal communication, 2005, Fuller et al. 2001; Hickin et al., 2002; Mayer et al., 2004; Patterson et al., 1993; Rothi et al., 2005 ) or from the repetition plus a semantic training (Drew & Thompson, 1999; Le Dor ze, Boulay, Gaudreau, & Brassard, 1994; Wiegel-Crump & Koenigsknecht, 1973). The second aim of the study was to determine whether there was generalization of training to untrained items in the semantically trained categories. The third aim of the study was to examine generalization to an untrained task, category generation, using the same seman tic categories as the naming and feature analysis tasks. The structure of this study is as follows. The next two chapters provide reviews of the literature. Chapter 2 discu sses the naming deficits (i.e., an omia) in adults with PAD, and the anomia treatment studies for th is population. The third chapter provides background information on semantic theory, the two competing views, the relevant findings from the connectionist model (Plaut, 1996) and the treatment studies in adults with aphasia using semantic category exempl ar training with typi cal and atypical items (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Mayer et al., 2004 ; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006). This is followed by a description of the current study, including rationale for applying these techniques to adults with PAD. Additional findings from the aphasia treatment literature

PAGE 21

7 are identified as they relate to the me thodology for our study. Finally, our research questions and predictions based on the above literature are descri bed. In Chapter 4, the study methods are explained in detail, followe d by the results and discussion in Chapters 5 and 6, respectively. To foreshadow our re sults, this exploratory study provided good preliminary evidence that semantic training ca n have significant effects on the anomia found in PAD, and, with judicious choice of stimuli, this training may potentially generalize to other items in the same category.

PAGE 22

8 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 1: NAMING DEFICITS IN PAD It is common for patients in the early stag es of PAD to have picture naming deficits (Appell, Kertesz, & Fisman, 1982; Barker & Lawson, 1968; Bayles & Tomoeda, 1983; Chertkow, Bub, & Seidenberg, 1989; Flicker et al., 1987; Grossman et al., 2004; Kirshner et al., 1984; Lipinska & B ackman, 1997; Schwartz et al., 1979; Warrington, 1975; Williams et al., 1989; Williamson et al., 1998). Furthermore, the exact nature of the naming deficit in PAD is controversial (B ell, Chenery, & Ingram 2001; Nebes, 1992; Nebes, Brady, & Huff, 1989) regarding whet her the deficit stemmed from impaired visual-perception, semantic memory, or le xical access (Nebes, 1989). An early theory suggested that visual mispercep tion is the reason for the naming deficit, and this is based on the presence of visuo-perceptual errors, presumably due to difficulties perceiving the object (Barker & Lawson, 1968; Kirshner et al., 1984). These theories and studies providing evidence are discussed below, beginning with the se mantic deficit, then the lexical access, and followed by the semantic a nd lexical access deficit. Next, a discussion of the few naming treatment studies that ha ve targeted this population is provided (Abrahams & Camp, 1993; Fuller et al., 2001; Ousset et al., 2002; Rothi et al., 2005). These PAD naming therapy studies achieved a naming treatment effect (i.e., acquisition) but only one also reported generaliza tion (Abrahams & Camp, 1993). This limited number of studies suggests a need for further research. Insights from all of these studies and additional research from the aphasia lit erature provided technique s that were applied

PAGE 23

9 in our exploratory study compar ing the effects of training ty pical and atypical category exemplars. Semantic Memory Deficit in Prob able Alzheimer Disease (PAD) Several studies have suggested that there is semantic memory loss or degradation and, consequently, a loss of information abou t semantic representati ons (Alathari, Trinh Ngo, & Dopkins, 2004; Hodges & Patterson, 19 95; Hodges et al., 1996; Hodges, Salmon, & Butters, 1991, 1992; Huff et al., 1986; Huff et al., 1988; Margolin, Pate, Friedrich, & Elia, 1990; Martin, 1992; Salmon, Butters et al., 1999; Salmon, Heindel, & Lange, 1999; Salmon, Shimamura, Butters, & Smith, 1988; Sc hwartz et al., 1979). Evidence for this theory includes impaired naming with semantic errors related to the superordinate category or an associate item within the category (Bayles & Tomoeda, 1983; Martin & Fedio, 1983; Salmon, Butters et al ., 1999); the presence of consistent naming responses at two different test periods (Henderson, M ack, Freed, Kempler, & Andersen, 1990) an association between the inability to name an item and the inability to recognize its name (Flicker et al., 1987; Huff et al., 1986; Huff et al., 1988); and a relationship between the naming failures and the lack of core info rmation provided about the corresponding item (Hodges et al., 1996). In addition, deteriorati on of semantic memory in PAD has been described based on poor performance on explic it tasks such as picture naming tasks and category fluency (Bayles & Tomoeda, 1983; Ch ertkow & Bub, 1990; Flicker et al., 1987; Huff et al., 1986; Martin & Fedio, 1983); tasks requiring generation of semantic feature knowledge (Alathari et al., 2004), generation of verbal definitions (Garrard, Lambon Ralph, Patterson, Pratt, & Hodges, 2005; Hodge s et al., 1996); as well as questions targeting feature knowledge (Chertkow et al., 19 89; Giffard et al., 2002 ). Other tasks that have showed similar findings include maki ng judgments about semantic relatedness

PAGE 24

10 (Bayles, Tomoeda, & Cruz, 1999); and associ ating words, defining words, and ranking associations (Abeysinghe, Ba yles, & Trosset, 1990). There appears to be different interpretations or variants of this theory of semantic memory loss or degradation in PAD. For exam ple, several investigators have found that, while attribute knowledge about a specific concep t or exemplar in a category is impaired, superordinate category knowle dge is preserved (Chertkow & Bub, 1990; Flicker et al., 1987; Giffard et al., 2002; Giffard et al ., 2001; Hodges et al., 1991; Huff et al., 1986; Lukatela, Malloy, Jenkins, & Cohen, 1998; Ma rtin & Fedio, 1983; Nebes et al., 1986; Salmon, Butters et al., 1999; Schwartz et al., 1979; Warrington, 1975). This led some researcher to assert that the attributes of concepts are degr aded in PAD (Chertkow et al., 1989; Giffard et al., 2002; Giffard et al., 2001; Martin, 1992; Ma rtin & Fedio, 1983). Martin (1992) suggested th at random damage from th e pathological process of PAD resulted in changes to the semantic re presentations such that they would be degraded and thus more similar to one anot her. With progression of the disease, the ability to distinguish between items in the same category would be diminished. Thus, on a confrontation naming task, a semantic repr esentation would be activated but it would lack the specificity needed to correctly na me the item and, as a result, several lexical entries would be activated. Therefore, when the person with PAD sees a picture, the semantic representation that is activated may be underspecified in terms of the details. This is due to the absence of the essential attributes knowledg e for that item such that the activated distinguishing featur es of that object are not st rong enough to rule out other similar items (Altmann et al., 2001; Devlin et al., 1998; G onnerman et al., 1997; Martin, 1992).

PAGE 25

11 A property verification task has also been used in a group of adults with PAD (Smith et al., 1995). Participants were as ked to verify brief statements containing information about an items properties. Th e items were high or low typicality (and dominance, which relates to th e relevance of the meaning of the item and is correlated with typicality) category exemplars. The statements were e ither distinguishing characteristics (i.e., distinctive) or shared f eatures (i.e., common to the other items in that category). The results from the accuracy scores and reaction times indicated a degradation of property level information, particularly regarding both low dominance typicality items in the category. This was not interpreted as a loss of representations of the items properties or a re organization of relationships among properties of objects. Instead, Smith et al. (1995) offered this as evidence that the representations of category exemplars that are low-typical and low domina nt have been degraded by the Alzheimer pathology. Furthermore, these investigators hypo thesized that task demands might be a reason for differences in the literature. Smith et al. ( 1995) suggested that implicit knowledge allows adults with PAD to have fa ster verification response times. Thus, in a category verification task, the demands probably do not need the full semantic specification. Smith et al. (1995) also suggest ed that while explic it knowledge is needed to assess information could be impaired, fo r example, tasks requiri ng the participant to use relevant information in a ranking tas k. This example comes from Grober, Buschke, Kawas, and Fuld (1985) who reported that performance on an attribute ranking task showed that attributes about a c oncept are preserved, but that the organization of semantic information is altered by the disease process. Another example from Smith et al. (1995) is that the naming process involves co mputation such that an objects properties

PAGE 26

12 are activated to allow for distinction among other category members. If Alzheimer disease processes affect both distinguishing and shared feat ures that are low dominant and low typicality, this could interfere with complete activation of the object representation (Smith et al ., 1995). Consequently, it woul d reduce the accuracy on a naming task. Better performance is seen when contextual information is provided, yet when the task involves full semantic repr esentation without the support, performance declines (Smith et al., 1995). While the evidence above for a progressive deterioration of the semantic system comes largely from tasks requiring explicit ac cess of semantic repr esentations, evidence for an overall preservation of semantic categ ory knowledge comes from tasks that require only implicit knowledge of word semantics. For example, adults with PAD did not s how a priming effect on a stem-completion task and had reduced number of productions fo r the second semantically related item on a free association task (Salmon et al., 1988). Hyper-priming has been reported on lexical decision tasks and found to be associated with degraded semantic representations (Chertkow et al., 1989; Giffard et al., 2002; Margolin, Pate, & Frie drich, 1996; Martin, 1992). To account for the hyper-priming in PAD, Martin (1992) sugge sted that changes in semantic activation are more robust for pr ocessing information that is degraded, such that a degraded semantic network benefits more from a semantic prime in than an intact semantic network. To account for the diffe rence in performance on tasks requiring implicit versus explicit access to semantic re presentations, it has been suggested that participants with PAD have di fficulty performing an inten tional search through semantic memory, but perform relatively normally wh en relying on the au tomatic spread of

PAGE 27

13 activation in the semantic network (Chertkow & Bub, 1990; Nebes, 1992; Ober, Shenaut, & Reed, 1995). All of these studies with e xplicit and implicit tasks suggest that at some level, the semantic system is impaired (due to loss or degradation), and differe nt investigators have used different tasks and methodologies to addr ess this. However, this theory does not go unchallenged; an alternative argument suggests th at lexical access, specifically, access of the phonological word form from semantics, is the primary deficit in PAD. Lexical Access Deficit in PAD Several researchers have ar gued that the naming impairment in PAD results from impaired access to the phonologi cal form of the word (i.e., a retrieval deficit) in the presence of an overall intact semantic knowledge structure (A lbert & Milberg, 1989; Benson & Geschwind, 1985; Nebe s, 1992; Nebes et al., 1986; Ne bes et al., 1989; Nebes, Martin, & Horn, 1984; Neils, Brennan, Co le, Boller, & Gerdeman, 1988; Ober & Shenaut, 1999; Thompson-Schill, Gabrieli, & Fleischman, 1999). Along these lines, it has been suggested that the presence of seman tic errors is actually an indication that knowledge about the item is intact, despite the lack of the ability to retrieve it, rather than in indication of a semantic impairment (Nebes, 1989). Semantic priming paradigms (as discussed earlier) have been employed to evaluate the status of semantic memory via an implicit task, in order to reduce the participants use of attentional mechanisms (Ober, 1999). Ther e are reports of norma l priming in adults with PAD (Nebes et al., 1984), as well as reports of hyper-priming which have been interpreted as being caused by abnormal a ttentional processes in the presence of preserved semantic memory (Hartman, 1991; Ober & Shenaut, 1995; Ober et al., 1995). In a meta-analysis of semantic priming studi es, Ober et al. (1995) reported that hyper-

PAGE 28

14 priming was due to attentional mechanisms which co-occurred with large increases in reaction times found in controlled priming para digms. These researchers argued that the hyper-priming represented evidence that auto matic spreading activation was occurring among semantic representations in the semantic priming task (Ober et al., 1995). Further evidence for this comes from another st udy by Ober and colleagues (1995) in which adults with PAD, as well as healthy young and older adults participated in a series of lexical decision tasks. Results showed that priming effects were equal across the groups. The PAD group demonstrated longer reacti on times on low frequency words before making lexical decisions, and this was interpreted as an indication that additional time was needed for reaching activation level thre shold for these items. Ober et al. (1995) argued that these data reflected an intact semantic memory structure in PAD. Two event-related potential (ERP) studies offered more support for an access deficit in PAD (Ford et al., 2001; Schwartz et al., 1996). Even t related potentials measure electrical manifestations of particular psychological proce sses that occur in preparation for or in response to discrete events (Fab iani, Gratton, & Coles, 2000; Kutas & Hillyard, 1980). The N400 is a negative going deflecti on occurring at ~400 ms and occurs in response to anomalous information, specificall y, semantic violations; for example it is larger when the prime is unrelated to the target compared to when it is related (Fabiani et al., 2000; Kutas & Hillyard, 1980). Schwartz et al. (1996) compared h ealthy older adults and adults with PAD to determine whether or not the specificity of a category prime had a differential effect on the degree of seman tic priming in these two populations. Using a variation of a category verifica tion task, the investigators asked the participants first to listen to a prime that was delivered auditorily as a name of a category (different levels,

PAGE 29

15 e.g. superordinate and subordinate) and then, to read the written presen tation of the target name (i.e., a member of a category). While th e most robust priming effects were found in the young adults, the smallest pr iming effect and slowest reac tion times were found in the PAD group. Responsiveness to the category mani pulation was revealed in priming effects that were similar across the groups, not just in the reaction times but also in the ERP N400 congruity effects being larger on some levels, for example, the subordinate category level. Thus, category level manipul ation affected the PAD group, and this was interpreted as evidence for an intact seman tic network. In contrast, longer response times and smaller priming effects were attributed to the demands of the task and the necessity of searching through memory while engaged in online processing required for this and other similar tasks (Schwartz et al., 1996). In a more recent ERP study, Ford et al. ( 2001) examined priming based on age and dementia, and asked whether the N400 amplitude could be used to show specific semantic memory deficits for objects that co uld not be named. The participants (adults with PAD, healthy young controls and healt hy older adult controls ) completed a pretest confrontation picture naming task consisting of items from 12 sema ntic categories. The following week, the participants completed a picture naming verification task while ERPs were measured. The participants were instruct ed to press a button to indicate whether or not the prime (a picture) matched the target (a word). The consistent finding across the groups was that for a word that did not matc h the picture, there was a more negative N400 amplitude. The ability of the PAD gr oup to correctly name pictures was not associated with the N400 priming effect or any corresponding scalp distributions. Thus, despite an inability to access the name of an item, there was evidence from the N400

PAGE 30

16 results that the PAD group had sufficiently in tact knowledge for priming responses at the cortical level (Ford et al., 2001). It has been suggested that while the stru cture of semantic memory is not damaged in PAD, there is a generalized cognitive pr ocessing deficit, which is required for intentionally retrie ving and evaluating information, and decision making (Nebes, 1992). This results in word retrieval or access de ficits. Two ERP studies (Ford et al., 2001; Schwartz et al., 1996) also provi de evidence for a fairly pres erved semantic structure in PAD. Additional support for an access defic it in PAD comes from the finding by Ousset et al., (2002) that initial sylla ble cues and the sound represen ting the item were among the most effective cues during a oral naming to definition task, while providing the semantic category was the least effective. Semantic Impairment and Le xical Access Deficit in PAD The most likely explanation of these disparat e findings is that the naming deficit in PAD is due to a combination of a breakdown in both semantic memory and retrieval abilities (Bowles, Obler, & Albert, 19 87; Huff et al., 1988; Watson, Welsh-Bohmer, Hoffman, Lowe, & Rubin, 1999; Williamson et al., 1998). This has been suggested based on results from confrontation naming and fluency tasks. Williamson et al. (1998) made predictions about performance of healthy older adults compared to adults with PAD on two confrontation naming tasks: the Boston Naming Test (Kaplan, Goodglass, & Wein traub, 1983) and the Action Naming Test (Nicholas, Obler, Albert, & Goodglass, 1985) based on knowledge about the underlying anatomy and PAD pathology. More specifically, they predicted that, compared to action naming; object naming would be more impaired in PAD. This was because the disease process had resulted in more extensive damage to the left temporal area which is needed

PAGE 31

17 for naming objects, compared to the frontal areas required for naming actions. Compared to the control group, the partic ipants with PAD were less ac curate on both measures, but their overall performance was worse on the BN T, on object naming test, compared to the Action Naming Test. Williamson et al. (1998) suggested that object naming revealed significant impairments at the semantic speci fication and lexical levels. However, for action naming, the impairment was mostly at the semantic specification level, while the lexical level remained fairly intact. The author s also attributed the presence of more No Response errors on objects than on actions to the corresponding damage to the anatomy that underlies that function. W illiamson et al (1998) concluded that compared to healthy older control participants, adults with PAD are not as accurate when they name objects and actions. Furthermore, the degree of defi cit is more pronounced with objects, which was attributed to impairment not just at the semantic specification le vel, but also at the level of lexical access. Based on these findings we designed our study to address both of these levels of deficits. The participants e ngaged in both lexical a nd semantic tasks to stimulate the system at both the lexical (e.g., repeating the correct name of the item to access the word form) and semantic levels (e.g., answering questions about semantic features of the item). In summary, the naming impairment in P AD has been attributed to a loss of or degradation in semantic memory storage and/ or organization, disrupt ion of the retrieval of the information in the network, a combination of these, or other factors related to task demands. However, there is reason to believe that the semantic structure, at least in terms of semantic categories, is sti ll fairly preserved in early PAD (Flicker et al., 1987; Huff et al., 1986; Martin & Fedio, 1983; Nebes et al., 1986; Salmon, Butters et al., 1999;

PAGE 32

18 Schwartz et al., 1979; Warring ton, 1975). For example, although Cronin-Golomb et al. (1992) reported longer reaction times on a cat egory decision task as well as smaller number of items on a category generation ta sk, the pattern was normal across categories and items were ranked by typicality in a normal manner. This was interpreted as being a reflection of intact semantic category organization (Cronin-Golomb et al., 1992). Naming Treatment Studies in PAD Although there is a plethora of research on the naming impairment in PAD, there are only a few naming treatment studies that involved participants with PAD (Abrahams & Camp, 1993; Fuller et al., 2001; Ousset et al., 2002; Rothi et al., 2005). Like the typicality training studies with the aphasia population (K iran & Thompson, 2003b; Mayer et al., 2004; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006), thes e three PAD studies also had picture naming outcomes based on comparisons of perf ormance before and after the intervention (i.e., a treatment effect), and examined gene ralization to untrained items. Although these three PAD treatment studies are very different from each other, they each have important implications for the future of word finding treatment for this population. Using a single subject design study with tw o adults with dementia, Abrahams and Camp (1993) used spaced-retrieval traini ng (SRT). Spaced retrieval training is a technique that intersperses increasing time inte rvals between presentation of a target by the clinician and recall of it by the partic ipant. Participant 1 was diagnosed with progressive dementia (16/30 on the Mini Mental Status Exam ; MMSE) (Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975) and Participant 2 had PAD (13/30 on the MMSE). Each participant was tested on the Boston Na ming Test (Kaplan et al., 1983). From these results, nine training items from each particip ant were identified for use as a subset of training and control items. Wh ile two of these items were treated, the other seven were

PAGE 33

19 controls (Abrahams & Camp, 1993). Abrahams and Camp (1993) reported that the results of two different treatment targets for each participant showed improved performance (e.g., naming an item after a maximum of 300 seconds). Only Participant 1 was tested two weeks later. This showed maintenance eff ects for one of the two items, despite a six point drop in her MMSE score (10/30). Abrahams and Camp (1993) described generalization to untrained exemplars of th e trained items: a colored drawing of the target; a second target; and an actual exemplar. The inves tigators reported that SRT was effective in adults with dementia because th ey not only have word-finding deficits, but also have cognitive deficits that affect the ability to remember new information. It was suggested that SRT uses procedural memor y, which appears to be intact in this population, and thus enabled the participants to benefit from the anomia treatment (Abrahams & Camp, 1993). Although both participants did not have PAD, the findings from this early anomia treatment study by Abrahams and Camp (1993) ha ve value because they were the first to demonstrate a treatment effect after usi ng SRT, in the PAD population, even with participants with low MMSE scores. Spaced retrieval training does not provide any semantic information about the item, but uses repetition. It was not clear if the items that showed generalization actually generalized. In stead, it could be that it was easier for the participant to name the color drawing. Ousset et al. (2002) compared the effect s of an experimental lexical therapy targeting both episodic and lexical stimulation in adults with mild PAD who were on an acetyl cholinesterase inhibitor. The averag e MMSE score was 21.1. The participants were divided into two groups of ei ght: one group received lexical therapy (with narratives and

PAGE 34

20 definitions) and the other, a control group, re ceived occupational therapy (i.e., pottery, drawing, and conversations). The treatmen t was provided in 16 sessions, once a week, with a two week break at the midpoint. Th e pre and posttest picture naming stimuli consisted of 120 black and white line drawings from three categories. While 80 of these items from the three categories were a part of the lexical therapy, the remaining 40 were not. During each lexical therapy session, the pa rticipant first read aloud a narrative from a computer screen and then listened while th e examiner read it. Then, the participant completed a naming to definition task on the computer. There were 20 definitions, half of the words were in the narrative to provide both semantic and episodic reinforcement; and half of the words were not in the narrative, to provide episodic reinforcement. When the participant did not respond or was incorrect, the computer randomly provided one of five different types of cues (i.e., semantic categor y, first syllable, first grapheme, presentation of the item as a color drawing; or the items associated sound). If th is did not result in a correct response, the comput er provided the answer. Co mpared to the control group, Ousset et al. (2002) reported a significant impr ovement from pretest to posttest for the treated items in the lexical therapy group (i.e ., a treatment effect) but generalization to untreated items was not signifi cant. The investigators also commented about the possible benefit of episodic long-term memory reinfo rcing the association between the objects form and the name of it. Alt hough the narratives (i.e ., part of the lexical therapy) were designed to assist in memorizat ion of the lexical labels, the participants were better at retrieving the words that were not in the narr atives. Ousset et al. ( 2002) interpreted this reduced naming as a possible indication that working memory was over-extended by the semantic context in the narratives.

PAGE 35

21 The analyses from the cues revealed that the presentation of the color drawings and the initial syllable were the most effective cues, and Ousse t et al. (2002) hypothesized that both of these improved the process of searching the lexicon. The semantic category cue was the least effective. To account for this, the authors suggested that the naming deficit in their patients primarily affected their ability to a ccess the phonological form from semantics. Ousset et al. (2002) questioned if the participants ac tually had a semantic deficit and used the training as a semantic intervention. Alternatively, it was hypothesized that the participants were a subgroup of the PAD population, such that their anomia might have been due to a retrieval deficit, and the lexical ther apy provided rehearsal targeting episodic lexical information and linking it to objects and their corresponding names (Ousset et al., 2002). This group study by Ousset et al. (2002) clea rly showed treatmen t effects from the training and provided an innovati ve approach to remediate anomia. Trained words were unrelated to each other. It is unclear why Ousset et al. (2002) did not report generalization to untrained items, when the tr aining items were from three categories. Also, further examination of the results in dicated that there was generalization to another task The participants showed better naming performance at the posttest compared to the pretest, but the treatment involved narra tives and oral nami ng to definition, not naming pictures. Generalization to another task suggests that the treatment strengthened connections between semantic and phonologi cal representations (Hillis, 1998). As mentioned earlier, the findings from Ousset et al. (2002), which indicated that the category cue was the least helpful on the na ming task, could provide further support for the notion that semantic category structure in PAD is still intact. The rationale for the use

PAGE 36

22 of the semantic categories as the semantic cue was not addressed. Given the evidence of preserved superordinate semantic categor y knowledge (Chertkow & Bub, 1990; Flicker et al., 1987; Hodges et al., 1991; Huff et al ., 1986; Lukatela et al ., 1998; Martin, 1992; Martin & Fedio, 1983; Nebes et al., 1986; Salm on, Butters et al., 1999; Schwartz et al., 1979; Warrington, 1975) but degraded attribut e knowledge (Martin, 1992) it is not surprising that the category cue had minimal e ffects. Perhaps a more potent semantic cue would have been to provide more distinguish ing information about the item or possibly a picture of it with some foils. This might ha ve led to better performance on the oral naming to definition task. A recent single subject design study (Fulle r et al., 2001; Rothi et al., 2005) also used an acetyl cholinesterases inhibitor, but with an errorless learning paradigm to improve confrontation naming in six adults wi th PAD. The scores for the patients on the MMSE were > 10. In this study, the stimuli consiste d of 100 words, evenly divided for high and low frequency, matched with black and white line drawings from eight semantic categories representing both natural kinds (e.g., animals) and artifact categories (e.g., clothing) with 10 exemplars per category. Th ree subsets of stimuli based on baseline performance were developed for each partic ipant using three categories, allowing for training on two of these, while the third s ubset was used both for generalization and experimental control. To establish baseline stability, each participant named the 100 pictures over eight daily probe s (i.e., over eight sessions). Si xty minute therapy sessions were provided four times per week, until crit erion was met (90%) or after 20 sessions (20-35 sessions were needed to complete the entire protocol) (Fulle r et al., 2001; Rothi et al., 2005).

PAGE 37

23 The therapy included two similar treatment phases to determine if the improvements seen in Phase 1 would show re sponse generalization to performance from Phase 2, which at that point would be an untrained set of stimuli. There were two treatment conditions, immediate and delaye d repetition. For Phase One, Treatment Condition One involved simultaneous repetiti on in which the clinician presented the picture, stated the correct name of it and had the participant repeat it. For Treatment Condition Two, delayed repetition was used in which the clinician presented the picture and if the participant knew th e name, he/she stated it. If /when the participant did not know the name of the item, he/she informed th e clinician. Then, the clinician stated it and had the participant repeat it (Fuller et al., 2001; Rothi et al., 2005). In other words, there was a delay from the time the participant sa w the picture until he/she repeated. The results revealed that half of the participants (i.e., three of six) showed a treatment effect. There was no generalization to the untrained items. However, results from the three month maintenance probes showed that the treatment effect was still evident. The investigators also conducted a pos t hoc review of the particip ants records and identified two other factors that appeared to play a role in the outcome s. The three participants who responded to the treatment both lived at home (versus in an institution) and were not on medications that could affect the learning pro cess and brain plasticity (Fuller et al., 2001; Rothi et al., 2005). This study (Fuller et al., 2001; Rothi et al., 2005) was the first to demonstrate successful application of errorless learning (i .e., treatment and maintenance effects) in a naming treatment in the PAD population. Furthe rmore, the influen ce of both the living status and the medications are important co nsiderations for treatment planning. Perhaps

PAGE 38

24 another reason for the treatment effect was the use of semantic categories (both manmade and natural kinds) and their exemplars. These three studies (Abrahams & Camp, 1993; Fuller et al., 2001; Ousset et al., 2002; Rothi et al., 2005) were th eoretically motivated, well-d esigned, and offer different approaches for improving the naming performan ce in adults with PAD, including single subject and group design. More specifically, two of these tr eatment approaches combined cholinergic medication with training items fr om semantic categories, one in a lexical training with narratives and nami ng to definition (Ousset et al., 2002) and the other via an errorless learning paradigm (Fuller et al ., 2001; Rothi et al., 2005). Generalization to untrained items essentially did not occur in any of these studies. However, the finding that treated behaviors were maintained fo r one participant two weeks after training (Abrahams & Camp, 1993) and for three particip ants three months afte r training (Rothi et al., 2005) is remarkable. This reflects the res ponsiveness to the traini ng and that the effect was robust despite the MMSE scores. The l ack of generalization to untrained items following anomia treatmen t in the PAD warrants further investigation. According to Nadeau and Gonzalez Rothi ( 2004), the connectionist approach views anomia (that is caused by a semantic defici t) as a reflection of insufficiently engaged representations of features th at are critical for making distinctions among concepts. When a network is damaged, a large amount of inform ation still remains in the network, so the focus should be on refining the damaged networ k via semantic therapy. In particular, the network needs to be changed in terms of its connectivity so that th ere is more reliable engagement of the distinguishing features, while simultaneously there is relatively a disengagement of the shared features (N adeau & Gonzalez Rothi, 2004). These findings

PAGE 39

25 suggest that participants with early PAD might theref ore be appropriate for the semantically based training provided in our study which compared typical and atypical category exemplars.

PAGE 40

26 CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW 2: A BRIEF OVE RVIEW OF THE ORGANIZATION OF SEMANTIC MEMORY Since this study relied heav ily on the predictions of theories about semantic category structure, it is importa nt to provide a brief overview of some semantic theories and categorization. This is followed by a disc ussion of the two views which can be used to compare training with typical and at ypical category exemplars. The family resemblance/prototype (Rosch, 1975) view provides support for training typical items, while support for training atypical items to achieve maximum generalization comes from the Complexity Account of Treatment Efficacy (Thompson et al., 2003), and a connectionist model of a computer simula tion of acquired dyslexi a (Plaut, 1996). Next, there is a brief description of the four studies that have compared these views in the context of a naming intervention with typica l and atypical category exemplars for adults with aphasia (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Ma yer et al., 2004; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006). A rationale for applying this training in adults with mild to moderate probable Alzheimer disease (PAD) is also be provided. This leads to a discussion of the current study. A Brief Overview of Semantic Memory and Categorization Semantic memory has been described as a hierarchical network consisting of conceptual information and knowledge, stori ng semantic representations of facts, knowledge for objects and concepts, words a nd their corresponding meanings, as well as associations (Au & Bowles, 1991; Bayles Kasniak, & Tomoeda, 1987; Tulving, 1983).

PAGE 41

27 Within the semantic system, the representations are organized in a hi erarchical order and distributed throughout the association cortices of the brain (Marshall, 1988; McCarthy & Warrington, 1990). It is important to briefly describe the ne tworks that allow for this organization at the word level. The spreading activation th eory (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Quillian, 1967) suggests that there are at leas t two levels of representations semantic, which is organized based on semantic similarity of the meaning of the word, and lexical, which is organized based on the phonemic similarity (and to an ex tent, orthographic similarity). Furthermore, concepts have been hypothesized to have repr esentations as nodes in a network that have features of the concept that are represente d as associated connections to other nodes (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Quillian, 1967). Thes e links are based on the importance or relevance of the information to the concep ts meaning such that more important nodes have shorter links or distances between two c oncepts, and together the nodes make up the network (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Quillian, 1967). The similarity allows for information to spread along pathways in the netw ork (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Quillian, 1967). Support for the notion of a semantic netw ork and the spreading activation theory (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Quillian, 1967) comes from the semantic priming effect, initially described by Meyer and Schvaneveldt (1971), in which participants had faster reaction times when the prime in a lexical deci sion task was associated with the target, but were slower when it was not associated. For example, responses to butter were faster when preceded by bread than when preceded by window. It was theorized these faster responses (i.e., facilitation) occurr ed as a result of spr eading activation due to shared semantic contexts. The decision was faster because there was an increase in the

PAGE 42

28 availability of the target as a result of the pr ime. More specifically, the memory system is connected to the node for butter, so when one is activated, the activation spreads to connected nodes (Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971). According to Martin (1992), semantic priming assumes that there should be automa tic activation of an objects representation upon presentation of the object (picture presentation or wo rd), and related concepts should be activated by the spread of activati on, which increases accessi bility to the name of the object. Martin (1992) further suggest ed that these explanations of semantic priming are based on the assumption that the brain is a di stributed neural netw ork that instantiates semantic representations. For example, presenta tion of a picture results in activation of a corresponding neural network, wh ich includes representations of the attributes of the item. Items that are closely related have ma ny shared attributes and overlapping networks that represent them (Martin, 1992). This also explains how the semantic network responds to such information, and when activated above the threshold, semantic processing allows for selection of the target word instead of others (Boyle, 2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000). Although ther e are different theories related to this topic, it is beyond the focus of our study. The contents of mental representations ha ve been used to account for a range of phenomena such as knowledge of correctly recognizing objects by their name (i.e., words label) (Medin & Smith, 1984). There is a large body of research on semantic categories and how they are represented (Kiran & Thom pson, 2003a). This literature review focuses on the superordinate classifi cation of a category, which is a higher-level

PAGE 43

29 grouping allowing for concrete objects to be classified into vari ous divisions (Rosch, 1975). There are several benefits of categoriza tion, for example, it is both economic and informative. In terms of economy, categorie s frankly provide a pr actical and adaptive means for classifying similar items in order to avoid the overwhelming cognitive task of considering all items as if they were uni que (Anderson, 1991). Cate gorizing also allows for assumptions about information that is no t explicitly provided, for example, that the item will share similarities with other item s in that category (Anderson, 1991; Komatsu, 1992). Historically, different views have been put forth to account for concepts and categorization. Within some theories of psychology and philosophy the nature of categories is described as Aristotelian (R osch, 1973a, 1975): They are logical; have clear boundaries; and criteria-based membership. Thus, being a category member requires having a basic set of essential attributes or features such that each item is fully and equally a member. This approach is known as the classical view wh ich suggests that the representation of categories is achieved by having a set of defining features (Kiran & Thompson, 2003a). The classical view was challenged by Wittgenstein (1953) who argued that the requirements of formal criteria were not neces sary from either a logical or psychological point of view (Rosch & Mervis, 1975). De spite critique, the classical view was researched during the 1960s and considered to be adequate as an appropriate way to describe lexical concepts found in everyda y living (Komatsu, 1992). However, by the 1970s, problems with the classical view su rfaced, including a lack of evidence for

PAGE 44

30 defining properties of object s and concepts, identification of categories that did not have clear-cut boundaries, and evidence sugge sting that there is inequality among category members, and resulted in its decline (Kiran & Thompson, 2003a; Komatsu, 1992; Medin & Smith, 1984; Posner & Keele, 1968; Rosch, 1973a, 1975). This led to the development of other theories, including the family resemblance/prototype view (Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975), which has been described as being among the most widely cited psychological concepts (Hampton, 1995) an d is discussed in more detail below. Family Resemblance/Prototype View Rosch (1973a; Rosch, 1975) argued that for many natural semantic categories, the Aristolean approach does not apply. Family re semblance is the term that was applied to highlight the structural prin ciples governing category membership. The notion of family resemblance means that there is an internal structure to the category such that it is organized around a category prototype (Rosch & Mervis, 1975). This allows for a very general approach to the relationships and for application to categories whether they share features with other category members or m eet formal criteria for membership in the category Some of the original work on this topic (Rosch, 1973a) re vealed that the prototype of the category is th e best example of a category a nd/or the clea rest case of category membership. The prototype occupied the central location within the category, surrounded by other category members that diffe red in degree of similarity to the prototype, and, thus, were not equal in te rms of category membership (Rosch, 1973a). Rosch (1975) reasoned that there were grad ed representations of what the category represented signified. Consequently, some items were better representatives of a category. This approach offered an alternative to the classical view, with both its need for clear-cut boundaries for categ ories and criteria of defi ning features for category

PAGE 45

31 membership. Rosch (Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Merv is, 1975) theorized that categories have an internal structure such that they ar e organized by a family resemblance to a prototypical category member and it was the degree and t ype of resemblance to the category prototype that was the foundation of the category structure. More specifically, the notion of categories having an in ternal structure of categories has been tested by asking healthy participants to use a seven-point scale to rate how well a category member fits their image of a given categorys name (Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975). The results showed that some ite ms were more representative than others of that category and these rati ngs, because they shared features with other items in that category. Thus, they had a family resemblance. These were considered good examples, while others were considered to be poor examples because they did not. These ratings also have been found to be reliable predicto rs of category verificat ion task performance in which the participants are presented with a statement (e .g., a ___ (i.e., an exemplar) is a ___ (i.e., a category)) and decide if it is true or false. Fa ster reaction times and higher ratings are found when an item shares features with the category prototype. For example, the exemplar robin is a good example becau se it is much closer to the prototype, compared to a penguin (a poor example); par ticipants were faster and more accurate verifying that a robin was a bird than that a penguin was a bird (Rips, Shoben, & Smith, 1973; Rosch, 1973a, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975). Th is is called the typicality effect and additional reports of it are disc ussed below. It has been sugge sted that the organization of semantic categories that is based on family resemblance to a prototype is relevant to semantic memory and retrieval (Rips et al., 1973; Rosch, 1973b, 1975).

PAGE 46

32 One of the corollaries of the family resemblance/prototype theory is that the most prototypical members of a categ ory have the most shared attributes with other items in that category and, consequently, represent the central tendency of the category (Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975). Moreover, as a result of being a pr ototype defining the category, the prototypical members have th e least family resemblance with other categories (Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975). Furthermore, the more typical items in a category are, the more they share features with the prototype and with each other (e.g., robins, bluejays) while the more atypical ite ms share fewer features with the category prototype and also have more in comm on with items from other categories (e.g., penguins, ostrichs). Therefore, categories have an internal organization somewhat like a target, such that the protot ype is at the center of the bulls-eye, surrounded by typical category exemplars that have many overla pping features with each other and the prototype. Atypical items are more distant fr om the prototype and share fewer features among themselves and with the prototype (Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975). Some of the conclusions from the fam ily resemblance/prototype view (Rosch, 1973a, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975) are applicable to our study. First, there are clear and pervasive findings suggesting that semantic categories have internal structure that influence the processing of words. This is inconsistent with th e classical view, but compatible with the spreading activation theo ry of semantic memory (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Quillian, 1967). Second, faster reaction time s to pictures of objects than words, would suggest that the underlying nature of th e semantic representation could be closer to pictures (i.e., more visual than verbal ) (Rosch, 1973a, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975).

PAGE 47

33 A wide range of studies have investigated the predictions of the family resemblance view. The typicality effect, the finding of better performance (e.g., faster reaction times and better accuracy) for typical compared to atypical category members has been widely reported in non-brain damaged adults (Hampton, 1995; Kiran & Thompson, 2003a; Posner & Keele, 1968; Rips et al., 1973; Rosch, 1973a, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975). The various tasks tend to involve words, a nd these are discussed first, for example in category exemplar rating tasks (Rosc h, 1975; Uyeda & Mandler, 1980) and priming paradigms involving category verification (F ujihara, Nageishi, Koyama, & Nakajima, 1998; Kiran & Thompson, 2003a; Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975; Smith, Shoben, & Rips, 1974). Patterns have also been used in a task requiring learning items in a category (Posner & Keele, 1968). A description of the task is provided below, and this is followed by some studies that suggest that th e use of pictures might be different from words. In the priming studies that used the ca tegory verification task with words, the superordinate semantic category name was used as the prime, and the target was a typical or atypical category exem plar from that category. Participan ts were instructed to decide if the target item was a member of that category. The results re vealed faster reaction times and more accurate responses for primes that had been rated as good examples, and these were typical items. Longer reaction times and lower accuracy scores were found for poor examples, and these were mostly atypical exemplars (Fujihara et al., 1998; Kiran & Thompson, 2003a; Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Me rvis, 1975; Smith et al., 1974). The typicality studies using categorizati on tasks offer a compar ison of how typical and atypical items are processed in these tasks (Collins & Loftus, 1975). Typical items

PAGE 48

34 have distinguishing features that reduce a positive decision on the basis of the superordinate connection (Collins & Loftus 1975; Quillian, 1967). Also, superodinate connections have different st rengths which relates to acce ssibility, which is dependent upon use (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Quillian, 1967). Furthermore, there is a high correlation between typicality ratings and accessibility (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Quillian, 1967). Thus, the typicality effect provides mo re evidence that semantic similarity increases the speed of maki ng a positive decision and reduc es the time for making a negative decision. In contrast, increased r eaction times are found for atypical items, because, based on the overlap of features, they represent only some of the category that they belong to and might overlap with othe r categories as well (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Kiran & Thompson, 2003a; Quillian, 1967; Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975). Further support for the typi cality effect comes from a study using event-related potentials (i.e., ERPs) during a ca tegory verification task in h ealthy adults (Fujihara et al., 1998). Event related potentials measure el ectrical manifestations of particular psychological processes that occu r in preparation for or in response to discrete events (Fabiani et al., 2000; Kutas & Hillyard, 1980). The N400 is a ne gative going deflection occurring at ~400 ms and occurs in res ponse to anomalous information, specifically, semantic violations; for example it is larger when the prime is unrel ated to the target compared to when it is related (Fabiani et al., 2000; Kutas & Hillyard, 1980). Fujihara et al. (1998) found that participants had different responses to typical and atypical words. The N400 were more negative after atypical word s, than they were af ter typical words. A typicality effect was found (i.e., fastest a nd most accurate responses occurred after the typical words). This led to the conclusion th at greater priming occurred during typical

PAGE 49

35 words compared to atypical words. This wa s interpreted to be consistent with the hypothesis that the prototype re presents the concept of the category, which is the central tendency for each of the category members (Fujihara et al., 1998). Pictures have also been used as stim uli in category tasks, and according to Snodgrass and McCullough (1986) pi ctures from a category look similar to each other compared those from different categories, for example, they cite the finding by Rosch (Rosch, 1977, 1978) that based on visual similari ty ratings of items from categories of fruit, animals, and vehicles, the ratings were higher for the ones that looked similar to each other. Snodgrass and McCullough (1986) pr ovided more evidence that the time to decide if a picture belongs to a category could be increased or decreased based on the similarity of the items in the category. Th e investigators suggested that people can categorize a picture and a word via semantic access, but with a picture, people can just use the visual stimulus or the prototype of the category. It was sugge sted that both visual and semantic strategies are used. Snodgrass and McCullough (1986) t hus concluded that picture categorization is not an appropriate task for a comparison of speed of understanding of words and pictures. Alt hough this study did not compare typical and atypical items, it might have referred to th em in terms of similar (i.e., typical) and dissimilar (i.e., typical). There is at least one study that provided evidence for the notion that identification of objects fi rst occurs at a level of abstraction that is not the greatest degree of general or specific entry point but instead varies based on typicality (Jolicoeur, Gluck, & Kosslyn, 1984). This sugges ted that identificati on of typical items occurred at the basic level compared to at ypical items, which ar e subordinate to this level (Jolicoeur et al., 1984).

PAGE 50

36 The term representativeness has also been us ed to refer to typicality such that high representativeness suggests typical items a nd low representativeness indicates atypical items (Grossman, Robinson, Biassou, White-D evine, & D'Esposito, 1998). Grossman et al. (1998) has reported that pictures were used with healthy older adults and they showed sensitivity to the degree of t ypicality (i.e., typical ity effect). Another study using pictures found that older adults showed typicality effects with both category judgment tasks and exemplar judgment tasks (Cobb, 2005). All of these studies examining the typi cality effect have involved healthy, nonbrain damaged adults. The findings have show n that typical items are processed faster and more accurately. Several of these and othe r studies were primarily focused on adults with brain damage, but it was important to reveal the pattern in the normal population prior to addressing the patient groups. Thes e include adults with probable Alzheimer disease and other research with adults with aphasia. Some examples are discussed next. Some studies have found typicality effect s in adults with probable Alzheimer disease (PAD) using category verification tasks (Cobb, 2005; Grossman et al., 1998). Other variations of this task, for exam ple ranking attribut es or ordering the representativeness of categor y exemplars (Cronin-Golomb et al., 1992) and some also included rankings of dominance, which relates to the significance of the feature to the meaning of the item (Nebes et al., 1986; Nebes & Brady, 1990). In a category fluency task adults with PAD have shown normal va riations in the typicality of the items produced (Ober, Dronkers, Koss, Delis, & Friedland, 1986). Grossman et al. (1998) found normal typicality effects on a category ju dgment task, but this was only in the

PAGE 51

37 subgroup of PAD participants who did not ha ve a semantic impairment, but had naming deficits. In contrast, Grossman et al. (1998) reported that the other subgroup of their PAD participants had a semantic deficit, demonstr ated naming deficits and insensitivity to the representativeness. These pa rticipants did not differen tiate among the levels (low, moderate, and high) and this was attributed to compromised ability to make similarity judgments (Grossman, 1981; 1998). Other PAD studies have shown no typicality effects or otherwise differences in pr ocessing atypical and typical item in this population, for example impaired performance on ranking attrib utes (Grober et al., 1985). Sailor et al. (2004) compared the responses of healthy older adults and PAD participants on a category generation task. The analyses revealed that compared to healthy older adults, the PAD group produced significantly fewer atypical items. This was the trend across the categories of fruit, vegetables, animals, a nd footwear. It was concluded that the PAD group had a slower search rate through semantic memory co mpared to the healthy older adults (Sailor et al., 2004). Also, as men tioned in the previous chapter, a property verification task revealed worse performance on category generation low typical items (Smith et al., 1995). Although most of these studies indicated that the PAD population has deficits on atypical items, to the best of our knowledge, th ere is at least one study that showed better performance on atypical items (Cobb, 2005). The purpose of this study by Cobb (2005) was to attempt to understand if typical items were affected by the pathology of Alzheimer disease. Using the bottom-up deterioration hypothesis in PAD, Cobb (2005) theorized that the vulnerability of typical items compar ed to atypical items could be described as:

PAGE 52

38 Generalized (equal); Strength (not as vulnerable); Distin ctiveness (more vulnerable). Category judgment tasks and exemplar judgment tasks were used in which pictures were shown and the participants verified them. The results indicated that like the healthy older adults, the PAD group showed a typicality eff ect on the category judgments (i.e., faster and more accurate responses were found on the typical items). In contrast, on the other task of verifying the exemplars, the PAD group showed deficits on the typical items compared to healthy older adults. Cobb ( 2005) suggested that th ese findings provide some evidence that the typical items were mo re vulnerable to the de terioration, and thus provided support for the distinctiveness m odel. However, Cobb (2005) also cautioned about generalizing the results because of this preliminary study due to some issues related to methodology. Research on the typicality effect has also been conducted in th e aphasia population. In a category generation task, Grossman (1981) compared the number and typicality of the exemplars generated (i.e., typical and at ypical) between a group of participants with nonfluent aphasia and another group with fluent aphasia. The majority of the items produced by the nonfluent group were typical it ems. Grossman (1981) suggested that this occurred because these particip ants used the central tendenc y of the category as a guide and compared the target item to it. In cont rast, the fluent aphasi a group produced a more even distribution of typical and atypical exem plars, starting out with more typical items (like the nonfluent group), but then producing items that were as close to the central part of the category and even from other categor ies. Moreover, participants with fluent aphasia actually produced many responses th at were not members of the specified category. To account for these findings, Grossman (1981) suggested that these

PAGE 53

39 participants were aware of the central tendency of the category but had reduced mental representations related to the categorys border. Thus, they violated category boundaries(Grossman et al., 1998). Grober et al. (1980) used a category verification task in two modalities (i.e., pictures and words) to determine if performance on these tasks could distinguish groups of pa tients with anterior (i.e., nonf luent) aphasia and posterior (i.e., fluent) aphasia. There were no differences between performance with pictures and words for any of the patient groups. Furthermor e, across groups, the typicality effect was realized as both faster response times and better accuracy for the typical exemplars. However, while the nonfluent patients were fa irly accurate in thei r classifications of atypical category exemplars, this was not the case for the fluent patients. When the item clearly belonged to a given category, the flue nt group was accurate, but when the item was at the category boundary, they were less accurate. Grober et al. (1980) suggested this difficulty with atypical items was due to a disruption of the underlying semantic structure of semantic categories in fl uent aphasia. Although this task was different from the category generation task used by Grossman (1981), the findings for the patients with fluent aphasia are compatible. In a category verification study, Kira n and Thompson (2003a) compared the performance of two groups of adults with fl uent and nonfluent aphasia to young and older adults without brain damage. Typicality eff ects were expected to occur in all of the groups. However, based on previous research (Grober et al., 1985; Grossman, 1981), the pattern of activation for the fl uent aphasia group was expected to be different. Kiran and Thompson (2003a) used words from the cate gories of vegetables, birds, and fish typicality ratings that they developed ba sed on the seven-point scale used by Rosch

PAGE 54

40 (1975). Participants first read a category name and decided if the next word was a member of that category or not. Furthermore, the overall results were consistent with the predictions: typicality effects were found in all the groups, and the fluent group displayed a different pattern of performance from th e other groups. The fluent group had the smallest effect of typicality and the gr eatest number of errors. Although this group was more accurate on the typical items compared to the atypical items, their reaction times for accepting the correct typical items were not signi ficantly faster than the correct atypical items. Kiran and Thompson (2003a) interpreted th is as two different manifestations of a semantic impairment from the fluent aphasi a. The first was that weakened boundaries of the target category le d to increased numbers of errors. The second difficulty was that there was a decrease in the ab ility to access the prototype and this caused a deficit when comparing the target with the prototype of th e category. They concluded that the findings of longer reaction times and more errors with atypical exemplars suggested impoverished associations linking atypical exemplars with their categorys pr ototype. Kiran and Thompson (2003a) theorized that these findings could offer more information about the nature of atypical category exemplars as ha ving differential representation in semantic memory. Furthermore, the greater number of dissimilarities among atypical items in a category allows them to convey a broader range of variation across the category, and thus they were considered to be mor e complex (Kiran & Thompson, 2003a). Thus, in the aphasia literature, there is at least one study sugg esting that fluent aphasia affects the processing of atypical category exempl ars in a category generation task (Grossman, 1981). This is understandabl e given that category generation requires searching semantic memory fo r an item within a category when only provided with the

PAGE 55

41 superordinate category label. Some categor y verification task studies have shown typicality effects in adults with nonflu ent aphasia (Grober et al., 1980; Kiran & Thompson, 2003a; Stanczak et al., 2005), includi ng transcortical motor aphasia (Stanczak et al., 2006), and fluent aphasia (Stanczak et al., 2005), including conduction aphasia (Stanczak et al., 2006). In others studies, the typicality effect was found but was somewhat disrupted in adults with fluent aphasia (Grober et al., 1980; Grossman, 1981; Kiran & Thompson, 2003a), as shown by more di fficulty (e.g., slower or less accurate) on atypical items. Although the typicality effect indicated better perf ormance with typical items, at least one study did not find that typical items were ve rified faster than atypical items that were correct (i.e., member of the given category) by the adults with fluent aphasia (Kiran & Thompson, 2003a). In summary, the family resemblance/prototype view (Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975) has had a strong influence on natural language research in category representation (Barr & Capla n, 1987). Based on the family resemblance/prototype hypothesis, there are several reasons for tr aining typical category exemplars and they could have an advantage over training atypi cal category exemplars. Typical items have richer representations, and people have greater knowledge of them so they are used more, and therefore accessed faster (Heilman, 2005, personal communication). Evidence from adults with brain damage suggests that know ledge about atypical items is disrupted following strokes to the posterior portion of the left hemisphere (Grober et al., 1985; Grossman, 1981; Kiran & Thomps on, 2003a), and also as a resu lt of PAD (Sailor et al., 2004; Smith et al., 1995).

PAGE 56

42 The Complexity Account of Treatment Efficacy As described above, atypical items have been hypothesized to be more complex (Kiran & Thompson, 2003a). The Complexity Account of Treatment Efficacy (CATE) was developed by Thompson et al. (2003) base d on their study in which adults with agrammatic aphasia were trained to use sent ences that were syntactically complex. As a result, participants showed generalization to less comple x sentences whose structures shared processes with trained items. Several studies by Thompson and colleagues (Thompson et al., 1998; Thompson et al., 1997 ; Thompson et al., 2003 ) have reported that adults with aphasia have shown generalization following treatments in which complex syntactic structures were trained. This was because when more complex items were trained, this included variables that ar e relevant to items that are simpler. This promoted greater degrees of access to untrained items compared to the training of simple items (Thompson et al., 1998; Thompson et al., 1997; Thompson et al., 2003). Thompson et al. (2003) concluded that th ese findings were compatible with other studies in the literature and suggested that enhancement of performance is found under the following two conditions: when there is related linguistic structure a nd when treatment moves from greater degrees of complexity to lesser degr ees of complexity. In addition to acquired language disorders, complexity has been used by Gierut (2001) as a guide for stimuli to promote generalization with children who ha ve phonological disorders. The findings also have been positive and indicate that with grea ter degrees of target complexity, there are greater degrees of gains in phonological skills; these beha viors have been shown to generalize to untreated sounds (Gierut, 2001). These principles are borrowed from motor skill learning in adults and conditions under wh ich the behavior is practiced (Schmidt & Lee, 1999). Generalization to untrained items in a picture naming study has also been

PAGE 57

43 found to be successful when the focus has been on atypical items as a means for stimuli selection because they have a hierarchical complexity (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b). This and other behavioral studies are discussed below. However, it is important to first understand the initial work in this area by Pl aut (1996) in which he compared the training of atypical and typical items in a conn ectionist model of acquired dyslexia. Connectionist Model and Computer Simulations Prior to describing the computer simula tions by Plaut (1996), a brief overview of the connectionist or parallel distributed pro cessing (PDP) model is provided. The PDP is a computational framework that allows for exploration of cognitive processes of normal and damaged systems. Simulations are conducte d to learn more about the processes and to contribute to the development of poten tial rehabilitation programs (Plaut, 1996). Parallel processing is the term used to desc ribe how individual processing units (similar to neurons), in a large array, are connecte d, but each performs a basic function and represents a component of the modeled en tity (Nadeau, 2000; Plaut, 1996; Rumelhart, McClelland, & PDP Research Group, 1986). The units are linked by connections and the strength of these connections reflects the knowledge of the network (Nadeau, 2000; Nadeau & Gonzalez Rothi, 2004). Large pattern s of activation, based on excitatory and inhibitory signals, represent a concept which is referred to as a distributed representation (Nadeau, 2000; Plaut, 1996; Rumelhart et al., 1986). Plaut (1996) tested the family resemblan ce theory using a conn ectionist computer model in which he simulated acquired dyslexia in three experiments. Only the first two are discussed here. First, Plaut (1996) trained the model, then lesion ed it to simulate the effects of stroke. Finally, he retrained the model to simulate therapy after stroke in order to better understand the degree and speed of recovery; how generalization occurs from

PAGE 58

44 treated to untreated items, and the way th is generalization might be maximized via selection of the treatment items. In Plauts (1996) first experiment, he programmed the network and trained it to generate semantic information of about 40 wo rds from five semantic categories (natural kinds and man-made) based on orthographic input. The training was done to allow mapping from the written words to their corresponding meanings. Then, Plaut (1996) damaged the network by random selection and re moval of some of the units representing semantics and others representing orthogr aphy. Plaut (1996) randomly identified items for retraining: half of the words that were tr ained correctly and half that were not trained correctly. The remaining words were not retr ained. Plaut (1996) reported that, compared to initial learning, retraini ng was faster because there was a re-establishment of consistency that was relevant among words and thus untreated words improved. Plaut (1996) suggested that location of the damage was important. When the semantic level was damaged, there was fast relearning and generalization was substantial. However, when the orthography level sustained damage relearning was slower and generalization did not occur Thus, there was better generalization at the semantic level because the words had relationships based on their meani ngs. This was based on the structure of the semantic organization of the set of words. Pl aut (1996) hypothesized that the part of the system that was damaged could influence re covery. Furthermore, Plaut (1996) suggested that generalization had improved because the semantic categories from which the words were derived had a substantial amount of overl ap in their semantic representation. This experiment provided support for using items fr om semantic categories in therapy because the consistency inherent in the items in the category allowed for efficient processing and

PAGE 59

45 generalization. These findings also offer s upport for the family resemblance/prototype hypothesis (Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 197 5) for achieving a treatment effect. However, in terms of maximizing generaliza tion, Plaut (1996) provided evidence for the benefit of training atypical items, and this was discovered in Experiment 2. Plaut (1996) theorized that generalization could be obtained if the nature of the semantic representation of the items was a good estimate of semantic structure relevant to the whole set of words in the training stimuli. Selection of words for training were based on the words semantic representations (Plaut, 1996). Acknowledging that nouns are categorically organized, Plaut (1996) also us ed typicality, a semantic variable that is essential because it reflects the proximity to the central tendency of a category (Rosch, 1975). Plaut (1996) hypothesized that the exte nt of generalization from retraining is affected by the relative typicality of the trea ted words (i.e., typical versus atypical). The training items that Plaut (1996) chos e were 100 artificial words from one semantic category. These words were evenly divided into two sets in which the meaning was generated by varying the de gree of featural overlap be tween a prototype item and other items in the category. Thus, the semantic features for the typical words were closer to the prototype of the category; whereas the features for the atypical words were further from the prototype. Training the network invol ved iterations that allowed for generation of the correct semantic representation for each word when the corresponding orthographic form was presented. Then, to lesion the network, Plaut (1996) randomly selected and deleted connections. Next he retrained 25 of the typical words and 25 atypical words in different networks. This allowed for evaluation of the impact of typicality on generalization to untrained typical items and untrained atypical items. The

PAGE 60

46 results were consistent with Plauts (1996) predictions. Th e lesion rendered typical words more impaired compared to atypical words. Thus, Plaut (1996) s uggested that typical words were more vulnerable to damage becau se they had more competitors that were close, due to the overlap. Thus, distinguish ing typical words from other typical words (compared to distinguishing atypical words) required better accuracy by the network. In contrast, there were not as many competitors for atypical words, and distinguishing among atypical words was not as difficult as it was with typical words. However, as a result of retraining, trained typical words had significantly better performance compared to trained atypical words (Plaut, 1996). Although these findings are rele vant to recovery, Plaut ( 1996) argued that the more critical finding is the fate of the untreated word s, because this rela ted to choosing stimuli that could influence generalization, an im portant component of rehabilitation that clinicians could control. When the training was with either typical or atypical words, there was overall substantial improvement in the untreated typical words. However, atypical words only improved when the network was trained with atypical words. When atypical words were retrained there was more generalization to bot h untrained atypical and typical words compared to when typical words were trained. In contrast, when the network was trained with typical words, th is had a negative impact on performance of untreated atypical words. To account for th ese results, Plaut ( 1996) hypothesized that typical words just focus on the central tendency of its category, w ithout indicating the semantic features that can differ from the prototype Thus, the typical words offer a good estimate about the degree of variation in the semantic features that is shared by other typical words, but not the in formation about the variation for the atypical words. In

PAGE 61

47 contrast, atypical words indicate the amount of variation that can exist across members of a category while also approximating the categorys central tendency. Thus, Plaut (1996) hypothesized that atypical words collectively es timate the semantic representations that span more of the features required by the full set of words compared to representations of typical words. Consequently, training atypical words should result in generalization to typical words, because the semantic repres entations of the atypical words included information about the degree of variability within the category st ructure as well as information about the central tendency of th e category (Plaut, 1996). While Plaut (1996) recommended using this approach, he cauti oned that the atypical items should not be extremely atypical. The semantic dimensions should be relevant and thus allow for the average effects to be near the category s central tendency. Pl aut (1996) recommended that future research endeavors should i nvolve training atypical items from several categories at the same time. In summary, the PDP model has been desc ribed as operating in a manner consistent with the brain (Nadeau, 2000; Plaut, 1996; Ru melhart et al., 1986). Overall findings from Plaut (1996) provided a rationa le for training items within a semantic category. Also, while training typical items resulted in better performance (i.e., acquisition or a training effect), training atypical yielde d better generalization to untra ined items. The results from Plaut (1996) are very positive and have great implications for clinical application. In particular, both category st ructure and atypical items ar e important in promoting generalization because they relate to the sema ntic representations of the items. However, it is important to remember that computer simulations involve isol ated information and events, in which the experimenter programs all of the inputs and thus has complete

PAGE 62

48 control over the information in the model. For example, the second experiment used artificial words from one category and the ty pical and atypical items were created by the network. This differs from the wide range of variation in humans in terms of semantic memory, learning, and the effects of brain da mage and behavioral manifestations of different disorders. Neverthe less, as discussed below, st udies with humans have been conducted and some of the findings are consistent with Plaut (1996). Similar Behavioral Studies A series of experiments on category l earning in non-brain damaged college students was conducted by Posner and Keele (19 68). Participants looked at patterns with varying degrees of distortions These distortions ranged from high (i.e., the distance from the central tendency of the category was great er) to low (i.e., closer to the central tendency). The participants pressed a button to specify their selection for the given pattern, and received feedback about accuracy. This was repe ated over several trials to allow for learning. Results showed that the participants had better generalization from learned patterns to new ones af ter training with highly variab le patterns compared to when the training emphasized low variabilit y. To account for this, Posner and Keele (1968) suggested that va riability is an important part of the learning pr ocess. Although this study did not involve naming or a patient population, and did not use the term typical and atypical, the patterns with higher variability might be considered atypical, whereas those with much lower variability might be considered typical. Furthermore, the theoretical underpinnings are along the same lines, and can be considered support for training atypical items (Plaut, 1996). More recently, three different groups of investigators (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Mayer et al., 2004; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006) examined and compared the effects of

PAGE 63

49 training typical and atypical category exempl ars, and thus compared the two opposing views of typicality discussed above (Pla ut, 1996; Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975). Each of these therapy studies involved adu lts with aphasia in th e context of a singlesubject design targeting confr ontation picture naming, and show ed consistent evidence of treatment effects. However, th e results were mixed, especially in terms of generalization. A brief description of these three studies is provided below. This is followed by a brief critique pertaining to both th eir strengths and limitations, highlighting how they offer unique contributions to the literature a nd have implications for the current study. Kiran and Thompson (2003b) predicted that when atypical items were trained, this process would result in emphasizing both how much the features in the category vary as well as the prototypes features. This, in turn, would result in a strengthening of the associations among the typical items, increased access to these typical items, and finally generalization to untrained typical items. In contrast, they argued that training typical category exemplars would have more limited e ffects, because typical items have limited variation, focusing only on the cen tral tendency of the categ ory (Plaut, 1996). Kiran and Thompson (2003b) argued that, compared to t ypical items, the atypi cal items were more complex because their semantic features have a greater degree of di ssimilarity with each other, and thus they offer more diversifie d information about the whole category, as a collective unit (Plaut, 1996; Thompson et al., 1998; Thompson et al., 2003). To test these predictions, Kiran and Th ompson (2003b) provided therapy for four adults with fluent aphasia on a naming tas k. Baseline naming performance was assessed using 48 items consisting of 24 exemplars from each of two semantic categories (birds and vegetables). The study design allowed for each participant to be separately trained on

PAGE 64

50 one category at a time, starting with either eight atypical category exemplars or eight typical items from each category. After the par ticipant met the criteria the next category was trained with the opposite typicality. The participants atte nded two hour therapy sessions twice a week until either criteri a of 7/8 correct was achieved over two consecutive sessions or after a maximum of 20 training sessions had been completed (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b). During training, participants performed a variety of semantic tasks tapping both comprehension and production skills: picture naming, category sorting, feature sele ction, answering yes/no questi ons; and picture naming again. Participant 1 was first trained on typical birds for seven weeks and this led to a treatment effect (i.e., acquisi tion of the trained items) but there was no generalization to untrained intermediate or atypical items. Subs equent training of atypi cal birds resulted in improved performance on those items. At that time, there were no changes on performance of the control category (veget ables). Then Participant 1 was trained on atypical vegetables, and in 8 weeks, ac quisition criterion wa s observed as was generalization to untrained inte rmediate and typical birds. Pa rticipant 2 was first trained with atypical birds and in 11 weeks, me t criteria and showed generalized naming on intermediate and typical items. At that time, performance on the vegetable category remained the same. Treatment of birds led to no change in performa nce on the untreated category, vegetables, so the participant was subsequently trained on atypical vegetables. This resulted in a treatment effect and ge neralization to untrained intermediate and typical items. Participant 3 was first traine d with typical vegetabl es and although criteria was met, there was no generalization to in termediate or atypical vegetables. Next, Participant 3 was trained on at ypical vegetables that result ed in improved performance on

PAGE 65

51 the trained atypical vegetables; no further treat ment was provided with the bird category because of the extended time for training on the first (28 weeks). Participant 4 was trained only on atypical items and showed a patte rn similar to Participant 2: a treatment effect after 6 weeks of training on vegeta bles and after nine weeks on birds, and generalization to both untrained in termediate and atypical items. The patients in the Kiran and Thomps on (2003b) study acquired atypical items faster acquisition than typical items. Furt hermore, naming of unt rained typical and intermediate items improved following tr aining of atypical items, thus showing generalization. However, when the typical items were trained, there was no generalization to exemplars that were atypical or of interm ediate typicality. Kiran and Thompson (2003b) suggested that the training for the atypical items emphasized how the semantic features in the category varied; wh ereas the training for the typical items was limited to a small number of features that were shared among the other typical items. Moreover, maintenance of the treatment eff ects was found 6-10 weeks after the training. Kiran and Thompson (2003b) conducted an e rror analysis to gain some insights into the effects of the treatment. Before the intervention, the errors were primarily general, as characterized by superordinate labels, no responses, and neologisms. This was attributed to the participants failing to retrieve the specifi ed semantic and/or phonological details of the target name. However, after the treatment, the participants showed more accurate naming on trained items and on untrained items, reflecting better semantic and phonological access to the representa tion. The shift in the type of errors, from general at baseline to semantic and phonemic after the trai ning was attributed to a greater impact of excitation at the level of semantics and phonology that had occurred when the

PAGE 66

52 participants attempted to name the items. Ho wever, this interfered with the ability to accurately select the target name from ot hers that were also activated. Kiran and Thompson (2003b) suggested that although the treatment had a positive impact that was illustrated in enhanced spread of activation to targets within a category that were related, the intervention was not completely successful in eliminating the interference caused by many category exemplars being activated at the semantic/phonemic level during naming. Kiran and Thompson (2003b) suggested that there was improved performance because the treatment was based on semantics and highlighted the underlying elements of semantic representations and processing. Th e investigators suggested that this was compatible with the literatur e using the semantic feature approach (Boyle, 2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000; Drew & Thompson, 1999). Kiran and Thompson (2003b) concluded that their findings provided more support for improving generalization to untrained items based on using more comp lex training items, and thus providing more evidence for the Complexity Approach to Treatment Efficacy (Thompson et al., 1998; Thompson et al., 2003) as well as for trai ning atypical items to achieve better generalization (Plaut, 1996). In this study, Kiran and Thompson (2003b) were the first to show that the computer simulations of acquired dyslexi a by Plaut (1996) could be suc cessfully applied to adults with fluent aphasia. The findings illustra ted the value of training atypical category exemplars in the context of a training high lighting semantic category structure. This study was well designed, including the developm ent of typicality ra tings and semantic attributes, intentionally selec ting low frequency items to avoid effects of word frequency, the use of both comprehension and producti on tasks to activate the entire word

PAGE 67

53 representation, and a training regimen that focu sed on just one category at a time. Two of the training tasks, feature selection an d yes/no questions provided comprehensive information about the items, including the wri tten form. However, specific information was provided by the clinician, and the participant had to select it. It is possible that the training might have been even more robust if the participants were required to generate the information. More importantly, there appear s to be a lack of generalization probes for untrained atypical items and untrained typica l items that have the same and the opposite typicality of the items that were trained (i .e., trained atypical and trained typical items). Our study included a measurement of untrained atypical and typical items for the same and opposite typicality of the trained items (i .e., that were traine d with atypical and typical items; e.g., Training on typical items and untrained typical items), and a more active role for the participants on the tr aining tasks. These are discussed later. Mayer et al. (2004) attempted to replic ate the findings of Kiran and Thompson (2003b) in three participants with severe a phasia and to determine if other semantic categories might yield potent t ypicality effects. Each partic ipant had a different type of aphasia. Participant 1 had global aphasia. Part icipant 2 was considered borderline fluent, (i.e., fairly intact auditory comprehension a nd reading ability, with fluent speech and neologisms including some word approximati ons). Participant 3 had mixed nonfluent aphasia (i.e., intact auditory compre hension for basic information, and although nonverbal, he spontaneously gestured and us ed facial expressions and drawings). A total of six categories were used by Mayer et al. (2004): animals, clothing, furniture, sports, tools, and vehicles. Each participant was trained separately on 10 atypical items from one category, and then on 10 typical items from another category.

PAGE 68

54 Each category was treated for nine weeks, fo r a total of 18 weeks. Two other categories were used as treatment probes (before and af ter treatment) and generalization probes. To maximize support in a structured way us ing phonological and semantic stimulation, training utilized a response-c ontingent hierarchy (Bandur & Shewan, 2001). The clinician presented a picture and guided the partic ipant through a seman tic and phonological cueing hierarchy (starting with the least effec tive and moving to the most effective). This was used until the participant named the item. Then, the participant was asked to repeat the correct name of the item five times (Pring, Hamilton, Harwood, & MacBride, 1993), before completing a confrontation naming tas k. The results indicated that there was a treatment effect for each partic ipant, but this did not genera lize to any untrained items that were probed. Mayer et al (2004) reported that one pa rticipant initi ally showed progress and typicality effects that were described as subtle: generalized naming to untrained typical sports item s after training on atypical spor ts items. However, because there were unanticipated improvements in not just in trained categories but also in untrained categories, Mayer et al. (2004) indicated that th is could not be considered generalization. Mayer et al. (2004) identified three factor s to explain the lack of generalization. First, they considered it possible that the se verity of the aphasia might have interfered with the cognitive processes needed for re habilitation. Second, Mayer et al. (2004) suggested that the training ta sks were structured to compensate for the severity of the deficits, and, thus, perhaps did not have the metalinguistic requirements of the tasks used by Kiran and Thompson (2003b). Third, Mayer et al. (2004) discussed Plauts (1996) assumption pertaining to the retraining a nd the mapping; this might not have been

PAGE 69

55 applicable to their participan ts. According to Plaut (1996) generalization might require a good estimate of the relevant semantic inform ation of the training set overall and this needs to be in alignment with the consistenc y of the mapping that the damaged part of the network is responsible for carrying out. Mayer et al. (2004) reasoned th at the severity of the brain damage in their participants negati vely affected the integrity of their lexicalsemantic network, rendering it incapable of retr ieving the semantic features in order to demonstrate generalization. This study by Mayer et al. (2004) was carefully designed and included various nuances that are important in therapy, including development of typicality norms, selecting six categories that were based on participants in terests when possible. In addition they included repetition of the target as a training task, to minimize phonological access deficits. Stanczak et al. (2005) also sought to understand the relationship among performance on a category verification task (i.e ., a measure of online typicality), training typical and atypical category exemplars fo r naming production, and generalization. Two participants with anomic apha sia, one fluent and the other nonfluent participated in the study. First, prior to the base line picture naming probes, th e participants completed a category verification task (with stimuli from the Kiran and Thompson (2003b) study). The purpose of this was to determine if they would show typicality effects (i.e., faster reaction times and more accurate responses on typical versus atypical items) in response to the written category primes and their written exemplar targets. Then the participants completed baseline probes. This was followed by a naming therapy, in which each participant was simultaneously trained on two categories, birds and vegetables, one with

PAGE 70

56 typical category exemplars and the other w ith atypical. The training tasks were naming the target picture, verification of semantic attributes relate d to it, and naming the picture again. The results of the category verification ta sk that was completed at the onset of the study indicated that the particip ants were faster to verify typical items compared to atypical items (i.e., this was described as online typicality e ffects). The naming treatment had differential effects. The particip ant with fluent aphasia only demonstrated acquisition of trained typical bi rds, but not atypical vegetables In contrast, the participant with nonfluent aphasia demonstrated treatmen t effects for the atypical birds only (not typical vegetables). There was no generalization to untrained items in either participant. The finding of a typicality effect on the cat egory verification task was interpreted by Stanczak et al. (2005) as activation occurri ng in a bottom-up fashion (i.e., the semantic retrieval was automatic). The differences in these two participants responses to the typical and atypical training was attributed to their lesion site and fluency (anterior and nonfluent versus posterior and fluent) inter acting with the semantic processes involved with typical versus atypical items. Specifi cally, it was hypothesized that the controlled semantic processing in the fluent participant was relatively intact, allowing for better performance with the typical words, despite th eir similarity with other items and higher degrees of semantic interference. However, learning the atypical items was considered to be more difficult. In contrast, the nonfluent participant, Stanczak et al. (2005), theorized that the demands for atypical items were less than the typical items (i.e., fewer competitors), and thus yielde d better performance. This study by Stanczak et al. (2005) provided an intriguing interpre tation of the results by linking them to neural substrates.

PAGE 71

57 This is feasible. However, one limitation wa s that the investigat ors did not elaborate about the difficulty related to atypical words. Very recently, Stanczak, Waters, and Caplan (2006) further extended this research by applying the same protocol (S tanczak et al., 2005) to two different participants with anomia from different etiologies. The pur pose of this study was to determine if generalization would be affected by the type of deficit and the type of treatment provided. Participant 1 had conduction a phasia, and her deficits we re primarily phonological; her training was with atypical vegetables and t ypical birds. These were trained over a 20 week period. Participant 2 had transcortical motor a phasia and had phonological and semantic impairments; his training was on at ypical birds and typi cal vegetables. The results indicated that compared to atypical items, typical items were learned faster by both participants. Although both participants showed significant tr eatment effects and better learning of birds compared to vegetabl es, the patterns of responsiveness to the training varied for each participant. Pa rticipant 1, who had a primary phonological impairment, displayed greater learning when trained with typical items compared to atypical items. In contrast, Participant 2, who exhibited both semantic and phonological deficits, did not initially show a difference between learning typical versus atypical items, but did show better learning of atypical items as the treatment continued. Participant 2, who had been trained on atypical birds and t ypical vegetables, also had statistically significant generalization to unt rained typical birds, and onl y marginal generalization to atypical vegetables. To account for these different findin gs, Stanczak et al. (2006) offered interpretations which again were based on ne ural substrates. It was not the phonological

PAGE 72

58 impairment in Participant 1 that resulted in the lack of learning atypical items, but the greater degree of semantic diffi culty inherent in atypical item s. However, for participants with damage to the left prefrontal area, as in Participant 2 (with both semantic and phonological impairments), the typical items initi ally should be learned better because of the high degree of similarity in the features but, then over time, this overlap leads to confusion. Stanczak et al. (2006) hypothesized that learning atypical items, which have greater variation, should result in better performance because the degree of competition is less. Despite the better performance on birds, the investigators refuted the possibility that this was a category specific l earning (i.e., that it was easier to learn birds compared to vegetables), and provided a rationale for the effects of typicality on learning (i.e. both participants were responsive to being trained with typical items but only one responded to the training with atypical items). Stanczak et al. (2006) concluded that while their findings were broadly consis tent with Plaut (1996) and Thompson et al. (2003), the differences from findings by Kiran and Thom pson (2003b) might be attributable to differences in the training (i.e., training two categories at that same time) or the participants (degree of semantic impairment). These four studies (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Mayer et al., 2004; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006) were theoretically motivated and well planned, includi ng programming for generalization. The training task s included at least some info rmation about the target item in terms of semantics and the phonological fo rm, as well as confrontation naming. Some potential limitations of these st udies, with the exception of Mayer et al. (2004) included the use of only two animate categories wi thout a third control category (although the second category was used as a control) and a lack of information about the clinicians

PAGE 73

59 response to a failed naming attempt by th e participant (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006). The clinicians re sponse to the participants naming failure is important because it could affect the outco me. This is because it provides information about the response so that the patient can be tter understand the info rmation and can learn to self-evaluate (B andur & Shewan, 2001). Also, in some of the studies it was not clear if generalization probes to untrained items that had the same, different, or both t ypes of typicality as the items that were trained (e.g., train atypical items, probe untrain ed typical items in th e trained category). It appears that the generalization probes were not measured on both in some of the studies. Other broader methodological c oncerns about these four st udies include the lack of opportunity to or ability to generate semantic information about the item in a more active manner (i.e., beyond yes/no questions). Although yes/no tasks, sorting and other similar tasks are used in the literature and have value, they require th e participant to play a less active role in the therapy. Mayer et al. (2004) and Stanczak et al. (2006) identified concerns related to this in terms of the severity of their patient population and how it might have affected generalization. Another possi bility that Mayer et al. (2004) identified was that the semantic category structure in their patients wa s impaired such that they were unable to benefit from the training which was built around the semantic representations of the category (Plaut, 1996) Another important consideration about achieving a generalization effect has been ra ised by Murray and Clark (2005): it is not known if it is the combination of training t ypical and atypical categ ory exemplars in the context of semantic training requiring ta sk requiring processing of semantic representations (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b), or simply the use of atypical and typical

PAGE 74

60 category exemplars. We attempted to address some of these issues in the methodology of the current study. The Current Study Rationale for Applying the Training to the PAD Population Brain damage can cause a language impairment, and object naming is a sensitive marker for this (Benson, 1979). There is so me evidence that the semantic system is preserved in adults with nonfluent and flue nt aphasia based on similar performance on a lexical decision task compared to non-brain damaged adults (Gerratt & Jones, 1987). However, several of the studies discussed a bove examining adults w ith aphasia suggested there was a disruption or disorg anization of the semantic syst em in adults with fluent aphasia (Grober et al., 1 985; Grossman, 1981; Kiran & Thompson, 2003a). There are other reports of a semantic level impairment in adults with aphasia based on impaired performance on property verification and cat egory verification tasks (Koemeda-Lutz, Cohen, & Meier, 1987); and le xical-semantic discrimination tasks (Chieffi, Carlomagno, Silveri, & Gainotti, 1989; Gai notti, 1981). More specificall y, in transcortical sensory aphasia and anomic aphasia, disturbed semantic processing has been identified as the underlying mechanism causing the language de ficits (Raymer et al., 1997; Raymer & Gonzalez Rothi, 2001). It is possible that th ese deficits involving the semantic category structure might prevent generalization to unt rained items and perhaps account for such findings in the literature (Mayer et al., 2004; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006). The current study proposed that individuals with early PAD provi de an alternative population to study the effects of typical and atypical exemplar training from semantic categories. The rationale for th is is based on the disease pro cess, which results in diffuse damage (as opposed to focal damage from a st roke) and evidence that to some degree, the

PAGE 75

61 semantic systems structure is preserve d in PAD (Albert & Milberg, 1989; Benson & Geschwind, 1985; Hartman, 1991; Nebes, 1992; Ob er et al., 1995; Schw artz et al., 1996). This assertion is supported by findings that show knowledge about semantic categories is preserved in PAD (Flicker et al., 1987; Huff et al., 1986; Ma rtin & Fedio, 1983; Nebes et al., 1986; Salmon, Butters et al., 1999; Sc hwartz et al., 1979 ; Warrington, 1975). The goal of our exploratory study was to de termine if choosing remediation targets for anomia based on typicality (i.e., atypical a nd typical) would result in generalization to untrained items. This involved a comparison of the family resemblance/prototype (Rosch, 1975) favoring typical category exemplars a nd the Complexity Account of Treatment Efficacy (Thompson et al., 2003), as well as the connectionist model of a computer simulation of acquired dyslexia (Plaut 1996) favoring training atypical category exemplars for achieving generalizati on. We provided both lexical phonological information about the item via repetition as well as a semantic feature training with atypical and typical items for adults with P AD. In designing our st udy, relevant findings were culled from the PAD literature, partic ularly the three naming treatment studies (Abrahams & Camp, 1993; Fuller et al., 2001; Ousset et al., 2002; Rothi et al., 2005), the five aphasia studies compar ing typical and atypical ca tegory exemplars (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Mayer et al., 2004; Plaut, 1996; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006), and other relevant findings from th e aphasia treatment literature. According to Nadeau and Gonzalez Rothi ( 2004), the connectionist approach views anomia (that is caused by a semantic defici t) as a reflection of insufficiently engaged representations of features th at are critical for making distinctions among concepts. When a network is damaged, a large amount of inform ation still remains in the network, so the

PAGE 76

62 focus should be on refining the damaged networ k via semantic therapy. In particular, the network needs to be changed in terms of its connectivity so that th ere is more reliable engagement of distinguishing features si multaneously while there is relatively a disengagement of the shared features (N adeau & Gonzalez Rothi, 2004). These findings suggest that participants with early PAD might theref ore be appropriate for the semantically based training provided in our study which compared typical and atypical category exemplars. As noted previously from the aphasia lite rature, a facilitation effect refers to improved performance on trained items from pretest to posttest in a single session (Howard, 1985; Patterson et al., 1983). Our st udy used a single session for different reasons, including the lack of picture naming treatment studies in the PAD literature, and to determine if the lexical-semantic system affected by PAD could be stimulated in a short period. This information would be us eful to know prior to development of an intervention for naming deficits in adults with PAD. For the purpose of this study, the term r esponse generalization is adapted from Thompson (1989) to indicate that a particip ant has improved naming of untrained items based on training of other items. Thom pson (1989) suggested that for response generalization to occur, the training and the probes should allow for sampling of responses that have a similarity to the traine d items, either within a defined set or across it. The methodology for our study allowed for a measure of generalization to untrained atypical and untrained typical items regardle ss of the type of training that category received. (e.g., in the Train-Typical vehicl es condition, there were untrained typical vehicles and untrained atypical vehicles). The aphasia literature suggests criteria to

PAGE 77

63 measure generalization; some examples include an increase in performance from baseline by 40% (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b) or 50-80% (Thompson, 1989). A nother approach has been an increase of baseline performan ce as measured by three or more probe items (Boyle, 2004). In our exploratory study, we chose to measure generalization based on an increase from pretest that was statistically signifi cant at the alpha .05 level. The typicality ratings from Rosch (1975) provided categories and their exemplars for this study. Using 24 items per semantic category allowed for an adequate number of training and generalization items (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Rothi et al., 2005). Two categories were used for the training (seven atypical and seven typical items) and the other was a control category (M ayer et al., 2004; Rothi et al ., 2005). While three of the four aphasia treatment studies comparing ty pical and atypical categ ory exemplar training (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Stanczak et al., 20 05, 2006) used the categories of birds and vegetables, two of them reported generalizati on just one used a combination of natural kinds and man-made artifacts (Mayer et al., 2004). Our study involved three artif act categories: vehicles, cl othing and tools. Although at least one PAD study has suggested that there was no significant difference in performance on natural kinds and artifacts (Tippett, Grossman, & Farah, 1996), others have found there is evidence that adults with PAD have shown lower levels of performance on natural kinds (Chertkow, B ub, & Caplan, 1992; Montanes, Goldblum, & Boller, 1995; Warrington, 1975), or that the pr ofile changes with the progression of the disease (Gonnerman et al., 1997). To avoid this controversy, the current study used only artifact categories.

PAGE 78

64 It has been suggested that providing feedback is an impor tant part of the learning process (Bandur & Shewan, 2001). Repetition has been used as a training task, and found to be effective in obtaining a treatment eff ect (Fuller et al., 20 01; Mayer et al., 2004; Patterson et al., 1983; Pring et al., 1993; Rothi et al., 2005). Hickin et al. (2002) suggested that presenting a picture stimuli a nd repeating the name of the word actually elicits semantic processing. Our study comb ined these three components. This was followed by the semantic training requiring ge neration of semantic information about the target item. The rationale for this comes from studies that suggest that the naming deficit in PAD was both due to semantic specification and lexical access defi cits (Bowles et al., 1987; Williamson et al., 1998). Our study used repe tition so that if the PAD participants have a deficit in both the semantic system a nd lexical access, the form of the word was provided and being reinforced, and the semantic training targeted the semantic part of the deficit. Evidence of a treatment effect has been re ported after training with a combination of semantic and lexical (i.e., word form) tasks (Drew & Thompson, 1999; Le Dorze et al., 1994; Wiegel-Crump & Koenigsknecht, 1973). Two other anomia treatment approaches have also been found to result in treatmen t and generalization eff ects in adults with aphasia are semantic distinction training (H illis, 1998); and semantic feature analysis (SFA) (Boyle, 2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000). Both of these approaches combined specific training of se mantic features with presentation of the phonological form. As noted above, Kiran and Thompson (2003b) applied a similar process and suggested it was an important aspe ct of the study. The three other typicality

PAGE 79

65 studies (Mayer et al., 2004; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006) also used a more simplified version of this. Our study attempted to achieve some of the benefits of SFA (Boyle, 2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000), for exam ple, to facilitate a threshold level of activation of the semantic network that su rrounds the targeted item. Furthermore, like SFA, we aimed for systematic activation of th e distinguishing features of the item rather than shared features (Boyle, 2004; Boyl e & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000). This process is based on the spreading activation theory, which posits th at selection of the target item among competitors is based on the highest activation achieved (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Dell & O'Seaghdha, 1992; Leve lt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999). Once the concept is selected, phonologica l information is activated so that the target item is produced (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Dell & O'Seaghdha, 1992; Levelt et al., 1999). Finally, SFA has also been shown to result in both a treatment effect and generalization to untrained items (Boyle, 2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000). More specifically, our training protoc ol was a modified version of SFA (Boyle, 2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000). Our PAD part icipants answered questions about the target item and then named it. We also incl uded an aspect of the semantic distinction training (Hillis, 1998), by asking them about how an item differs from others like it. When the participant was unable to res pond correctly, the clinician provided the information and had the participant rep eat it, based on Coel ho et al. (2000). Other studies also required active producti on of information, including the use of antonyms and synonyms (McNeil et al., 1998), personalized cueing (F reed, Marshall, & Nippold, 1995; Lowell, Beeson, & Holland, 1995; Marshall, Freed, & Karow, 2001); and

PAGE 80

66 the participant using circumlocution (i.e., describing the item) (F rancis et al., 2002). Some of these studies also reported generalization to untra ined items (Francis et al., 2002; Lowell et al., 1995). In conclusion, we used information from the three PAD naming treatment studies (Abrahams & Cam p, 1993; Fuller et al., 2001; Ousset et al., 2002; Rothi et al., 2005), studies compari ng training atypical and typical category exemplars (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Mayer et al., 2004; Plaut, 1996; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006) and other aphasia studies that show ed treatment and ge neralization effects (Boyle, 2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000; Davis & Pring, 1991; Francis et al., 2002; Hickin, Best, Herbert, Howard, & Osborne, 2001; Hillis, 1998; Howard et al., 1985; Pring et al., 1993; Raymer, Th ompson, Jacobs, & le Grand, 1993). Many of these studies also provided ra tionale for predictions about our research questions, which are discussed below. Research Questions and Predictions The first four research questions fo cused on performance (i.e., accuracy and reaction times) on picture naming. While the fi rst two research quest ions addressed the effects of repetition and the tr aining (i.e., facilitation effects) the third question addressed changes in performance on untrained items (i .e., generalization or practice effects). The fourth question also addresse d generalization, but to another task, category generation. These questions are listed below with th eir corresponding predictions. The type of training (i.e., training type) alwa ys refers to the typicality of trained items in a particular trained category, and are always referred to as Train-Atypical, to in dicate that atypical items were trained, and TrainTypical, to indicate that typical items were trained. Research Question 1: Does repetition of the control items (i.e., not with semantic training) impact performance at posttest?

PAGE 81

67 Prediction: There will be better performance (higher accuracy and faster reaction times) on repeated items compared to items that were not repeated (Fuller et al., 2001; Patterson et al., 1983; Pring et al., 1993; Rothi et al., 2005) Research Question 2. What are the effects of sema ntic training on trained items? Research Question 2a: Do accuracy scores and the r eaction times for trained items change from pretest to posttest? Prediction: Accuracy and reaction times for tr ained items will show a facilitation effect after training: Accuracy scores will be higher and reaction times will be faster on the trained items at the pos ttest (Drew & Thompson, 1999; Howard, 1985; Le Dorze et al., 1994). Research Question 2b: Does the type of training (i.e ., Train-Atypical or Train-Typical) impact the performance on trained items at posttest? Prediction 2b.1: Performance will improve after both types of training, but there will be a greater improvement after training typical items (Plaut, 1996). Prediction 2b.2: Performance will only improve af ter training typical items (Rosch, 1975). Research Question 3a : Will there be an overall change in performance on untrained items from trained categories? Prediction 3a: Accuracy will increase and reactio n times will decrease in untrained items in trained categories (Boyle, 2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000; Hillis, 1998; Plaut, 1996; Wiegel-Crump & Koenigsknecht, 1973). Research Question 3b: Does the type of training (i .e., Train-Atypical/ Train-Typical) affect performance on untrained items in trained categories (i .e., generalization)?

PAGE 82

68 Prediction 3b.1: Training atypical items (Train-Atypical) will result in greater generalization as shown by higher accuracy scores and faster reaction times (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Plaut, 1996; Stanczak et al., 2006; Thompson et al., 2003). Prediction 3b.2: Training typical exemplars will result in greater generalization: higher accuracy scores and faster reacti on times for typical exemplars within the same category (Rosch, 1975). Prediction 3b.3 : Training typical exemplars will result in greater generalization to both untrained typical and atypical items because typical items have richer representations and share more features w ith all other category members (Heilman, personal communication, 2005). Research Question 3c: Is there an interaction betw een time and item typicality (i.e., atypical items and typical items)? Prediction 3c: Untrained typical items from trained categories will show more improvement than atypical items from trained categories after training. Research Question 3d: Is there an intera ction among time, training type, and item type? Prediction 3d.1: Training atypical items will result in generalization to untrained typical items (Kiran & Th ompson, 2003b; Plaut, 1996; Stanczak et al., 2006) and to untrained atypical items (Pla ut, 1996; Stanczak et al., 2006). Prediction 3d.2: Training typical items will have a positive impact on untrained typical items from trained categories a nd a negative impact on the performance with atypical items from tr ained categories (Plaut, 1996). Research Question 4: Is there generalization to category generation?

PAGE 83

69 Prediction 4: There will be an increase in th e number of items named in the trained categories, and this will be greater for the trained categories compared to the untrained categories (Ousset et al., 2002).

PAGE 84

70 CHAPTER 4 METHODS The purpose of this exploratory study wa s to extend previous research on the effects of training typical and atypical cat egory exemplars on generalization (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Mayer et al., 2004; Plaut, 1996; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006) while comparing two views of typicality (Pla ut, 1996; Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975). Participants with early probable Alzheimer di sease participated in this picture naming training study. The primary goal was to determin e if remediation targ ets could be chosen based on typicality, to maximize generalizati on to untrained items (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Plaut, 1996; Stanczak et al., 2006). Th is was achieved by training atypical (i.e., Train-Atypical) and typical (i .e., Train-Typical) category ex emplars from two semantic categories and leaving untrained atypical and typical items in each category for both the same item typicality that was trained (e.g., Train-Atypical, untr ained atypical items), and the opposite (e.g., Train-Atypical, untrained typical items). Us ing a repeated measures (i.e., within subject) design, our study provided each participant with a modified semantic feature based training (Boyle, 2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000) for each category. This was completed in a single se ssion and the results were analyzed for a facilitation effect (Hickin et al., 2002; Howard, 1985; Howard et al., 1985; Patterson et al., 1983) and generalization to untrained it ems. While the outcome measures (i.e., dependent variables) for the picture naming were accuracy and res ponse time means (in milliseconds), the number of items generated was the outcome measure for the category generation task.

PAGE 85

71 Participants Following approval from the UF Institutional Review Board (Appendix A), the participants with PAD were recruited and enrolled into the study. Recruitment of participants was accomplished with the help of the University of Florida Memory and Cognitive Disorder Clinics. Additional recruitment efforts included presenting information and flyers about the study at the Alzheimers Association, and Alz Place, an adult day care facil ity for individuals with Alzheime r disease and other dementias. Participants were compensated $20 for their time. Diagnosis of the participants with m ild-moderate PAD was made by a team of medical professionals includi ng neurologists and neuropsyc hologists based on criteria from the National Institute of Neurologi cal and Communicative Disorders & Stroke (NINCDS), and the Alzheimers Disease a nd Related Disorders Association (ADRDA) (McKhann et al., 1984). Individual s were not eligible for the study if they had any history of brain or head injury, psychiatric hospita lization, alcohol or drug abuse; any chronic medical or psychiatric conditi ons, or any developmental lear ning disability. Participants were pre-screened at the UF Memory Disord ers Clinics for PAD. Some of the results from the neuropsychological testing ar e shown in Table B-1, Appendix B. A phone screen was used to confirm e ligibility and to collect demographic information. Twelve adults (7 women and 5 men) with newly diagnosed early PAD completed the study. The average age was 77.6 ( SD = 9.6) and the average number of years of education was 15.8 ( SD = 3.8). The mean score for the Mini Mental Status Exam (Folstein et al., 1975) was 22.6 ( SD = 3.4) with a range of 17-27. More specific demographic information and performance scor es for each participant are shown in Table 4-1.

PAGE 86

72 Table 4-1. Participant Demographics and Scor es on Mini Mental Status Exam and Reading Subtest ID # Age Years of Education Gender Mini Mental Status Exam Reading Subtest WRAT-3 (percentile) 1001 72 17 F 21 87 1002 77 13 F 24 50 1003 76 10 M 17 8 1004 92 24 M 24 91 1005 82 12 F 19 10 1006 78 12 F 22 50 1007 55 20 M 27 90 1008 84 15 F 25 75 1009 69 18 M 20 50 1010 86 16 F 19 63 1011 75 16 M 27 81 1012 85 16 F 26 87 Mean 77.6 15.8 22.6 61.8 Notes: Mini Mental Status Exam (Folstein et al., 1975); WRAT-3=Wide Range Achievement Test-3 Reading subtest (Wilkinson, 1993). Experimental Stimuli There were six training lists (1-6) that we re counter balanced using a Latin Square for training conditions (i.e., Train-Atypical, Train-Typical, Control) and semantic category (i.e., vehicles, clothi ng, and tools). As depicted in Table 4-2, each list had two training conditions and one cont rol condition. Participants were assigned to these lists sequentially, as they were enrolled into the study. For example, the first participant (#1001) had List 1, and this process conti nued with the remaining participants (e.g., participant eight ( #1008) had list 2). Table 4-2. Lists of Training Conditions and Corresponding Training Conditions List # Vehicles Clothing Tools 1 Train-Typical Control Train-Atypical 2 Train-Atypical Train-Typical Control 3 Control Train-Atypical Train-Typical 4 Train-Typical Train-Atypical Control 5 Control Train-Typical Train-Atypical 6 Train-Atypical Control Train-Typical

PAGE 87

73 The pre and posttesting picture naming stimu li consisted of 72 black and white line drawings from three categories: vehicles, clot hing, and tools. (Table C-1, in Appendix C, shows the list of 72 items used in the st udy). Since there are several variables being addressed, it is important to first clarify the terminology for the items in the pre and posttest naming tasks, then the details related to the training are discussed. All items were designated as either typical or atypical, based on the ratings in the Rosch norms (Rosch, 1975). Items were chosen from these three categ ories based on the seven-point typicality ratings from Rosch (1975), such that half th e items in each category were atypical and the other half were typical. Typicality ratings fo r items used in this study ranged from 1.02 (the most typical) to 5.36 (the most atypica l). For each category, the typical and atypical items were selected at about a midpoint range so that half would be typical and the other half would be atypical. The mean typical ity score for the atypical items 3.5 ( SE = .12), and the mean typicality score for the typical items was 1.6 ( SE = .08). An independent ttest indicated that these groups of items were significantly different, t (70)=12.967 p = .00. The picture stimuli were gleaned from a va riety of sources, with the majority from the Florida Semantic Battery (Raymer et al ., 1990). Name agreement was determined by piloting the naming task on 10 University of Florida (UF) undergraduates in the Language over the Lifespan Lab. Each semantic category was designated as e ither the control category (i.e., no items received semantic training), Train-Typical (i.e., only typical items received semantic training), or Train Atypical (i .e., only atypical items received semantic training). There were several reasons for the choice and number of categories. All artifact categories were

PAGE 88

74 chosen to avoid the possible confound of mi xing biological and artifact categories. Furthermore, it was important to prevent a ny overlap from other semantic categories (e.g., vehicles and sports). Also, previous re search on picture nami ng has included these categories (Grossman, 1981; Ma yer et al., 2004), although othe r studies of typicality effects have only included natural kinds (Fuller et al., 2001; Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Rothi et al., 2005). There were 24 exemplar s in each category (Kiran and Thompson, 2003b) 12 typical and 12 atypical. From these 72 items, the semantic training stimuli were selected. For each category, seven atypical items were designated as the training set for when the category appeared in the Train-Atypical condition, and 7 typical items were designated as the training set for when that category appear ed in Train-Typical condition. Thus, in a category that appeared in the Train-Typical condition, for example, the 7 typical items in the training set would receive semantic training, leaving 5 un trained typical items and 12 untrained atypical items from that category to analyze for generalization. Untrained items were those items that received no semantic training, but were members of the trained category. Therefore, for any given item, it was necessary to specify whether it was typical or atypical, trained or untrain ed, and what type of training, if any, that category received. The control items were untrained items in the untrained category. Control items were named at both pretest and posttest. Because a ll items from the trai ned categories were repeated, half of the items from the contro l category were also repeated to determine what effect simple repetition without semantic training had on lexical access. An example based on list 1 is found in Table 4-3.

PAGE 89

75 Table 4-3. Example from List 1: Train-Typical Vehicles and Train-Atypical Tools. Trained Untrained (same as trained) Untrained (opposite of trained) 7 Typical Vehicles 5 Typical Vehicles 12 Atypical Vehicles 7 Atypical Tools 5 Atypical Tools 12 Typical Tools Note: The control category was comprised of 24 items of clothing. The list of phrases or cues for the se mantic training was developed by polling volunteers (ranging from a Ph.D. investigator, a certified speech-la nguage pathologist, and several undergraduate res earch assistants) who are me mbers of the UF Language over the Lifespan Lab in the Department of Communication Scienc es and Disorders. These cues were compiled and selected based on the most salient ones. In a series of post hoc analyses of the stimulus words from these pictures, we examined a possible influence from four va riables on the atypical and typical items: typicality (Rosch, 1975), which we expected to show a significant difference; written word frequency (Frances & Kucera, 1982) and familiarity (Wilson, 1987), and phoneme length. We used an independent sample t-test to compare the complete list of 72 atypical and typical items on the four variables. For typicality and phoneme length, ratings were available for each item. The independent ttest for the typica lity ratings had a p value of .000, indicating a significant difference in te rms of typicality between the atypical and typical items. The independent t-test for phoneme length was not significant, t (70)=2.528 p = .69 indicating there was no difference betwee n the atypical and typical items. In other words, the phoneme length for the atypic al and typical items did not influence the results. The independent t-test compar ing typical and atypical items from the Complete List was not significant for frequency, t (70) =-1.389, p =.169, suggesti ng that there was no difference in the frequency ratings between the atypical and typical items. However, although the independent t-test fo r familiarity was significant, t (38) =-3.625, p = .00, this

PAGE 90

76 analysis was only computed on 40/72 items (i.e., many of the items did not have familiarity ratings). Thus, the results must be interpreted with caution. Table 4-4 depicts the means of the four variables discussed above. Table 4-4. Means for Complete List of Atypical and Typical Items. Train Type Typicality Score Freque ncy Familiarity Phoneme Length Atypical 3.6 15.7 480 4.8 Typical 1.7 25.1 551 4.9 Notes: Typicality (Rosch, 1975); Freuency (Frances and Kucera, 1982); Familiarity (Wilson, 1987). Procedure Prior to participation in the study, written informed consent was obtained from each participant. As needed, the clinician allowed ti me for the participant to read the informed consent form. Then, the clinician answered a ny questions and assisted the participant in interpreting the information. Screening Two measures were used for the scre ening: The Mini-Mental Status Exam (Folstein et al., 1975) and the reading subt est of the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT-3) (Wilkinson, 1993). The clinician ad ministered the MMSE using the standard procedure (Folstein et al., 1975). Next, the clin ician presented a com puterized version of the reading subtest (Wilkinson, 1993) in whic h the participant read aloud the individual words from the screen. These responses were digitally recorded on an Olympus DM-10 digital recorder (Olympus, 2002) and response times (RTs) were collected via DirectRT (Jarvis, 2004) for later scoring and analysis. Pretesting The pretest consisted of two tasks, Ca tegory Generation (Benton, 1968) and Picture Naming. For the Category Generation task, th e clinician provided instructions for the

PAGE 91

77 participant to name as many items as possibl e in one minute for a given category (i.e., vehicles, clothing, and tools). The categories were presented in a pre-determined random order. The clinician wrote the responses verb atim on the pretest form, and responses were also digitally recorded for checking reliability. The Picture Naming task consisted of th e complete set of 72 line drawings randomly presented on the computer via DirectRT (Jarvis, 2004). At the onset of the task, the clinician read aloud the set of instructions that appeared on the screen and confirmed comprehension of the task. The clinician controlled the pace of the session by using the mouse button presses on a wire less mouse. Each picture stayed on the screen until the clinician advanced to the next picture (i.e., the picture di d not disappear or time out). There were four practice items from the categor y of fruit. After the participant attempted to name a presented picture, the clinician informed the participant if he/she was correct or not, and then asked the participant to repeat the correct name of th e item three times. If the participant produced a corr ect alternative name of the item (e.g., jet for airplane) their response was accepted as correct, and this word was repeated (Appendix C includes a list of acceptable alternative names for items). The clinician then advanced to the next trial. As stated above, twelve items from the control category were not repeated (half were typical and half were atypical). A prom pt appeared on the computer screen to alert the clinician as to whether this was a repeat ed item or not. This procedure was used for all of the items in the two trained categories, and for half of the control items (i.e., repeat or no repeat, without semantic training). More specifically, after the participant na med an item, the word repeat appeared on the lower center section of the screen. Ne xt, the clinician provi ded verbal feedback

PAGE 92

78 and directed the participant to repeat the name of it three times (i.e., Thats correct, now you say it three times ___, ___, ___ or Its s upposed to be a ___, now you say it three times, ___, ___, ___) (Kendall, personal communi cation, 2005; Fuller et al. 2001; Rothi et al. 2005). When an unrepeated item was presented, the participant named the item, then the words Go on appeared in place of the word Repeat, and the clinician advanced to the next item. Thus, on these control items the clinician did not provide feedback about the participants response, and the item was not re peated. The clinician continued this process with each of the re maining pictures until all 72 items had been named. At this point, the participant took a s hort break while the clinician set up for the semantic training. All of the naming respons es were digitally recorded for later transcription and analysis, and response times were collected via DirectR (Jarvis, 2004). Semantic Training This was a guided, feature generation ta sk, loosely based on semantic feature analysis (Boyle, 2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000) and semantic distinction training (Hillis, 1998). The computer presented the pictures from one of the training categories (i.e., seve n items) in random order and the clinician asked the participant to answer each of the followi ng questions about the item: 1. What is its function?; 2. Who uses it?; and 3. How is it different from other __? (i.e., things like it). After the participant answered the three questions, the clinician asked the participant to name the item. Whenever a participant wa s unable to correctly answer a question or provided ambiguous information, the clinician provided cues from a pre-determined typed list. Whenever the participant was unabl e to name the item, the clinician stated it and asked the participant to repeat it. The clinician con tinued this process with the remaining six training items for that categor y. Each participant was trained on the two

PAGE 93

79 categories from their designate d list. The trained categorie s (e.g., Train-Atypical Tools, and Train-Typical Vehicles) we re randomly presented in bl ocks, but the order of the items presented within each category was ra ndom. This allowed each participant to be trained on each category and the corresponding training type (i.e., Tr ain-Atypical, TrainTypical) for a total of six practice sets (i.e ., three presentations fo r each category). Then, the participant took a break while the clinicia n prepared for the postt esting. The responses from the training were also digitally recorded. Posttesting The posttesting consisted of th e same two tasks and instructions as the pre-testing: Category Generation and Pict ure Naming. During the Catego ry Generation task, the participant was given the same instructions and the same random order for generating as many items as possible for each of the three categories (vehicles, clothing, and tools). The clinician wrote down partic ipants responses verbatim an d also digitally recorded them in order to check reliability. For the Picture Naming task, the same 72 item picture set was presented by computer running Direct-RT (Jarvis, 2004). It ems were presented in a different random order than at pretest. In this version, the participant only named the pictures aloud, without feedback or repetition. Scoring The scoring for the screening tasks was completed as follows. The Mini Mental Status Exam was scored using the standard scoring outlined by Folstein et al. (1975). Digital recordings of the r eading subtest from the WRAT-3 (Wilkinson, 1993) were used to code the data for accuracy of production by a trained resear ch assistant. The clinician scored the responses and calcu lated raw and standard scores and converted them to the

PAGE 94

80 percentiles, based on instructions from the WRAT-3 Manual (Wilkinson, 1993). It is important to note that normative data for adu lts with PAD is not provided in the WRAT-3 Manual (Wilkinson, 1993), and that most of our PAD participants were beyond the age ranges provided (i.e., 55-64.11; and 65-74.11). Th us, these findings must be interpreted with caution. The pre and posttest picture naming performance for accuracy and response times was collected by Direct RT (J arvis, 2004). Accuracy and re sponse times were tracked by the clinicians mouse clicks (i.e., left for correct and right for incorrect) based on the participants response and coded these as one s and zeros. The list of acceptable alternate names is displayed in Appendix C. The clinician used the same procedure for the response times (i.e., left for usable and right for unusable). For the response times, only fluent, correct responses were computed in the analyses (e.g., response times were excluded if the participant sa id, uh airplane, but the re sponse would be scored as accurate/correct). Furthermore, response times for each participant were adjusted for outliers by replacing any value th at was greater than three st andard deviations above the mean, with the mean value. The responses for the Category Generation task were transcribed independently by a trained research assistant. The clinician and research assistant then compared these results to the clinicians original on-line written documentation from the session and discrepancies were resolved by referring back to the corres ponding voice files until agreement was reached. Informal reliability m easures were carried out with ~ 50% of the data, using the voice files. Agreement was ~98% and disagreements about scoring of

PAGE 95

81 responses were resolved by consensus dur ing the Language over the Lifespan Lab meetings. Responses from the Picture Naming task were also transcribed by a trained research assistant. The clinician used these transcri pts to verify coding of 100% of the picture naming scoring. Statistical Analyses Our study used a repeated measures desi gn. The analyses compared pre and posttest category generation a nd picture naming performance using both accuracy and response times where possible. Analyses eval uated the effects of repetition and practice from data in the control condition, the eff ects of semantic training, and generalization effects to untrained items in trained categorie s. The effects of trai ning atypical and typical category exemplars were also examined. The pre and posttest picture naming data we re analyzed using t-tests, repeated measures analysis of variances (ANOVAs ) and follow-up post hoc t-tests where necessary. It is important to point out that the pretest naming data reflects the participants initial attempt at naming the pictures; this was followed by the repetition and semantic training. Thus, the effect of re petition and training can only be evaluated by comparing pre and posttest performance. Due to an error in the programming related to the control items, four partic ipants repeated all items. Cons equently, data from only eight of the twelve participants could be included in the anal ysis of repetition effects. Since inspection of the data for some of the analyses showed pronounced differences at pretest, difference scores were calculated from the pr e and posttest data and then analyzed. The dependent variables for picture naming were means from the accuracy and response time data. The independent variab les varied according to the questions, but

PAGE 96

82 included time (pre /posttest), repetition (no re peat/repeat), training type (i.e., the TrainAtypical/Train-Typical), item typicality (i .e., item type, atypical/typical). For consistency, whenever possible the term atypical is always discussed before typical, this convention is alphabetical and used in orde r to reduce confusion with the terminology (there is no intentional bias). The dependent variables for the pre and pos ttest category genera tion data were the number of items generated per category, a nd the independent variables were time and training type (i.e., Control category, TrainAtypical, Train-Typical). The data was analyzed with repeated measures ANOVAs. Research Question 1: Control Items Does repetition of the control items (i.e ., not with semantic training) impact performance at posttest? This question addresse d the possibility of a re petition or practice effect. Only accuracy and res ponse time means from the unt rained items in untrained categories (i.e., the control condition) made up the dependent variable. Half of these were in the repetition condition and half were not (i.e., not repeated ). The independent variables were time (pre/pos t) and repetition (yes/no). A (2) Time (pre/post) X (2) Repetition (yes/no) repeated measures ANOVA was used to an swer this question. Research Question 2: Trained Items in Trained Categories This two-part question addressed the po ssibility of a facilitation effect in semantically trained items (i.e., Train-Atypica l and Train-Typical). Th e data consisted of scores from the 14 trained items (i.e., the se ven atypical and seven t ypical items from the two trained categories). This within categor y measure was assessed as a comparison of pretest and posttest performance on the confrontation naming task

PAGE 97

83 Research Question 2a: Do accuracy scores and the response times for trained items change from pretest to posttest? The indepe ndent variable was time (i.e., change from pretest to post test). Research Question 2b: Does the type of training (i.e., Trai n-Atypical or TrainTypical) impact the performance at posttest ? The independent variables were time and training type. To answer both of these questions, (2) Time (pre/post) x (2) Training type (TrainAtypical/Train-Atypical) repeated measures ANOVAs were computed. Research Question 3: Untrained Items in Trained Categories Question 3 had several subcomponents, but overall addressed the possibility of a primary generalization effect. If th ere was a facilitation effect in question 2, the purpose of questions 3a, b, c, and d was to determin e if the facilitation effect generalized to untrained items within the same trained category. Research Question 3a: Is there generalization to untrained items in the trained category? The independent vari able was time (pre/post). Research Question 3b: Does the type of training (i.e., Train-Atypical/TrainTypical) affect generalization to untrained it ems in trained categories? The independent variables were training type and time. Research Question 3c: Does the typicality of the untrained item (i.e., atypical items and typical items) determine whether it will benefit from generalization? The independent variables were time and item type. Research Question 3d: Do time, training t ype, and item type interact to promote generalization limited to a particular item t ype following a particul ar training type? The independent variables were time, training type, and item type.

PAGE 98

84 The analyses for Question 3 used the 34 untrained items in the two trained categories (i.e., 17 untrained items in each trai ned category). For the accuracy means, we used a (2) Time x (2) Training Type (Tra in-Atypical/Train-Typical) x (2) Item Type (Atypical/Typical) repeated measures ANOVA. The response time means were analyzed di fferently. For Question 3a, a t-test was used to compare pre and posttest perform ance. To answer Questions b, c, and d difference scores were comput ed between preand posttest response times and analyzed via a (2) Training Type x (2) Item type repeated measures ANOVA. Research Question 4: Category Generation Research Question 4: Is there generaliz ation from picture naming to category generation? Does the type of training th e category receive affe ct whether there is generalization to category generation. The inde pendent variables were time and training type. The dependent variable was total numbe r of items generated per category and these were analyzed with a (3) Training Type (Tra in-Atypical, Train-Typical and Control) x (2) Time repeated measures ANOVA.

PAGE 99

85 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS In this study we compared the performa nce of adults with probable Alzheimer disease (PAD) on picture naming and categor y generation tasks before and after a semantic training using atypical and typical category exemplars. The accuracy means and response times (in milliseconds, ms) from pre and posttest picture naming, and number of items generated per category on a category generation task were analyzed with t-tests and repeated measures analysis of variances (ANOVAs). To control for some of the differences in the pretest scores across c onditions, difference scores were computed for several of the questions and th en analyzed to compare direct ion and magnitude of change. An a priori decision was made to use a .05 le vel of significance for all of the analyses. The two training conditions are always refe rred to as Train-At ypical (i.e., training atypical items) and Train-Typica l (i.e., training typical items). Research Question 1: Control Items Question 1 asked if repetition of the control items (i.e., no t with semantic training) impacted the performance of picture naming at posttest. The dependent variables were the accuracy and response times, and the independent variables were time and the repetition and no repetition conditions. The data for these analyses were from the control categories (i.e., untrained items in untrained ca tegories) in which half of the items were repeated (i.e., repetition c ondition) and the other half were not (i.e., no repetition condition).

PAGE 100

86 A (2) Time (pre/posttest) x (2) Repetiti on (yes/no) repeated measures ANOVA was used to examine the data from eight particip ants. The results showed that there were no significant main effects or inte ractions for the accuracy m eans. Although the items in the repetition condition were somewhat higher (Mean ( M ) = .89, SE = .04) compared to items in the no repetition condition ( M = .80; SE = .04), this was not significant, F (1,7) = 3.691; p = .096; 2= .35. There were no other main effects or interactions with the accuracy means for the control items. Thus, repetiti on did not have a significant effect on the accuracy means. The response time means showed a simila r pattern from the (2) Time x (2) Repetition repeated measures ANOVA. There were no significant main effects to suggest that repetition alone impacted performance fr om pretest to posttest There were decreases in the response time means, indicating faster responses, but these were not significant. One was for time, F (1,7) = 3.702; p = .096; 2 = .346; MPre = 2456 ms ( SE = 521); MPost = 1858 ms ( SE = 243). The other was for repetition, F (1,7) = 4.416; p = .074; 2 = .387; MREP = 1979 ms ( SE =321 ms), MNoRep = 2334 ms ( SE = 440 ms). The interaction was not significant, F (1,7) = 1.566; p = .251; 2 = .183. The items in the control condition did not re ceive any semantic tr aining, but half of them were repeated at pretest. Although th e accuracy in the control condition means were slightly higher, this was not significant. The response times decreased somewhat, but not significantly. Thus, repeating ite ms in the control condition di d not result in statistically significant changes in accuracy or response times. Research Question 2: Semantically Trained Items Questions 2a and b asked if performance on the semantically trained items (i.e., Train-Atypical and Train-Typica l) changed from pre to posttest, and, if so, whether there

PAGE 101

87 was a difference between the two types of training (i.e., Train-Atypical versus TrainTypical). The dependent variables for both que stions were accuracy and response times from the 14 trained items (i.e., seven atypi cal and seven typical items) from the 12 participants. Table 5-1 provides an overview of the accuracy and response time means. These are discussed separately below. Table 5-1. Pre and Post Group Accuracy and Response Time Means for Trained Items Accuracy Response times Pretest Posttest p value Pretest Posttest p value .76 (.04) .86 (.03) .004 1719 ms (183) 1362 ms (96) p < .06 Note: The numbers in parentheses are standard errors ( SE ). To determine the effects of semantic trai ning on performance, a (2) Time (pre/post) x (2) Training type (Train-Atypical/Train-Ty pical) repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare pre and posttest accuracy means. Th ese showed a significant main effect of time, F (1,11) = 12.780; p < .01; 2 = .54. The trained items were named significantly more accurately at posttest compared to the pretest ( MPre = .76, SE =.04; MPost = .86, SE =.03). There were no other main effects or interactions for the accuracy means. Although trained items were more accurate after th e training, there was no difference between training typical versus atypical items. Table 5-2 shows the re sults for the accuracy and response times. Table 5-2. Group Accuracy and Response Time Me ans for Trained Items (Train-Atypical; TrainTypical) Accuracy Response Times Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Difference Scores* TrainAtypical .71 (.07) .84 (.05) 1506 ms (168) 1397 ms (154) -109 (217) TrainTypical .81 (.06) .87 (.05) 1931 ms (243) 1326 ms (101) -605 (186) Notes: ( SE ).* Difference scores for the response time means were significant ( p =.04).

PAGE 102

88 Response times were examined to determ ine if semantic training impacted the speed of lexical access. A t-test of pre a nd posttest performance showed that response times were 357 ms faster after the training; these results approached significance, t (11) = 2.12; p = .057; MPre = 1719, SE = 183 ms; MPost = 1362 ms, SE = 96 ms. Since the pretest response times for the two training conditions varied, difference scores were calculated for Question 2b to dete rmine if the type of training (i.e., TrainAtypical versus Train-Typical) affected the response times. The difference scores were computed by subtracting the posttest response times from pr etest response times for each training type. Next, a paired t-test was com puted, which showed that the results were significant, t (11) = 2.28; p = .04. As shown in Table 5-2, ther e was a larger difference for the Train-Typical items ( M = -605, SE = 217 ms), which were the slowest at pretest, but fastest at posttest compared to Train-Atypical items ( M = -109, SE = 186 ms). Thus, the semantic training had a facilitati on effect on lexical access in individuals with mild-moderate probable Alzheimer di sease (PAD), increasing accuracy on picture naming. Although the change in accuracy for trained items was similar regardless of training type, response times for Train-Typi cal items benefited more from semantic training. Research Question 3: Untrained Items in Trained Categories Question 3 addressed various aspects of ge neralization to the 17 untrained items in the 2 trained categories. For each trained cat egory, these 17 items comprised 5 untrained items with the same typicality as the items trained and 12 items of the opposite typicality. For example, if Typical Vehicles were tr ained (i.e., Train-Typical), untrained items would consist of 5 untrained typical vehicl es and 12 untrained atypical vehicles. The dependent variables were accuracy and re sponse times. The different components of

PAGE 103

89 Question 3 were addressed using differen t repeated measures ANOVAs. The accuracy scores are discussed together, answering Qu estions 3,a, b, c, and d, and is followed by a similar procedure for the response times. The purpose of Question 3a was to dete rmine if there was generalization to untrained items in the trained category. Ques tion 3b aimed to determine if the type of training (Train-Atypical versus Train-Typical) affected ge neralization within a category at posttest. The independent variables were ti me and training type. Questions 3c, d, and e asked about the possibility of specific intera ctions between time and training type, time and item type (i.e., item typicality, atypical or typical); and among time, training type, and item type. The independent variables were time, training type, and item type, and the dependent variable was accuracy means. To a ddress these questions systematically, a (2) Time x (2) Training type (Train-Aty pical/Train-Typical) x (2) Item type (Atypical/Typical) repeated measures ANOV A was computed. Table 5-3 shows the results. Table 5-3. Analysis of Variance for Accuracy Means for Untrained Items in Trained Categories. Effect df F 2 p value Time 1 5.811 .346 .035* Train 1 4.968 .311 .048* Item Type 1 1.902 .147 .195 Time x Train 1 2.681 .196 .130 Time x Item Type 1 6.597 .375 .026* Train x Item Type 1 3.717 .253 .080 Time x Train x Item Type 1 5.987 .352 .032* Notes: = significant at .05 alpha level. The accuracy results for Question 3a show ed that there was a significant main effect of time, F (1,11) = 5.811; p < .04; 2 = .35. As depicted in Figure 5-1, the accuracy means were significantly higher at posttest compared to pretest ( MPre .71, versus MPost =.77; SEs = .04).

PAGE 104

90 0.77 0.71 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Pre-testPost-test Figure 5-1. Accuracy Means for Untrained Items in Trained Categories, Main Effect of Time ( p = .035; the numbers in the figure are proportions). There was also a main effect of training type, F (1,11) = 4.968; p =.048; 2 = .31, but this was secondary to the three-way interaction, discussed below. There was no interaction between time and training type that the category had received. However, a significant two-way interaction between item type and time, F (1,11) = 6.597; p = .03; 2 =.38 was found for Question 3d. This revealed that, at pretest, the accuracy means for the atypical items were at .76 ( SE = .06) but the typical items were only .66 ( SE = .03). At posttest, the atypical it ems were at .78 ( SE =.047) and the typical items were at .77 ( SE = .04). Thus, the typical items showed a larger increase in accuracy than atypical items. A three-way interaction among tr aining type, item type and time was also significant F (1,11) = 5.987; p = .03; 2 = .35. As can be seen in Figure 5-2, significant increases in accuracy only occurred for untra ined typical items in categor ies that received training on typical items (i.e., untrained typical it ems in the Train-Typical condition). p = .035

PAGE 105

91 0.81 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.56 0.76 0.75 0.79 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Atypical itemsTypical itemsAtypical items Typical items Pre Post Trained AtypicalTrained Typical Figure 5-2. Untrained Items in Trained Categori es: Three-Way Interaction Among Time (Pretest versus Posttest), Training Type (Trained Atypical versus Trained Typical) and Item Type (Untrained Atypical Items and Untrained Typical Items); p = .03; the numbers in the figure are proportions. Only typical items in categories that were Trained Typical increased in accuracy. Due to variability in the pr etest accuracy data, the 3-wa y interaction was explored using difference scores to examine change due to training. We computed pre to post difference scores for each of the four condi tions. Then, we used these four difference scores in a (2) Training type x (2) Item t ype repeated measures ANOVA. This showed a main effect of item typicality, F (1,11) = 6.597; p = .03; 2 = .38, indicating a larger difference for typical items ( M = .113) compared to atypical items ( M = .02). A significant interaction between training type and item typicality was also found F (1,11) = 5.987; p = .03; 2 = .35. This confirmed that the bi ggest difference for the accuracy means ( M =.20) was in the typical items from cat egories that were tr ained with typical items. Table 5-4 shows the mean response time s for the untrained items in trained categories for the 12 participants.

PAGE 106

92 Table 5-4. Group Response Time Means (ms) for Untrained Items in Trained Categories. Train-Atypical Train-Typical Pre Post Pre Post Atypical Items 1957 ms (235) 1575 ms (180) 1668 ms (156) 1255 ms (60) Typical Items 1837 ms (194) 1756 ms (212) 1551 ms (101) 1535 ms (199) Notes: ( SE response times are in ms). The pre and posttest response time means fo r Question 3a were analyzed with a ttest to determine if there was generalizati on to untrained items in trained categories. These results were not significant, t (7) = 1.77; p = .12; ( MPre = 1596 ms, SE = 154 ms; MPost = 1430, SE = 156 ms. It is important to note th at for this analysis, only eight participants had usable response times for bot h pre and posttest, and these were the only data included in the analysis. As mentioned ab ove, the criteria for usable response times were a correct response for the item name and a fluent response that was not preceded by other words, such as Its a __. Consequentl y, there was missing data in four of the cells at pretest, and thus a reduc tion in the number of availabl e data points for the response time analyses. This could have influenced the results. Response time means for Question 3b, c, and d were analyzed with pre to post test difference scores calculated for each item type within each Training Type (e.g., for untrained typical items and untrained atypi cal items in each trained category). While Question 3b asked if there was a main eff ect of training type (e.g., Train-Typical), Question 3c focused on a main effect of ite m type (e.g., atypical items). Question 3c addressed the possibility of a two way interaction between Training type and Item type. To answer these questions, a (2) Training ty pe x (2) Item type repeated measures ANOVA was computed. There were no significant main effect s: for the Training type, F (1,7) = .170; p = .69; 2 = .02; or for Item type, F (1,7) = 2.294; p = 17; 2 = .25. There

PAGE 107

93 was no interaction between Tr aining type and Item type, F (1,7) = .72; p = .43; 2 = .09. This lack of significance coul d be due to missing data as mentioned above or due to a lack of effect of training and item type on response times. Overall, participants showed significant improvements in accuracy on the untrained items in trained categories, and this was evid ent in the main effect of time: there was higher accuracy after the training. Also, ther e were two interacti ons. The interaction between time and item type showed that th ere was more improvement for the untrained typical items compared to the untrained atypi cal items. From the three-way interaction among time, training type and item type, it was evident that at posttest, accuracy improved significantly in the untrained typica l items from the Train-Typical category. Thus, at posttest, our participants had improved naming accuracy on untrained items in trained categories; especially on the typical it ems, in general, and more specifically, when they were in the category that had been trained with typical items. However, there was no concomitant generalization of training to response times. Research Question 4: Category Generation Is there generalization to category gene ration? Question 4 as ked if there was generalization to another task, category genera tion, and if the type of training influenced the outcome. While the dependent variable was total number of items generated per category, the independent variables were tim e and training type. A (3) Training type (Train-Atypical/Tra in-Typical/Control) x (2 ) Time (per/post) re peated measures ANOVA was calculated. There was a significant main effect of time, F (1,11) = 9.968; p < .01; 2 = .48. Figure 4-3 shows that a greater number of items were generated at posttest compared to at pretest ( MPre = 7.16, SE = .72, versus MPost = 8.61, SE = .83). There were no other significant findings. Training type had no significant main effect, F (2,10) = .578; p =

PAGE 108

94 .578; 2 = .104, nor was the interaction between training type and time significant, F (2,10) = .186; p = .833; 2 = .036. These results suggested th at the type of training did not influence the category generation perf ormance at posttest. Figure 5-3 shows the number of items generated at pretest a nd posttest for the picture naming training conditions (i.e., Train-Atypical, Train-Typical, and Controls). 6.7 7.6 7 7.9 9.1 8.9 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Train ATTrain TYControlsNumber of Items Generated p = .833 Pre Post Figure 5-3. Category Generation, Number of Item s Generated at Pre & Posttest for Trained & Control Items. Train-AT=Train-Atypical, Train-TY =Train Typical. p= 833. Summary of Results In summary, the group of adults with PAD performed picture naming and category generation tasks after participating in a se mantic training by answering questions about typical and atypical items and then naming th em. The participants repeated the correct name of most of the items after an initial attempt to name them during the pretest. Although the control items showed slight increases in accuracy and faster response times, these changes were not significant. The accu racy scores for trained items showed a facilitation effect from the semantic traini ng (i.e., combined Trai n-Atypical and Train-

PAGE 109

95 Typical conditions). Although the responses were faster for the trained items, this only approached significance. However, the differenc e scores for the response times did show a significant reduction for the Train-Typical items compared to the Train-Atypical items. The accuracy scores showed generalized naming to untrained items in trained categories, and a three-way interaction s uggested that the participants also demonstrated better performance on the typical items, especially when they were in the Train-Typical condition, but this was only significant for th e accuracy scores. In the category generation task, the PAD group also demonstrated a signi ficant improvement in the number of the items generated from pre to posttest, but th e type of training did not have an impact. These results are reviewed and interpreted in the next chapter.

PAGE 110

96 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION In this exploratory study, 12 adults recently diagnosed with early probable Alzheimer disease (PAD) individually co mpleted a three phase session involving pretesting, semantic training, and postesting. The first phase involved category generation and picture naming. After an in itial attempt at naming the picture, participants received performance feedback and repeated the name of all of the items, except for half of the items in the control conditi on. In the second phase, 14 items were trained, 7 atypical items (i.e., Train-Atypical) from one seman tic category and seven typical items (i.e., Train-Typical) from another semantic category. Participants were required to answer questions about the target item and then name it. In the third phas e, category generation and picture naming tasks were used again, ex cept there was no feedback or repetition. Outcome measures were accuracy scores a nd response times for the picture naming and number of items produced for the category generation task. The research questions addressed th e effects of repetition, training, and generalization, as well as typicality. The tw o views were compared, one favoring typical items, based on the family resemblance vi ew (Rosch, 1975) and the other favoring atypical items, based on the Complexity Account of Treatment Efficacy (Thompson et al., 2003) and a connectionist model of acquire d dyslexia (Plaut, 1996), as well as adults with aphasia (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; St anczak et al., 2006) who had better generalization after training with atypical items. Interpretations of our data are related to the predictions from these views and theori es of semantic representations in PAD

PAGE 111

97 (Altmann et al., 2001; Devlin et al., 1998; Gonnerman et al., 1997), as well as PAD anomia therapy studies (Abrahams & Camp, 19 93; Fuller et al., 2001; Rothi et al., 2005) and some of the anomia treatment studies from the aphasia literature. It is important to note that there were many differences in thes e studies, including i ssues related to the patient population (i.e., PAD ve rsus aphasia; aphasia clas sification; severity, and corresponding language deficits) and methodol ogy (i.e., group versus single subject design; accuracy and response time measures versus just accuracy). Summary of Findings In this exploratory study, adults with PAD showed that repeating items in the control condition led to slight changes (i.e., increase s in the accuracy scores and decreases in the response times) but these were not significant. However, the participants showed a facilitation effect in this single semantic trai ning using typical and atypical semantic category exemplars in which they we re required to generate information about the target item and than name it. Thus, at posttest, they showed a facilitation effect characterized by both significantly improved ac curacy scores and faster response times on picture naming. Although accuracy and resp onse times for both Train-Atypical and Train-Typical items changed, only the change in response times for the Train-Typical condition was significant. In terms of gene ralization to untrained items in trained categories, changes in accuracy scores were significant; spec ifically, there was significant improvement in the accuracy scores for the untr ained typical items that were in the TrainTypical category. For the category generation ta sk, the participants produced significantly more items in the category generation at postt est; however, this was not due to semantic training, since all categories were affected.

PAGE 112

98 It is important to note that several comparisons showed relatively high effect sizes but non-significant results. This is likely due both to the small sample size and to the high variability among participants, which gave this study little power to detect subtle differences. Therefore, while the results are suggestive, a larger sample size is recommended for future studies. In the next section, implications of the findings are discussed. Implications for Anomia Treatment in PAD The findings from our group of adults with PAD are consistent with the family resemblance view (Rosch, 1975) and the hypothesi s that training typical items results in generalization (Heilman, pe rsonal communication, 2005). Furthermore, the PAD groups performance is compatible with some (Plaut 1996; Stanczak et al ., 2006) but not all of the treatment effects from typicality traini ng studies with aphasic speakers and some accounts of PAD (Altmann et al., 2001; Dev lin et al., 1998; Gonnerman et al., 1997; Martin, 1992; Sailor et al., 2004; Smith et al., 1995). Previous research has suggested possible reasons to account for better performance with typical items including the timeframe re lated to the initial phase of the training (Stanczak et al., 2006). These are discussed br iefly and compared with our findings. This is followed by an alternative account of why our PAD group di d better with the typical items. To account for the performance of one of th eir participants with transcortical motor aphasia and semantic and phonological deficits Stanczak et al. (2006) proposed that for such participants, typical and atypical items might be best treated in sequence. This was because over time, training the typical it ems may lead to confusion due to the competition among related typical items, at whic h point the atypical items, which provide

PAGE 113

99 more variation and thus have fewer compe titors, are learned better compared to the typical items (Stanczak et al., 2006). A similar phenomenon was also noticed in the training of a connectionist ne twork. Plaut (1996) reported that his computer simulation of acquired dyslexia had more difficulty lear ning to distinguish among highly typical category exemplars although ultimately the mode l learned the typical items better than the atypical items. The results of the current study support th is hypothesis to some extent. We found that at pretest, responses to typica l items were more accurate but much slower than responses to atypical items, which is consistent with there being some difficulty distinguishing between items. It is certainl y possible that continued intense training of typical items could lead to confusion among th em (Stanczak et al., 2006). This has also been described as a semantic blocking effect or interference: repeatedly accessed words with similar semantics become more difficult to access the more frequently they must be named (Schnur, Schwartz, Brecher, & H odgson, 2006). At that point, the greater interitem distinguishability among the atypical items might benef it our participants (Stanczak et al., 2006). However, this is an empirical question that requires investigation using a more standard tr eatment study methodology. It is important to note that these typi cality training studies were conducted in systems that had damage due to focal lesions either acquired dyslexi a in a connectionist model (Plaut, 1996) or aphasia in adults (K iran & Thompson, 2003b; Mayer et al., 2004; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006). Gonnerman et al (1997) reminds us that PAD does not result in exclusive damage to an area, inst ead, it is a diffuse pattern of damage. Thus, it might be unreasonable to expect similar out comes from training typical and atypical category exemplars in adults with PAD. I ndeed, the results of the current study are

PAGE 114

100 consistent with previous studi es examining the effects of PAD on semantic tasks, and can be accounted for by existing hypotheses about th e effects of PAD on the semantic system (Altmann et al., 2001; Devlin et al ., 1998; Gonnerman et al., 1997). The primary findings of the current study we re that training effects were strongest among trained typical items, mani festing as faster response times, and only typical items from categories in which typical items we re named more accurately, a generalization effect. Further, the training en couraged participants to answer questions that emphasized distinguishing features of the target items, as suggested by Hillis (1998) and Nadeau and Rothi (2004). Our findings are consistent with those reported in Sailor et al. (2004) who found that individuals with PAD generated fewe r atypical than typical items. Smith et al. (1995) reported that a group of adults w ith PAD performed poorly when verifying features of low typical (and low dominance, a similar construct related to importance), suggesting that information about the low typi cal items had deteriorated. However, Smith et al. (1995) found that both shared and distinguishing features were affected. The differential effects of PAD on the accessi bility of shared versus distinguishing features can account for the findings in this st udy. Earlier, typical items were described as sharing more features with others in the category compared to atypical items (Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975). When sets of features co-occur in many items in a category, they are frequently activated t ogether, and, consequently develop strong connections with each other (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Hebb, 1949). This highly interconnected network provides strong re dundancy in the channels through which activation can flow among these connected feat ures, which allows alternate pathways for activation of features, even when there is damage to some of these connections. Thus,

PAGE 115

101 when there is damage to connections am ong the shared features, the behavioral manifestations are not severe because activ ation can still be achieved by the existing conditions, although it might not be as efficient (Altmann et al., 2001; Devlin et al., 1998; Gonnerman et al., 1997; McRae, de Sa, & Se idenberg, 1997). The difficulty with items whose representations consist primarily of sh ared features, however, comes from trying to distinguish one from the other. Distinguish ing features are, by de finition outside the set core of shared features of a category and serve to distinguish one item from another. Distinguishing features occur in only one or possibly a few items within a category, and, thus, have relatively fewer connections th at link them to the shared feature set. Consequently, they are not highly interconne cted with other features and have no redundant or alternative pathways for activat ion to compensate for damage (Altmann et al., 2001; Devlin et al., 1998; Gonnerman et al., 1997). As a result, damage to the connections to distinguishing feat ures increases the possibility that it will be inaccessible, whereas similar damage to connections between shared features is more likely to be compensated for (Altmann et al., 2001; De vlin et al., 1998; G onnerman et al., 1997; Martin, 1992; Sailor et al ., 2004; Smith et al., 1995). In the earlier discussion of the semantic re presentations of atypical items, they were described as having a lower proportion of sh ared features and higher proportion of distinguishing features than t ypical items. As just discus sed, this would make atypical items particularly vulnerable to the diffuse damage of P AD. Furthermore, due to the relative lack of connect ions to distinguishing features and to the lack of connections between distinguishing features atypical items might be mo re difficult to remediate.

PAGE 116

102 In the current study, we suspect that the semantic training used, as well as the emphasis on training distinguishing features, f acilitated access to other typical items by raising the overall activation levels of the core semantic features in the category. Due to the constant stimulation of the connections between the shared features, it likely strengthened their c onnectivity by raising their activa tion thresholds (Altmann et al., 2001; Devlin et al., 1998; Gonnerman et al., 1997). Moreover, we also emphasized distinguishing features for the typical items, allowing participants to better discriminate among them. Atypical items might not have benefited as much as the typical items for a number of reasons. According to the hypothesis, the semantic representations of atypical items contain fewer of the shared features of th e category, and there is no guarantee that the shared features included in the representati on of atypical item 1 are the same shared features included in the repr esentation of atypical item 2. Thus, the degree of feature overlap among atypical items might have been minimal, so there could be no benefit of spreading activation from other trained items in the category. Alternatively, it is possible that the connections to the distinguishing feat ures were not merely just below threshold activation but were damaged and inaccessible, possibly due to infrequency of use as suggested in Smith et al. (1995). This discussion has shown that the findings of the current study are consistent with previous findings on the performance of indi viduals with PAD on semantic tasks, and can be well accounted for by existing theories of semantic representations and their degradation in PAD (Altmann et al., 2001; Devl in et al., 1998; Gonnerman et al., 1997; Martin, 1992; Sailor et al., 2004; Smith et al., 1995). Extending these theories to the

PAGE 117

103 creation of a possible intervention for anom ia in PAD has led to promising results supporting the use of a combination of semantic treatment with word repetition for this population. Whether atypical items will be re mediable in this population, or whether there may even be an advantage for atypical items after further treatment is an open question to be addressed in future studies. Implications for Methodology There are several methodologica l factors that might have influenced the outcomes of our study relative to other st udies investigating the effect s of training typical versus atypical items. As discussed above, some of these include the population being trained (e.g., connectionist networks, adul ts with different types of a phasia or PAD) and type and severity of the damage (Mayer et al., 2004; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006), as well as the typicality of the items (K iran & Thompson, 2003b; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006) and the timeframe (Stanczak et al., 2006). Other differences include the type of study (e.g., facilitation versus treatment) and the study design (singlesubject, versus group), as well as the procedure and training tasks. The group de sign used here is very different from the majority of PAD and aphasia studies discu ssed above. There are num erous advantages of the single-subject design, such as, the car eful monitoring of treatment outcomes in relationship to the targeted behavior (K earns, 2000). Group data does not capture the nuances of individual subject performance as well as a sing le subject design. However, the goal of the current study was to determ ine if a facilitation effect (Howard, 1985) could be elicited after this single training, which was a que stion more suited to group design. Knowing that a facilita tion effect is possible in individuals with PAD should encourage researchers to begin te sting more in-depth treatments.

PAGE 118

104 The combination of the repetition (i.e., lexical information) and the semantic training appeared to be bene ficial for our PAD group. Repe tition over a short period was not effective by itself. Yet a treatment eff ect in the PAD anomia study by Fuller et al. (2001) and Rothi et al. (2005) was found afte r many training sessions with repetition in an errorless learning paradigm Similarly, Abrahams and Ca mp (1993) reported that the spaced retrieval technique, which also involve d repetition, resulted in a treatment effect. The possibility of generation effects (Slam ecka & Graf, 1978) has been raised. According to Mitchell et al. (1986) the generation effect has been at tributed to persistence of activation of previously accessed information within semantic memory. Generation effects have been documented in some PAD studies (Fleischman et al., 1997; Multhaup & Balota, 1997) but not in others (Dick, K ean, & Sands, 1989; Mitche ll et al., 1986). Our study found somewhat increased accuracy and faster response times in the unrepeated control items, but these we re not significant. These findings support the use of interventions for anomia in PAD that include both a repetition element and a semantic element to address the two common loci of word finding difficulties in this population. The semantic training task could have also been a factor influencing the performance of our PAD group. The questions were specific to the particular categories and effective but they might not have been as powerful as the feature selection task used for the fluent participants in the Kiran and Thompson (2003b) study. These participants saw a board containing a large number of sema ntic features pertaining to the category. While the set of defining features were shar ed by all of the typical category exemplars from that category, another set was comprised of characteristic features, such that some were more relevant to typical items while ot her features covered a broader spectrum of

PAGE 119

105 information pertinent to atypical items. Cons equently, when participants were asked to choose appropriate features they were exposed to a large set of featur es appropriate to an item. The task demands included choosing not on ly the features that were appropriate to the item, but also rejecting those that were not relevant to the item. It is possible that this, combined with the other trai ning tasks, and the atypical items themselves, allowed the essential differences between training atypical and typical items to be revealed and have their impact on items in a measurable way, in favor of atypical items. This variation of a semantic training task has only been used by Kiran and Thompson (2003b), and it differs considerably from the other semantic trai ning methods used in the other typicality training studies (Mayer et al., 2004; Plaut, 1996; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006). It is also different from having to self-generate char acteristics of an item, as in our study. We suspect that our training method di d not provide as robust a comparison between items to allow participants to hone in on the broad distinct ions between atypical and typical items (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b) Instead, our method may have put the focus on the individual items themselves. The PAD population might benefit from using the feature selection task, but modified to present fewer pieces of information to avoid overstimulation and confusion from the simu ltaneously presented printed information. Another factor that might have influen ced the performance of our PAD group is the choice of semantic categories. At least tw o studies have shown generalization following training with natural kinds (vegetables a nd birds) (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Stanczak et al., 2006). These studies de monstrated evidence for bette r generalization after training atypical items. However, we used artifact ca tegories for training, which has been shown to have more functional information than perceptual features found in natural kinds

PAGE 120

106 (Warrington & Shallice, 1984). Thus, artifact s might have very different internal structures (e.g., for vehicles, there are many subtypes, e.g., 2-wheel, 4-wheel, floating, flying) than the more hierarchically orga nized natural kind categories, like birds and vegetables (Devlin et al., 1998; Gonnerman et al., 1997). Clearly, future studies should contrast the effects of traini ng natural kinds and artifacts. It is difficult to know if training two cat egories simultaneously with two different training types (i.e., Train-Atypi cal, Train-Typical) provided an advantage or not. Both Stanczak et al. (2006) and Mayer et al. (2004) provided traini ng for two categories at the same time and found a treatment effect. Ma yer et al (2004) used a combination of artifacts and natural kinds; they attributed th e lack of generalizati on of training in their participants to the severity of their aphasias. Stanczak et al. (2006) trained birds and vegetables simultaneously, in blocks, and f ound treatment effects, but only one of two participants showed generaliza tion (i.e., to untrained typica l birds after being trained on atypical birds and marginally generalized nami ng of untrained atypical vegetables after typical vegetables were trained). Howe ver, Kiran and Thompson (2003b) showed successful outcomes (i.e., treatment effect and generalization after being trained on atypical items) with adults with fluent apha sia when only training one category (i.e., birds or vegetables) at a time with atypical or with typical exemplar s. Considering these variable results across studies, it is difficult to determine if the number and type of trained categories accounted for any di fferences in the outcomes. A lack of power was certainly an issue, especially for the it ems in the control condition (i.e., untrained items in untrained cat egories). The effects of the small sample size were likely exaggerated by variability among the participants in variables such as

PAGE 121

107 age, education, and severity of impairment (despite being recen tly diagnosed). This variability is causally related to the cha llenges of identifying and recruiting the participants with mild-moderate PAD a nd completing data collection (e.g., the 12 participants with PAD took about four mont hs). There might also have been effects related to other factors such as mental fa tigue, learning curves, a nd practice schedules. Although the clinician offered opportunities for breaks between the pretesting and training, and before the posttesting, it is po ssible that more time was needed for these breaks in order to fully benefit from the trai ning. Anecdotally, severa l of the participants indicated that they were tired at the posttest yet they still enthusiastically expressed interest in and completed thei r participation in the study with out incident. The wide range of differences among our study and the othe r typicality studies warrant caution in generalizing the findings. However, despite th ese methodological challenges, the data has provided meaningful information. Future Studies The findings from our study provide a good foundation for further development of this protocol into an anomia treatment program for PAD. Various issues have been raised and will be considered in our future anomia treatment studies. First, generalization should be programmed prior to starting the study (M cNeil et al., 1998). We also recommend continuing the use of generalization probes fo r untrained atypical items and untrained typical items so that the type of training can be compared with the item type. Again, performance should be compared across condition s, but with a category in which there is no repetition. This would allow for a comp arison between repetition with semantic training versus just semantic training.

PAGE 122

108 In addition, sessions should be scheduled for the screening, and pre and posttesting as well as a follow-up maintenance session. The testing should continue to use the Mini Mental Status Exam (Folstein et al., 1975) but perhaps with mo re strict criteria (18-24). Additional cognitive-linguistic assessments should be used: the Boston Naming Test (Kaplan et al. 1983, 2001), for a standardized measure of confrontation picture naming, the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (Brandt, 1991) to measur e memory and new learning, and perhaps the Western Aphasia Battery (K ertesz, 1982) for an overall standardized language screening. A pretest picture naming w ith the 72 items should also be used as a screening to determine eligibility for the study perhaps with a cutoff score to identify treatment items based on failed naming attempts at pretest. At the onset of the study, a category verification task could be conduc ted (Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006). Perhaps a few categories and their corresponding exemplar s that are not part of the naming task could be used. The training should be extended into a tr eatment in which the participant attends several sessions per week, fo r several weeks, for example three one hour sessions per week for three weeks. To insure that the participant can correctly name the item, the treatment protocol could st art with the errorless nami ng (i.e., immediate repetition) paradigm (Fuller et al., 2001; Rothi et al., 2005). This could be followed by the current training (i.e., answer the three questions a nd name it). Additional suggestions are to include categories that are m eaningful to the participant (Mayer et al., 2004). Natural kinds should also be included to further examine some of the hypotheses related to artifacts (Warrington & Sha llice, 1984) and intercorrela ted features compared to distinguishing features in PAD (Altmann et al., 2001; Devlin et al., 1998; Gonnerman et

PAGE 123

109 al., 1997). A modified semantic feature ta sk based on Kiran and Thompson (2003b) should be considered, to emphasize the br oad differences between the typical and atypical items in the categories. Semantic featur e distinction with the target items that the participant had difficulty with could also be incorporated into the intervention (Hillis, 1998) to compare and contrast the features Family members or caregivers could be involved and trained to assist with a home program. Perhap s with additional training and over a longer period of time, some of these unresolved questions will be answered and the current protocol will be transformed in to a more potent vehicle for improving naming deficits in adults with PAD. In summary, in a period of less than thr ee hours, we found that adults with early PAD respond well and quickly to a semantic training program. Following training, the PAD participants showed an advantage for t ypical category exemplars, first in faster response times (i.e., a facilitation effect from trained items) and then in accuracy scores (i.e., generalization to untrained items categor ies trained with typi cal exemplars). These preliminary findings suggest training typica l items produced the best results, although this advantage of typical over atypical it ems may change over time (Stanczak et al., 2006). Overall, our findings not only provide su pport for the family resemblance (Rosch, 1975) view, and the prediction by Heilman (per sonal communication, 2005) that typical items would show better generalization, but al so suggest that in PAD, Hebbian learning (Hebb, 1949) is possible. Another importa nt finding is that that there was no generalization to untrained categories, which is highly important for clinicians involved in semantic training of all populations. Thes e findings are extremely encouraging for the development of principled strategies for c hoosing items to encourage generalization in

PAGE 124

110 the remediation of anomia, as well as for th e development of lexical-semantic treatment paradigms for individuals with early PAD.

PAGE 125

111 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT FORM Informed Consent Choosing Remediation Targets for Nami ng Deficits: Effects of Typicality Please read this consent document car efully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research project The purpose of this study is to test two potential treatments for the naming impairment in Alzheimer disease. Both tr eatments are methodolog ically identical, varying only in the ty pe of stimuli used. What you will be asked to do in the study In this study, you will be asked to comp lete two tasks for the screening phase by answering general knowledge questions, and reading words aloud. For the pretesting there will be two tasks. First, t he examiner will name each of the three semantic categories and ask you to name as many items as you can that belong to each. Second, the exam iner will present pictures and ask you to name them, and then to repeat the correct name of the picture. For the training phase the examiner will present the training pictures and ask you three questions about the item. Then you will be asked to name the pi cture. For the post-testing, you will be asked to do the same tasks as you did for the pre-testing (name as many items as you can in three categories, and name pictures but without repeating the correct name of the pictur e). Responses on this task will be digitally recorded and transcribed for later analysis. During the time that you are participating in the study, we will offer brief breaks, and you can ask for a longer break at any time. All testing will be carried out by the princi pal investigator, Claudia A. Morelli, Dr. Altmann, or trained research assistants. Time required We anticipate it will take 2-3 hours for t he participants with Alzheimer disease to complete the protocol and about 2 hours for the healthy participants.

PAGE 126

112 Risks and Benefits Participating in this study may help pe ople who have difficulties with word finding The risk is minimal, but it is possib le that participants will become fatigued or bored, during the course of the testin g and training. These will be minimized by offering brea ks as needed. Compensation You will be compensated for participating in this study ($20.00 for people with Alzheimer disease, and $15.00 for older adults). Confidentiality Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your information will be assigned a code number. The list connecting your name to this number will be kept in a locked file in the Language over the Lifespan lab. When the study is completed and the dat a have been analyzed, the list will be destroyed. Your name will not be used in any report. Voluntary participation Your participation in this study is comple tely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study Claudia A. Morelli, M.S., CCC-SLP, Ph.D Candidate, Communication Sciences and Disorders Department, P.O. Box 11742 0, 336 Dauer Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-7420. cmorelli@ufl.edu 352-392-2113 X232. OR Lori J. Altmann, Ph.D., Communication Sciences and Disorders Department, P.O. Box 117420, 336 Dauer Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 326117420 laltmann@ufl.edu 352-392-2113 x279 Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant. UFIRB Office, box 112250, University of Fl orida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250 352-392-0433. Agreement I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and have received a copy of this description. Participant: Date: Principal Investigator: Date:

PAGE 127

APPENDIX B TABLES WITH INFORMATION ABOUT THE PARTICIPANTS

PAGE 128

114 Participant Demographics and Select ed Neuropsychological Test Results Table B-1. Participant Demographics and Selected Ne uropschological Testing Results from the PAD Diagnosis. ID # Age Years of Education Gender MMSE Total Score (Max 30) MMSE Recall (Max 3 items) Boston Naming Test Hopkins Verbal Learning Test: Free Recall (Max 36) Hopkins Verbal Learning Test: Delayed Recall (Max 12) 1001 72 17 F N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1002 77 13 F 20/30 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1003 76 10 M 18/30 0/3 10/30 9/36 0/12 1004 92 24 M 19/30 0/3 N/A 9/36 0/12 1005 82 12 F 19/30 0/3 11/19 4/36 0/12 1006 78 12 F 22/30 0/3 14/15 15/36 0/12 1007 55 20 M 25/30 0/3 15/15 20/36 0/12 1008 84 15 F 23/30 0/3 15/15 16/36 0/12 1009 69 18 M 24/30 2/3 15/15 12/36 N/A 1010 86 16 F 21/30 0/3 11/15 10/36 0/12 1011 75 16 M N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1012 85 16 F 24/30 2/3 24/30 12/36 0/12 Notes: N/A: Scores not available; MMSE= Mini Mental Status Ex am (Folstein et al., 1975); Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (Brandt, 1991); Boston Naming Test (Kaplan et al., 1983, 2001).

PAGE 129

115Demographics and Performance Before and After Semantic Training Table B-2. Participant Demographics and Pre and Posttest Categor y Generation and Picture Naming Tasks (i.e., Before and After t he Semantic Training, Day of Participation in the Study). ID Number Age Years of Education Gender Pretest Category Generation Posttest Category Generation Pretest Picture Naming (Proportion) Pretest Picture Naming (Max=72) Posttest Picture Naming (Proportion) Posttest Picture Naming (Max=72) 1001 72 17 F 25 25 .74 53/72 .83 60/72 1002 77 13 F 23 23 .81 58/72 .83 60/72 1003 76 10 M 15 15 .71 51/72 .78 56/72 1004 92 24 M 14 14 .51 37/72 .57 41/72 1005 82 12 F 18 17 .60 43/72 .58 42/72 1006 78 12 F 30 36 .81 58/72 .81 58/72 1007 55 20 M 24 34 .89 64/72 .94 68/72 1008 84 15 F 27 37 .83 60/72 .86 60/72 1009 69 18 M 20 26 .81 58/72 .83 60/72 1010 86 16 F 23 33 .76 55/72 .82 59/72 1011 75 16 M 24 31 .83 60/72 .96 69/72 1012 85 16 F 19 22 .60 43/72 .72 52/72 Group Mean 77.6 15.8 21.8 26.1 .74 53/72 .79 57/72 Notes: Category Generation is the total across the 3 categories (vehicles, clothing and tools); Picture Naming is proportion co rrect, and Total Correct, Maximum=72.

PAGE 130

116 APPENDIX C TABLES WITH INFORMATION ABOUT THE STIMULI Master List of Stimulus Items Used in the Study Table C-1. Master List of Stimulus Items Used in the Study. Trained Items are Italicized Number Item Name Typicality Rank Typicality Score Written Word Frequency Familiarity Rating Phoneme Length TY 1 Automobile 1 1.02 74 456 8 2 station wagon 2 1.14 0 11 3 truck 3 1.17 80 620 4 4 bus 5.5 1.27 42 3 5 taxi 5.5 1.27 19 5 6 jeep 7 1.35 16 564 3 7 motorcycle 9 1.65 0 8 8 van 11 1.95 2 542 3 9 train 14 2.15 86 548 4 10 bicycle 16 2.51 7 6 11 airplane 18 2.64 21 6 12 boat 20 2.75 123 584 3 AT 13 ship 22 2.82 126 553 3 14 scooter 23 3.24 1 468 5 15 tractor 24 3.3 31 518 6 16 wagon 25 3.31 72 443 5 17 wheelchair 29 3.68 0 6 18 tank 31 3.84 30 511 4 19 rowboat 33 3.92 0 5 20 tricycle 35 4 0 436 7 21 canoe 36 4.01 8 441 4 22 raft 37 4.37 5 483 4 23 submarine 38 4.51 35 450 7 24 blimp 42 4.81 1 5 TY 25 pants 1 1.12 9 575 5 26 shirt 2.5 1.14 29 612 3 27 dress 2.5 1.14 63 588 4 28 skirt 4 1.21 22 551 4 29 blouse 5 1.27 2 562 4 30 suit 6 1.49 64 543 3 31 jacket 8 1.68 39 596 5 32 coat 9 1.88 52 610 3 33 sweater 10 1.89 18 5 34 socks 16 2.08 7 4 35 parka 17 2.19 0 5 36 pajamas 18 2.25 3 7 AT 37 bathing suit 22.5 2.44 0 8 38 bath robe 24 2.65 3 6 39 shoes 27 2.73 44 3 40 vest 30 2.81 4 472 4 41 boots 33 3.42 1 4

PAGE 131

117 Table C-1. Continued Number Item Name Typicality Rank Typicality Score Written Word Frequency Familiarity Rating Phoneme Length 42 sandals 34 3.56 5 6 43 tie 35 3.71 27 559 2 44 belt 37 3.93 36 550 4 45 scarf 38 3.96 4 5 46 mittens 39 3.99 2 5 47 hat 40 4.08 71 580 3 48 gloves 43 4.53 6 5 TY 49 saw 1 1.04 8 552 2 50 hammer 2 1.34 6 515 4 51 ruler 3 1.48 13 571 4 52 screwdriver 4 1.56 1 544 9 53 drill 5 1.59 21 473 4 54 nails 6 1.67 20 4 55 tape measure 7 1.69 0 7 56 sawhorse 8 1.77 1 6 57 level 11 1.82 50 504 4 58 toolbox 14 2.12 1 7 59 T-square 15 2.22 0 7 60 chisel 16 2.26 5 469 4 AT 61 pliers 22 2.59 1 499 5 62 wrench 23 2.6 1 4 63 ladder 24 2.64 19 507 4 64 vise 25 2.76 1 368 3 65 screws 26 2.77 10 5 66 awl 33 3.09 0 257 2 67 crowbar 34.5 3.12 0 6 68 bolts 40 3.63 1 5 69 paintbrush 45 3.81 1 8 70 stapler 48 4.21 0 6 71 axe 53 4.53 19 461 3 72 scissors 59 5.36 1 559 5 Notes: TY=Typical items; AT=Typical items. Typicality Rank and Score ; Written Word Frequency ; Familiarity

PAGE 132

118 Alternate Names for Stimulus Items Used in the Study Table C-2. Master List of Stimulus Items Used in the Study. Alternate names for stimuli counted as correct. Number Item Name Alternate Names Counted as Correct TY 1 Automobile Car, sedan 2 station wagon Volvo 3 truck Pick-up, semi, 18 wheeler; semi-truck, tractor trailer 4 bus 5 taxi Taxi cab, cab 6 jeep 7 motorcycle 8 van 9 train 10 bicycle Bike 11 airplane Plane, jet 12 boat Tugboat AT 13 ship Cruiseliner, oc eanliner, steamship 14 scooter Moped 15 tractor 16 wagon 17 wheelchair 18 tank 19 rowboat 20 tricycle 21 canoe 22 raft 23 submarine 24 blimp Derigible, zeppelin TY 25 pants 26 shirt Dress shirt 27 dress 28 skirt 29 blouse 30 suit 31 jacket 32 coat Winter coat 33 sweater Turtleneck sweater, turtleneck 34 socks 35 parka 36 pajamas AT 37 bathing suit Swimsuit 38 bath robe Robe 39 shoes 40 vest 41 boots 42 sandals 43 tie Necktie 44 belt 45 scarf 46 mittens 47 hat Fedora 48 gloves

PAGE 133

119 Table C-2. Continued Number Item Name Alternate Names Counted as Correct TY 49 saw 50 hammer 51 ruler 52 screwdriver 53 drill Electric drill 54 nails 55 tape measure Measuring tape 56 sawhorse 57 level 58 toolbox Toolkit 59 T-square 60 chisel AT 61 pliers 62 wrench 63 ladder 64 vise 65 screws 66 awl 67 crowbar 68 bolts 69 paintbrush 70 stapler 71 axe 72 scissors Notes: TY=Typical items; AT=Typical items.

PAGE 134

120 LIST OF REFERENCES Abeysinghe, S. C., Bayles, K. A., & Tro sset, M. W. (1990). Semantic memory deterioration in Alzheimer's subjects: Evidence from word association, definition, and associate ranking tasks. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33 (3), 574582. Abrahams, J. P., & Camp, C. J. (1993). Main tenance and generalization of object naming training in anomia associated with degenerative dementia. Clinical Gerontologist, 12 (3), 57-72. Alathari, L., Trinh Ngo, C., & Dopkins, S. (2004). Loss of distinctive features and a broader pattern of priming in Alzheimer's Disease. Neuropsychology, 18 (4), 603612. Albert, M. S., & Milberg, W. (1989). Seman tic processing in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Brain and Language, 37 (1), 163-171. Altmann, L. J., Kempler, D., & Andersen, E. S. (2001). Speech errors in Alzheimer's disease: Reevaluating mo rphosyntactic preservation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44 (5), 1069-1082. Anderson, J. (1991). The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review, 98 (3), 409-429. Appell, J., Kertesz, A., & Fisman, M. (1982). A study of language functioning in Alzheimer patients. Brain and Language, 17 (1), 73-91. ASHA. (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association). (In press). Roles of speechlanguage pathologists in the identification, diagnosis, and treatment of individuals with cognitive-co mmunication disorders: Po stion statement. ASHA Supplement, 25 Au, R., & Bowles, N. (1991). Memory influences on language in normal aging. In D. Ripich (Ed.), Handbook of geriatric communication disorders (pp. 293-305). Austin: Pro-Ed, Inc. Bandur, D. L., & Shewan, C. M. ( 2001). Language-Oriented Treatment: A psycholinguistic approach to aphasia. In R. Chapey (Ed.), Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders (pp. 629662). Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

PAGE 135

121 Barbarotto, R., Capitani, E., Jori, T., Laiacona, M., & Moli nari, S. (1998). Picture naming and progression of Alzheimer's diseas e: An analysis of error types. Neuropsychologia, 36 (5), 397-405. Barker, M. G., & Lawson, J. S. ( 1968). Nominal aphasia in dementia. British Journal of Psychiatry, 114 (516), 1351-1356. Barr, R. A., & Caplan, L. J. (1987). Categor y representations and their implications for category structure. Memory and Cognition, 15 (5), 397-418. Bayles, K. A. (1982). Language function in senile dementia. Brain and Language, 16 (2), 265-280. Bayles, K. A., Kasniak, A. W., & Tomoeda, C. K. (1987). Communication and cognition in normal aging and dementia Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc. Bayles, K. A., & Tomoeda, C. K. (1983). C onfrontation naming impairment in dementia. Brain and Language, 19 (1), 98-114. Bayles, K. A., Tomoeda, C. K., & Cruz, R. F. (1999). Performance of Alzheimer's disease patients in judging word relatedness. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 5 (7), 668-675. Bell, E. E., Chenery, H. J., & Ingram, J. C. (2001). Semantic priming in Alzheimer's dementia: Evidence for dissociation of automatic and attentional processes. Brain and Language, 76 (2), 130-144. Benson, D. F. (1979). Neurologic correlates of anomia. In H. Whitaker & H. A. Whitaker (Eds.), Studies in Neurolinguistics (Vol. 4). New York: Academic Press. Benson, D. F., & Geschwind, N. (1985). Apha sia and related disorders: A clinical approach. In M. M. Mesulam (Ed.), Principles of Behavioral Neurology (pp. 193238). Philadelphia: F.A. Davis. Benton, A. L. (1968). Differential behavior al effects in frontal lobe disease. Neuropsychologia, 6 53. Bowles, N. L., Obler, L. K., & Albert, M. L. (1987). Naming errors in healthy aging and dementia of the Alzheimer type. Cortex, 23 (3), 519-524. Boyle, M. (2004). Semantic feature analysis treatment for anomia in two fluent aphasia syndromes. American Journal of Speech -Language Pathology, 13 (3), 236-249. Boyle, M., & Coelho, C. A. (1995). Applicat ion of semantic feature analysis as a treatment for aphasic dysnomia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 4 94-98.

PAGE 136

122 Brandt, J. (1991). The Hopkins Verbal Lear ning Test: Development of a new memory test with six equivalent forms. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 5 125-142. Chertkow, H., & Bub, D. (1990). Semantic memo ry loss in dementia of Alzheimer's type. What do various measures measure? Brain, 113 397-417. Chertkow, H., Bub, D., & Caplan, D. (1992). C onstraining theories of semantic memory processing: Evidence from dementia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 9 (4), 327-365. Chertkow, H., Bub, D. N., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1989). Priming and semantic memory loss in Alzheimer's disease. Brain and Language, 36 (3), 420-446. Chieffi, S., Carlomagno, S., Silveri, M. C ., & Gainotti, G. (1989). The influence of semantic and perceptual factors on lexi cal comprehension in aphasic and right brain-damaged patients. Cortex, 25 (4), 591-598. Chui, H. C. (1989). Dementia. A review em phasizing clinicopathologic correlation and brain-behavior relationships. Archive of Neurology, 46 (7), 806-814. Cobb, R. E. (2005). The bottom-up deterioration hypothe sis of the semantic impairment associated with Alzheimer's disease: The effect of typicality on object verification. University Microfilms International. Coelho, C. A., McHugh, R. E., & Boyle, M. (2000). Semantic feature analysis as a treatment for aphasic dysnomia: A replication. Aphasiology, 14 (2), 133-142. Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82 (6), 407-428. Cronin-Golomb, A., Keane, M. M., Kokodis, A., Corkin, S., & Growdon, J. H. (1992). Category knowledge in Alzheimer's diseas e: Normal organization and a general retrieval deficit. Psychology and Aging, 7 (3), 359-366. Davis, A., & Pring, T. (1991). Therapy for word -finding deficits: More on the effects of semantic and phonological approaches to treatment with dysphasic patients. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 1 (2), 135-145. Dell, G. S., & O'Seaghdha, P. G. (1992). Stag es of lexical access in language production. Cognition, 42 (1-3), 287-314. Devlin, J. T., Gonnerman, L. M., Andersen, E. S., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1998). Categoryspecific semantic deficits in focal and widespread brain damage: A computational account. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10 (1), 77-94. Dick, M. B., Kean, M. L., & Sands, D. (1989). Memory for internally generated words in Alzheimer-type dementia: Breakdown in encoding and semantic memory. Brain & Cognition, 9 (1), 88-108.

PAGE 137

123 Drew, R. L., & Thompson, C. K. (1999). M odel-based semantic treatment for naming deficits in aphasia. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42 (4), 972-989. Fabiani, M., Gratton, G., & Coles, M. G. H. (2000). Event-related brain potentials methods, theory, and applications. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary & G. G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of Psychophysiology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fleischman, D. A., Gabrieli, J. D., Rinaldi, J. A., Reminger, S. L., Grinnell, E. R., Lange, K. L., et al. (1997). Word-stem comp letion priming for perceptually and conceptually encoded words in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Neuropsychologia, 35 (1), 25-35. Flicker, C., Ferris, S. H., Crook, T., & Bartus R. T. (1987). Implications of memory and language dysfunction in the naming deficit of senile dementia. Brain and Language, 31 (2), 187-200. Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive st ate of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12 (3), 189-198. Ford, J. M., Askari, N., Mathalon, D. H., Menon, V., Gabrieli, J. D., Tinklenberg, J. R., et al. (2001). Event-related brain poten tial evidence of spared knowledge in Alzheimer's disease. Psychology and Aging, 16 (1), 161-176. Frances, N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Francis, D. R., Clark, N., & Humphreys, G. W. (2002). Circumlocution-induced naming (CIN): A treatment for effecting generalisation in anomia?, Aphasiology (Vol. 16, pp. 243-259): Psychology Press (T&F). Freed, D. B., Marshall, R. C., & Nippold, M. A. (1995). Comparison of personalized cueing and provided cueing on the facil itation of verbal labeling by aphasic subjects. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38 (5), 1081-1090. Fujihara, N., Nageishi, Y., Koyama, S., & Nakajima, Y. (1998). Electrophysiological evidence for the typicality effect of human cognitive categorization. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 29 (1), 65-75. Fuller, R. H., Kendall, D. L., Nadeau, S. E., Spevack, A. A., Heilman, K., & Gonzalez Rothi, L. J. (2001). Cognitive-cholinergi c therapy of anomia in Alzheimer's disease. Neurology, 56 (Supplement 3), A57. Gainotti, G. (1981). The relati onship between type of naming error and semantic-lexical discrimination in aphasic patients. Cortex, 17 (3), 401-409.

PAGE 138

124 Garrard, P., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Patterson, K ., Pratt, K. H., & Hodges, J. R. (2005). Semantic feature knowledge and picture naming in dementia of Alzheimer's type: A new approach. Brain and Language, 93 (1), 79-94. Gerratt, B. R., & Jones, D. (1987). Apha sic performance on a lexical decision task: Multiple meanings and word frequency. Brain and Language, 30 (1), 106-115. Gierut, J. A. (2001). Complexity in P honological Treatment: Clinical Factors. Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Schools, 32 (4), 229. Giffard, B., Desgranges, B., Nore-Mary, F., Lale vee, C., Beaunieux, H., de la Sayette, V., et al. (2002). The dynamic time course of semantic memory impairment in Alzheimer's disease: Clues from hyperpriming and hypopriming effects. Brain, 125 (Pt 9), 2044-2057. Giffard, B., Desgranges, B., Nore-Mary, F., Lalev ee, C., de la Sayette, V., Pasquier, F., et al. (2001). The nature of semantic memory deficits in Alzhei mer's disease: New insights from hyperpriming effects. Brain, 124 (Pt 8), 1522-1532. Gonnerman, L. M., Andersen, E. S., Devlin, J. T., Kempler, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). Double dissociation of semantic categories in Alzheimer's disease. Brain and Language, 57 (2), 254-279. Grober, E., Buschke, H., Kawas, C., & Fuld, P. (1985). Impaired ranking of semantic attributes in dementia. Brain and Language, 26 (2), 276-286. Grober, E., Perecman, E., Kellar, L., & Brow n, J. (1980). Lexical knowledge in anterior and posterior aphasics. Brain and Language, 10 (2), 318-330. Grossman, M. (1981). A bird is a bird is a bird: Making referen ce within and without superordinate categories. Brain and Language, 12 (2), 313-331. Grossman, M., McMillan, C., Moore, P., Ding, L., Glosser, G., Wor k, M., et al. (2004). What's in a name: Voxel-based morpho metric analyses of MRI and naming difficulty in Alzheimer's disease, fron totemporal dementia and corticobasal degeneration. Brain, 127 628-649. Grossman, M., Robinson, K., Biassou, N., Wh ite-Devine, T., & D'Esposito, M. (1998). Semantic memory in Alzheimer's disease: Representativeness, ontologic category, and material. Neuropsychology, 12 (1), 34-42. Hampton, J. A. (1995). Testing the Prototype Theory of concepts. Journal of Memory & Language, 34 (5), 686-708. Hartman, M. (1991). The use of semantic know ledge in Alzheimer's disease: Evidence for impairments of attention. Neuropsychologia, 29 (3), 213-228.

PAGE 139

125 Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Heilman, K. M. (2005). Aphasic disorders associated with dementia. Paper presented at the 31st Annual Course in Behavioral Neurology and Neur olopsychology, Lake Buena Vista, FL. Henderson, V. W., & Finch, C. E. (1989). Th e neurobiology of Alzheimer's disease. Journal of Neurosurgery, 70 (3), 335-353. Henderson, V. W., Mack, W., Freed, D. M., Kempler, D., & Andersen, E. S. (1990). Naming consistency in Alzheimer's disease. Brain and Language, 39 (4), 530-538. Hickin, J., Best, W., Herbert, R., Howard, D., & Osborne, F. (2001). Treatment of word retrieval in aphasia: Generali zation to conversational speech, International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders (Vol. 36, pp. 13): Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists. Hickin, J., Best, W., Herbert, R., Howa rd, D., & Osborne, F. (2002). Phonological therapy for word-finding difficulties: A re-evaluation. Aphasiology, 16 (10/11), 981-999. Hillis, A. E. (1998). Treatment of naming disord ers: New issues regarding old therapies. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 4 648-660. Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (1995). Is sema ntic memory consisten tly impaired early in the course of Alzheimer's disease? Neur oanatomical and diagnostic implications. Neuropsychologia, 33 (4), 441-459. Hodges, J. R., Patterson, K., Graham, N., & Dawson, K. (1996). Naming and knowing in dementia of the Alzheimer's type. Brain and Language, 54 (2), 302-325. Hodges, J. R., Salmon, D. P., & Butters, N. ( 1991). The nature of the naming deficit in Alzheimer's and Huntington's disease. Brain, 114 1547-1558. Hodges, J. R., Salmon, D. P., & Butters, N. (1992). Semantic memory impairment in Alzheimer's disease: Failure of access or degraded knowledge? Neuropsychologia, 30 (4), 301-314. Howard, D. (1985). The facilitation of picture naming in aphasia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2 (1), 49-80. Howard, D., Patterson, K., Franklin, S., Orchard-Lisle, V., & Morton, J. (1985). Treatment of word retrieval deficits in aphasia. A comparison of two therapy methods. Brain, 108 (4), 817-829. Huff, F. J., Corkin, S., & Growdon, J. H. (1986). Semantic impairment and anomia in Alzheimer's disease. Brain and Language, 28 (2), 235-249.

PAGE 140

126 Huff, F. J., Mack, L., Mahlmann, J., & Gree nberg, S. (1988). A comparison of lexicalsemantic impairments in left hemisphere stroke and Alzheimer's disease. Brain and Language, 34 (2), 262-278. Jarvis, B. (2004). DirectRT. New York: Empirisoft. Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M. A., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names: Making the connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16 (2), 243-275. Kaplan, E. F., Goodglass, H., & Wein traub, S. (1983). Boston Naming Test. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger. Katzman, R., & Fox, P. J. (1999). The world-wi de impact of dementia: Projections of prevalence and costs. In R. Mayeux & Y. Christen (Eds.), Epidemiology of Alzheimer's disease: From gene to prevention (pp. 1-17). Heidelberg: SpringerVerlag. Kawas, C. H., & Katzman, R. (1999). Epidemio logy of dementia and Alzheimer disease. In R. D. Terry, R. Katzman, K. L. Bick & S. S. Sangram (Eds.), Alzheimer Disease (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Kearns, K. P. (1989). Generali zation issues in the treatmen t of communication disorders. In L. V. McReynolds & J. E. Spradlin (Eds.), Methodologies for studying generalization (pp. 13-30). Toronto, Canada: B.C. Decker. Kearns, K. P. (2000). Single-subject experimental designs in aphasia. In S. E. Nadeau, L. J. Gonzalez Rothi & B. Crosson (Eds.), Aphasia and language (pp. 421-441). New York: Guilford. Kertesz, A. (1982). The Western Aphasi a Battery. New York: Grune & Stratton. Kiran, S., & Thompson, C. K. (2003a). Effect of typicality on online category verification of animate category exemplars in aphasia. Brain and Language, 85 (3), 441-450. Kiran, S., & Thompson, C. K. (2003b). The role of semantic complexity in treatment of naming deficits: Training semantic cate gories in fluent aphasia by controlling exemplar typicality. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46 (3), 608-622. Kirshner, H. S., Webb, W. G., & Kelly, M. P. (1984). The naming disorder of dementia. Neuropsychologia, 22 (1), 23-30. Koemeda-Lutz, M., Cohen, R., & Meier, E. (1987). Organization of and access to semantic memory in aphasia. Brain and Language, 30 (2), 321-337. Komatsu, L. K. (1992). Recent views of conceptual structure. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (3), 500-526.

PAGE 141

127 Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207 (4427), 203-205. Le Dorze, G., Boulay, N., Gaudreau, J., & Bra ssard, C. (1994). The contrasting effects of a semantic versus a formal-semantic techni que for the facilitation of naming in a case of anomia. Aphasiology, 8 (2), 127-141. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Science, 22 (1), 1-38. Lipinska, B., & Backman, L. (1997). Encoding-re trieval interactions in mild Alzheimer's disease: The role of access to categorical information. Brain and Cognition, 34 (2), 274-286. Lowell, S., Beeson, P. M., & Holland, A. L. (1995). The efficacy of a semantic cueing procedure on naming performance of adults with aphasia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 4 109-114. Lukatela, K., Malloy, P., Jenkins, M., & Cohe n, R. (1998). The naming deficit in early Alzheimer's and vascular dementia. Neuropsychology, 12 (4), 565-572. Margolin, D. I., Pate, D. S., & Friedrich, F. J. (1996). Lexical priming by pictures and words in normal aging and in dementia of the Alzheimer's type. Brain and Language, 54 (2), 275-301. Margolin, D. I., Pate, D. S., Fr iedrich, F. J., & Elia, E. (1990). Dysnomia in dementia and in stroke patients: Different underlying cognitive deficits. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 12 (4), 597-612. Marshall, J. C. (1988). Cognitive neuropsychology. Sensation and semantics. Nature, 334 (6181), 378. Marshall, R. C., Freed, D. B., & Karow, C. M. (2001). Learning of subordinate category names by aphasic subjects: A comparison of deep and surface-level training methods. Aphasiology, 15 (6), 585-598. Martin, A. (1992). Degraded knowledge repres entations in patients with Alzheimer's disease: Implications for models of se mantic and repetition priming. In L. R. Squire & N. Butters (Eds.), Neuropsychology of memory (2nd ed., pp. 220-232). New York: Guilford. Martin, A., & Fedio, P. (1983). Word produc tion and comprehension in Alzheimer's disease: The breakdown of semantic knowledge. Brain and Language, 19 (1), 124141.

PAGE 142

128 Martin, N., Laine, M., & Harley, T. A. ( 2002). How can connectionist cognitive models of language inform models of language re habilitation? In A. E. Hillis (Ed.), The handbook of adult language disorders: In tegrating cognitive neuropsychology, neurology, and rehabilitation (pp. 375-396). New York: Psychology Press. Mayer, J. F., Murray, L. L., & Karcher, L. (2004, June, 2004). Treatment of anomia in severe aphasia. Paper presented at the Clinic al Aphasiology Conference, Park City, UT. McCarthy, R., & Warrington, E. K. (1990) The dissolution of semantics. Nature, 343 (6259), 599. McKhann, G., Drachman, D., Folstein, M., Ka tzman, R., Price, D., & Stadlan, E. M. (1984). Clinical diagnosis of Alzheime r's disease: Report of the NINCDSADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease. Neurology, 34 (7), 939-944. McNeil, M. R., Doyle, P. J., Spencer, K., G oda, A. J., Flores, D., & Small, S. (1998). Effects of training multiple form cl asses on acquisition, generalization and maintenance of word retrieval in a single subject. Aphasiology, 12 (7/8), 575-585. McRae, K., de Sa, V. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126 (2), 99-130. McReynolds, L. V. (1989). Generalization i ssues in the treatm ent of communication disorders. In L. V. McReynolds & J. E. Spradlin (Eds.), Generalization strategies in the treatment of communication disorders (pp. 1-12). Toronto, Canada: B.C. Decker. Medin, D. L., & Smith, E. E. (1984). Concepts and concept formation. Annual Review of Psychology, 35 113-138. Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recogni zing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence be tween retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90 (2), 227-234. Mitchell, D. B., Hunt, R. R., & Schmitt, F. A. (1986). The generation effect and reality monitoring: Evidence from dementia and normal aging. Journal of Gerontology, 41 (1), 79-84. Montanes, P., Goldblum, M. C., & Boller, F. (1995). The naming impairment of living and nonliving items in Alzheimer's disease. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 1 (1), 39-48. Multhaup, K. S., & Balota, D. A. (1997). Generation effects and source memory in healthy older adults and in adults wi th dementia of the Alzheimer type. Neuropsychology, 11 (3), 382-391.

PAGE 143

129 Murray, L. L., & Clark, H. M. (2005). Neurogenic disorders of language: Theory driven clinical practice Clifton Park, NY: Thompson Delmar Learning. Nadeau, S. E. (2000). Connectionist models a nd language. In S. E. Nadeau, L. J. Rothi & B. Crosson (Eds.), Aphasia and language: Theory to practice (pp. 299-347). New York: Guilford Press. Nadeau, S. E., & Gonzalez Rothi, L. J. (2004). Rehabilitation of language disorders. In J. Ponsford (Ed.), Cognitive and Behavioral Rehabilitation: From Neurobiology to Clinical Practice (pp. 129-174). New York: The Guilford Press. Nebes, R. D. (1989). Semantic memory in Alzheimer's disease. Psychological Bulletin, 106 (3), 377-394. Nebes, R. D. (1992). Semantic memory dysfunc tion in Alzheimer's disease: Disruption of semantic knowledge or information proces sing limitation? In L. R. Squire & N. Butters (Eds.), Neuropsychology of memory (2nd ed., pp. 233-240). New York: Guilford Press. Nebes, R. D., Boller, F., & Holland, A. (1986). Use of semantic context by patients with Alzheimer's disease. Psychology and Aging, 1 (3), 261-269. Nebes, R. D., & Brady, C. B. (1990). Preserve d organization of semantic attributes in Alzheimer's disease. Psychology and Aging, 5 (4), 574-579. Nebes, R. D., Brady, C. B., & Huff, F. J. (1989). Automatic and attentional mechanisms of semantic priming in Alzheimer's disease. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 11 (2), 219-230. Nebes, R. D., Martin, D. C., & Horn, L. C. (1984). Sparing of semantic memory in Alzheimer's disease. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93 (3), 321-330. Neils, J., Brennan, M. M., Cole, M., Boller, F., & Gerdeman, B. (1988). The use of phonemic cueing with Alzheimer's disease patients. Neuropsychologia, 26 (2), 351-354. Nicholas, M., Obler, L., Albert, M., & Goodglas s, H. (1985). Lexical retrieval in healthy aging. Cortex, 21 (4), 595-606. Nickels, L. (2002). Therapy for naming disord ers: Revisiting, revi sing, and reviewing. Aphasiology, 16 (10/11), 935-979. Ober, B. A. (1999). Semantic memory of Alzheimer's disease: Loss of knowledge or deficits in retrieval? Introducti on from the symposium organizer. Journal of the International Neuropsyc hological Society, 5 (7), 623-625.

PAGE 144

130 Ober, B. A., Dronkers, N. F., Koss, E., Delis, D. C., & Friedland, R. P. (1986). Retrieval from semantic memory in Alzheimer-type dementia. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 8 (1), 75-92. Ober, B. A., & Shenaut, G. K. (1995). Seman tic priming in Alzheimer's disease: Metaanalysis and theoretical evaluation. In P. A. Allen & T. R. Bashore (Eds.), Age differences in word and language processing (pp. 247-271). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. Ober, B. A., & Shenaut, G. K. (1999). Well-organized conceptual domains in Alzheimer's disease. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 5 (7), 676-684. Ober, B. A., Shenaut, G. K., & Reed, B. R. (1995). Assessment of asso ciative relations in Alzheimer's disease: Evidence for preservation of semantic memory. Aging and Cognition, 2 (4), 254-267. Olympus. (2002). DM-10 [Digital Voice Recorder]: Olympus Corporation. Ousset, P. J., Viallard, G., Puel, M., Celsis P., Demonet, J. F., & Cardebat, D. (2002). Lexical therapy and episodic word learni ng in dementia of the Alzheimer type. Brain and Language, 80 (1), 14-20. Patterson, K., Purell, C., & Morton, J. (1983). The facilitation of word retrieval in aphasia. In C. Code & D. J. Muller (Eds.), Aphasia therapy London: Edward Arnold. Petersen, R. C., Stevens, J. C., Ganguli, M., Tangalos, E. G., Cummings, J. L., & DeKosky, S. T. (2001). Practice parameter: Early detection of dementia: Mild cognitive impairment (an evidence-based review). Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology, 56 (9), 1133-1142. Plaut, D. C. (1996). Relearning after damage in connectionist networks: Toward a theory of rehabilitation. Brain and Language, 52 (1), 25-82. Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77 (3), 353-363. Pring, T., Hamilton, A., Harwood, A., & MacBri de, L. (1993). Generalization of naming after picture/word matching: Only it ems appearing in therapy benefit. Aphasiology, 7 (4), 383-394. Quillian, M. R. (1967). Word concepts: A theory and simulation of some basic semantic capabilities. Behavioral Science, 12 (5), 410-430.

PAGE 145

131 Raymer, A. M., Foundas, A. L., Maher, L. M., Greenwald, M. L., Morris, M., Rothi, L. J., et al. (1997). Cognitive neuropsyc hological analysis and neuroanatomic correlates in a case of acute anomia. Brain and Language, 58 (1), 137-156. Raymer, A. M., & Gonzalez Rothi, L. J. (2001). The semantic system. In S. E. Nadeau & L. J. Gonzalez Rothi (Eds.), Language and Aphasia Raymer, A. M., Maher, L. M., Greenwald, M. L., Morris, M., Gonzalez-Rothi, L., & Heilman, K. M. (1990). The Florida Se mantic Battery: Experimental Edition. Gainesville, Florida. Raymer, A. M., Thompson, C. K., Jacobs, B., & le Grand, H. R. (1993). Phonological treatment of naming deficits in aphasi a: Model-based generalization analysis. Aphasiology, 7 (1), 27-53. Rips, L. J., Shoben, E. J., & Smith, E. E. ( 1973). Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, Vol. 12 (1), 120. Rosch, E. (1973a). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language New York: Academic Press. Rosch, E. (1973b). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104 ( 192-233). Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive represen tations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychol ogy: General, 104 (3), 192-233. Rosch, E. (1977). Human categoriz ation. In N. Warren (Ed.), Advances in cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1-72). London: Academic Press Ltd. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categoriza tion. In E. Rosch & B. B. Llyod (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family rese mblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7 (4), 573-605. Rosenberg, R. N. (2005). Translational resear ch on the way to effective therapy for Alzheimer disease. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62 (11), 1186-1192. Rothi, L. J., Fuller, R. H., Kendall, D. L., Nadeau, S., Leon, S., Wu, S., et al. (2005). Naming treatment using an errorless lear ning technique: A possible adjuvant to donepezil for language dysfunction in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Submitted for publication

PAGE 146

132 Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & PDP Research Group. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in th e microstructure of cognition Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Sailor, K., Antoine, M., Diaz, M., Kuslans ky, G., & Kluger, A. (2004). The effects of Alzheimer's disease on item output in verbal fluency tasks. Neuropsychology, 18 (2), 306-314. Salmon, D. P., Butters, N., & Chan, A. S. ( 1999). The deterioration of semantic memory in Alzheimer's disease. Canadian Journal of Expe rimental Psychology, 53 (1), 108-116. Salmon, D. P., Heindel, W. C., & Lange, K. L. (1999). Differential decline in word generation from phonemic and semantic categories during the course of Alzheimer's disease: Implications fo r the integrity of semantic memory. Journal of the International Neur opsychological Society, 5 (7), 692-703. Salmon, D. P., Shimamura, A. P., Butters, N ., & Smith, S. (1988). Lexical and semantic priming deficits in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 10 (4), 477-494. Schmidt, A. M., & Lee, T. D. (1999). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Schnur, T. T., Schwartz, M. F., Brech er, A., & Hodgson, C. (2006). Semantic interference during blocked-cyclic naming: Evidence from aphasia. Journal of Memory & Language, 54 (2), 199-227. Schwartz, M. F., Marin, O. S., & Saffran, E. M. (1979). Dissociations of language function in dementia: A case study. Brain and Language, 7 (3), 277-306. Schwartz, T. J., Kutas, M., Butters, N., Paulsen, J. S., & Salmon, D. P. (1996). Electrophysiological insights into the nature of the semantic deficit in Alzheimer's disease. Neuropsychologia, 34 (8), 827-841. Sclan, S. G., & Kanowski, S. (2001). Alzhei mer disease: Stage-related interventions. Lippincott's Case Management, 6 (2), 48-63. Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The gene ration effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental and Psychol ogy: Human Learning and Memory, 4 592604. Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., & Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review, Vol. 81 (3), 214-241.

PAGE 147

133 Smith, S., Faust, M., Beeman, M., Kennedy, L., & Perry, D. (1995). A property level analysis of lexical semantic repr esentation in Alzheimer's disease. Brain and Language, 49 (3), 263-279. Smith, S. R., Murdoch, B. E., & Chenery, H. J. (1989). Semantic abilit ies in dementia of the Alzheimer type. 1. Lexical semantics. Brain and Language, 36 (2), 314-324. Snodgrass, J. G., & McCullough, B. (1986). The role of visual similarity in picture categorization. Journal of Experimental Ps ychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12 (1), 147-154. Stanczak, L., Waters, G., & Capla n, D. (2005, May 31-June 4, 2005). Typicality-based differences in treatment of naming deficits. Paper presented at the Clinical Aphasiology Conference, Sanibel Island, FL. Stanczak, L., Waters, G., & Caplan, D. (2006). Typicality-based learning and generalisation in aphasia: Two cas e studies of anomia treatment. Aphasiology, 20 (2-4), 374-383. Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 10 349-367. Thal, L. J. (1999). Clinical trials in Alzheime r disease. In R. D. Terry, R. Katzman, K. L. Bick & S. S. Sangram (Eds.), Alzheimer Disease (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Thompson, C. K. (1989). Generalization issu es in the treatment of communication disorders. In L. V. McReynolds & J. E. Spradlin (Eds.), Generalization in the treatment of aphasia (pp. 82-115). Toronto; Philadelphia: Decker. Thompson, C. K., Ballard, K. J., & Shapir o, L. P. (1998). The role of syntactic complexity in training wh-movement struct ures in agrammatic aphasia: Optimal order for promoting generalization. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 4 (6), 661-674. Thompson, C. K., Shapiro, L. P., Ballard, K. J., Jacobs, B. J., Schneider, S. S., & Tait, M. E. (1997). Training and generalized production of whand NP-movement structures in agrammatic aphasia. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40 (2), 228-244. Thompson, C. K., Shapiro, L. P., Kiran, S., & S obecks, J. (2003). The role of syntactic complexity in treatment of sentence deficits in agrammatic aphasia: The complexity account of treatment efficacy (CATE). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46 (3), 591-607. Thompson-Schill, S. L., Gabrieli, J. D., & Flei schman, D. A. (1999). Effects of structural similarity and name frequency on pict ure naming in Alzheimer's disease. Journal of the International Neur opsychological Society, 5 (7), 659-667.

PAGE 148

134 Tippett, L. J., Grossman, M., & Farah, M. J. (1996). The semantic memory impairment of Alzheimer's disease: Category-specific? Cortex, 32 (1), 143-153. Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory Oxford: Oxford University Press. Uyeda, K. M., & Mandler, F. (1980). Protot ypicality norms for 28 semantic categories. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 12 (6), 587-595. Warrington, E. K. (1975). The selective impairment of semantic memory. Quarterly Journal of Experime ntal Psychology, 27 (4), 635-657. Warrington, E. K., & Shallice, T. (1984). Category specific semantic impairments. Brain, 107 829-854. Watson, M. E., Welsh-Bohmer, K. A., Hoffma n, J. M., Lowe, V., & Rubin, D. C. (1999). The neural basis of naming impairments in Alzheimer's disease revealed through positron emission tomography. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 14 (4), 347357. Wiegel-Crump, C., & Koenigsknecht, R. A. (1973). Tapping the lexica l store of the adult aphasic: Analysis of the improvement made in word retrieval skills. Cortex, 9 (4), 411-418. Wilkinson, G. S. (1993). Wide Range Achi evement Test-Third Edition (WRAT-3): Jastak Associates, A Division of Wide Range, Inc. Williams, B. W., Mack, W., & Henderson, V. W. (1989). Boston Naming Test in Alzheimer's disease. Neuropsychologia, 27 (8), 1073-1079. Williamson, D. J., Adair, J. C., Raymer, A. M., & Heilman, K. M. (1998). Object and action naming in Alzheimer's disease. Cortex, 34 (4), 601-610. Wilson, M. (1987). MRC Psycholinguistic Database : Machine Usable Dictionary Retrieved May, 2006, 2006, from http://www.psy.uwa.edu.au/mrcdatabase/uwa_mrc.htm Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations New York: Macmillan.

PAGE 149

135 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Claudia A. Morelli received her Bachelor of Arts degree from Emmanuel College, Boston, MA. She also has a Master of Scie nce degree from the University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, and is a certifie d speech-language pathologist. Claudias interest in providing treatment for adults with neurogenic communication disorders motivated her desire to complete the doctora l program at the University of Florida. During that time, Claudia also had the opport unity to teach underg raduates for seven consecutive semesters, and from these expe riences, developed a great appreciation for teaching. She has been trained in suppor tive and collegial academic and research environments driven by a core set of valu es focusing on the betterment of students, clients and their families, and ultimately th e profession. In Fall, 2006, Dr. Morelli will be an assistant faculty member in the Depa rtment of Speech-Language Pathology/Audiology at Loyola College in Maryland.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015420/00001

Material Information

Title: Choosing Remediation Targets for Naming Deficits in Probable Alzheimer Disease: Does Typicality Matter?
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0015420:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015420/00001

Material Information

Title: Choosing Remediation Targets for Naming Deficits in Probable Alzheimer Disease: Does Typicality Matter?
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0015420:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











CHOOSING REMEDIATION TARGETS FOR NAMING DEFICITS IN
PROBABLE ALZHEIMER DISEASE:
DOES TYPICALITY MATTER?














By

CLAUDIA A. MORELLI


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Claudia A. Morelli


































This dissertation is dedicated to my incredible husband, David Efros, my amazing
mother, Claire Morelli and my sisters; and in memory of my wonderful father, John.
They have been an integral part of my life and their belief in me has been a fortress of
encouragement, hope, and steadfast love.
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I thank and acknowledge each participant and their family and/or caregivers

for their time, effort, and for extending themselves and their home to allow me to work

with them to complete this research proj ect. I will always remember them and the

devastating effects of Alzheimer disease, and this will influence the focus of my future

clinical research. I also extend my gratitude and appreciation for the UF Memory

Disorder Program, especially David B. Efros, Dr. Kenneth M. Heilman, Dr. Glen Finney,

Dr. Kimford Meador, Dr. Catherine Price, and Jennifer Rembisz, whose kind and diligent

efforts resulted in referrals for me to recruit these participants.

I also express my deep appreciation for my committee. First, I want to thank my

mentor, Dr. Lori J.P. Altmann, for her vast knowledge of neurolinguistics that provided a

refreshing perspective, especially with regards to research in adults with probable

Alzheimer disease. Working with Dr. Altmann allowed me to broaden my thought

process and expand my approach to this dissertation. These qualities, combined with her

guidance, leadership, and patience have been of great value to me during the exciting and

challenging process of becoming a Ph.D. I also acknowledge Dr. Diane Kendall for her

expert opinion on clinical research in adult neurogenics, and for the many opportunities

to learn more about single subj ect design, especially during my pre-doctoral fellowship

with her at the VA Brain Rehabilitation Research Center. Her outstanding clinical skills

and perspective as a compassionate speech-language pathologist combined with her

insights have had a great influence on me and have motivated my interest in theoretically









driven treatments. I also gratefully acknowledge Dr. Ira Fischler who shared his extensive

knowledge of psychology, which played an important role in this dissertation. Dr.

Kenneth Heilman, with his behavioral neurology expertise combined with his incredible

commitment and compassion for patients, has taught me so much in such inspiring and

meaningful ways. Each of these remarkable individuals has contributed to my

development by their expertise and great role modeling.

I thank the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders at the University

of Florida, especially Dr. Christine Sapienza, Dr. Samuel Brown, and Dr. Scott Griffiths,

for their support and encouragement, as well as the wonderful opportunities to teach the

undergraduates. Also, I will always remember the incredible opportunities to guest

lecture for Dr. Howard Rothman and Dr. Bonnie Johnson (including the lecture swaps

with Dr. Johnson). I extend my appreciation to the entire faculty and staff for their

professionalism, collegial, and positive approach. In particular, Idella King, Cassie

Mobley, Debbie Butler, and Addie Pons deserve a special thanks. The computer support

from Neal Musson will always be appreciated.

I also want to acknowledge the members of Dr. Altmann' s Language over the

Lifespan Lab. First I thank Alexia Frederiksen, who spent hours developing the stimuli,

coordinating and working with us, and whose attention to details was truly awesome. Her

dedication to the proj ect was sincerely appreciated and always will be. Additional thanks

go to Katie Chiarella, Andrea Holt, and Angel Ziesk for their wonderful help in preparing

the stimuli; and to Maisa Haj Tas, Ashley Mullen, and Deb Gober for lending their

incredible artistic talent. Alexia Frederiksen, Erin Hunt, and Rachel Hogue deserve

acknowledgement for their excellent questions and feedback during the protocol training,









which prepared them for testing the young adults for a related proj ect. Becca Huy also

played an important role by transcribing a large amount of the data and working closely

with me with on the reliability checks. Her devoted attention to the details of accurate

transcription, combined with her enthusiasm, and willingness to help was wonderful.

Also, I thank Charlene Cohen-Deroy for her diligent efforts and commitment to

excellence in coding and scoring the Word Reading subtests, as well as calculating the

phoneme length for the stimulus words. All of these students demonstrated a keen

awareness of the importance of maintaining the integrity of the data. Without the

combined efforts of these wonderful students, this dissertation would have taken longer.

Finally, I thank the collective insights of the members of the Language over the Lifespan

lab, especially those who provided suggestions for the semantic cues. It was their

integrative efforts that helped to improve various aspects of this study.

I also would like to thank the Director and members of the Brain Rehabilitation

Research Center, at the Malcom Randall Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Dr. Leslie

Gonzalez Rothi, Dr. Stephen Nadeau, and Dr. Jay Rosenbek, for the pre-doctoral

fellowship opportunity that Dr. Diane Kendall provided. I also thank Haijing Qin for her

statistical support. I acknowledge other investigators and clinicians, especially Nan

Musson, Susan Leon, and Amy Rodriguez. I appreciated the ongoing support of the staff,

especially Brenda Stidham, Sue Nadeau, Joy McCallum, Sandy Davis, Lisa

DeEmmanuel, and Lynn Dirk. Further appreciation is extended to the incredible VA

library staff, for their expertise, time, and consideration: Marsha H. White, Ellen L.

Umans, Marylyn Gresser, and Harold A. Boyce.










Two Eine clinicians and professors have played an important, yet earlier role in my

career. I extend my thanks and appreciation to Dr. Robert C. Marshall, for inspiring me

years ago in my master' s program, continuing his belief in me, and his incredible

mentoring in a supportive, enthusiastic and gentle manner. If it were not for him, I would

never have started this Ph.D. endeavor. Also, I thank Donna Chadwick for teaching me

the fundamental aspects of being an effective clinician during my undergraduate

program.

My friends have also been a great source of inspiration and hope. Dr. Sally Ann

Giess, whom I met in my first year at the University of Florida, continues to be a great

friend, and role model. I acknowledge my other friends and colleagues from the UF CSD

Department: Dr. Ann Marie Knight, Dr. Amber Hollingsworth, Dr. Judith Wingate, Dr.

Lynnette Bardolf, Susan Leon, and Maisa Haj Tas. I thank The Reverend Jeremy Hole

for his support and encouragement. I will always appreciate my dear friends Ann Case

and Nancy Merrifield for their wonderful presence in my life.

Most importantly, I am forever grateful for my family. Their patience, ongoing

love, support, and belief in me have been truly wonderful. Thus, I thank them: my

husband David, mother, Claire, and my sisters and their families, Jeanmarie; Donna and

Ryan, Buzz and Charlie; Claire and Ross, Martina and Fabiana; as well as Everett, my

father-in-law and Marie, my mother-in-law. Also, I thank my cousins and their families:

Marybeth, Mary Catherine, Luigi, Lou and Joey, and Lee and Mary Anne. Finally, I

would like to acknowledge all those who came before, paying my way through their

loving support and kindness, including my father John; and grandmothers, Florence

McNulty and Anna Efros Kramer.









This dissertation was partially supported by my teaching and research

assistantships from the UF Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders. It was

also partially funded by Dr. Altmann's Advancing Academic-Research Careers award,

which she had received from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. I am

grateful for these funding sources.




















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. .................... iv


LIST OF TABLES ............_...... .__ ..............xi....


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ....................xii


AB STRAC T ......__................ ........_._ ........xi


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............1.......... ......


2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 1: NAMING DEFICITS INT PAD ................... .....8


Semantic Memory Deficit in Probable Alzheimer Disease (PAD) .............. ................9
Lexical Access Deficit in PAD ................. ....... .. ..... .... ...............13...
Semantic Impairment and Lexical Access Deficit in PAD .............. ....................16
Naming Treatment Studies in PAD .............. ...............18....

3 LITERATURE REVIEW 2: A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE ORGANIZATION
OF SE MANT IC MEMORY ............... ...............26.


A Brief Overview of Semantic Memory and Categorization ................ ................. 26
Family Resemblance/Prototype View .............. ...............30....
The Complexity Account of Treatment Efficacy .............. ...............42....
Connectionist Model and Computer Simulations ................. ......... ................43
Similar Behavioral Studies .............. ...............48....
The Current Study................... .. ......... .... ...............6
Rationale for Applying the Training to the PAD Population ................... ...........60
Research Questions and Predictions............... ..............6

4 M ETHODS .............. ...............70....


Participants .............. ...............71....
Experimental Stimuli ............ _...... ._ ...............72....
Procedure .............. ...............76....
Screening ............ _...... ._ ...............76....
Pretesting ............ _...... ._ ...............76....











Semantic Training .............. ...............78....
P ostte sti ng .........__.. ..... ._ __ ...............79...
Scoring ........._.___..... ._ __ ...............79....
Statistical Analyses ........._._.... ......__ ...............81....
Research Question 1: Control Items ........._._... .. ...___._ ....___ ..........8
Research Question 2: Trained Items in Trained Categories ................... ...............82
Research Question 3: Untrained Items in Trained Categories............... ...............8
Re search Questi on 4: Category Generati on ....._.__._ ..... ... .__. ... .._._.........8

5 RE SULT S .............. ...............85....


Research Question 1: Control Items ......__....._.__._ ......._._. ...........8
Research Question 2: Semantically Trained Items ....._.__._ ........___ ...............86
Research Question 3: Untrained Items in Trained Categories............... ...............8
Re search Questi on 4: Category Generati on ....._.__._ ..... ... .__. ... .._._.........9
Summary of Results............... ...............9

6 DI SCUS SSION ........._.___..... .___ ...............96....


Summary of Findings .............. ... ........ ...........9
Implications for Anomia Treatment in PAD .............. ...............98....
Implications for Methodology .............. ...............103....
Future Studies ........._.___..... .__. ...............107....

APPENDIX


A INFORMED CONSENT FORM ................. ...............111...............

B TABLES WITH INFORMATION ABOUT THE PARTICIPANTS ................... ...113


Participant Demographics and Selected Neuropsychological Test Results .............114
Demographics and Performance Before and After Semantic Training ............_.......115

C TABLES WITH INFORMATION ABOUT THE STIMULI ................. ...............116


Master List of Stimulus Items Used in the Study .......... ................ ...............116
Alternate Names for Stimulus Items Used in the Study ................. ............... .....118

LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............120................


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............135......... ......

















LIST OF TABLES


Table pg

4-1. Participant Demographics and Scores on Mini Mental Status Exam and Reading
Subtest ................. ...............72.......... .....

4-2. Lists of Training Conditions and Corresponding Training Conditions ................... ..72

4-3. Example from List 1: Train-Typical Vehicles and Train-Atypical Tools. ................75

4-4. Means for Complete List of Atypical and Typical Items. ................ ................ ...76

5-1. Pre and Post Group Accuracy and Response Time Means for Trained Items ..........87

5-2. Group Accuracy and Response Time Means for Trained Items (Train-Atypical;
Train-Typical) .............. ...............87....

5-3. Analysis of Variance for Accuracy Means for Untrained Items in Trained
Categories ................. ...............89.................

5-4. Group Response Time Means (ms) for Untrained Items in Trained Categories.......92

B-1. Participant Demographics and Selected Neuropschological Testing Results from
the PAD Diagnosis ................. ...............114................

B-2. Participant Demographics and Pre and Posttest Category Generation and Picture
Naming Tasks (i.e., Before and After the Semantic Training, day of study
participation in the study) ................. ...............115...............

C-1. Master List of Stimulus Items Used in the Study. Trained Items are Italicized.....116

C-2. Master List of Stimulus Items Used in the Study. Alternate names for stimuli
counted as correct ................. ...............118................

















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure pg

5-1. Accuracy Means for Untrained Items in Trained Categories, Main Effect of Time .90

5-2. Untrained Items in Trained Categories: Three-Way Interaction Among Time..........91

5-3. Category Generation, Number of Items Generated at Pre & Posttest for Trained &
Control Item s. .............. ...............94....
















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

CHOOSING REMEDIATION TARGETS FOR NAMING DEFICITS IN
PROBABLE ALZHEIMER DISEASE:
DOES TYPICALITY MATTER?

By

Claudia A. Morelli

August 2006

Chair: Lori J.P. Altmann
Major Department: Communication Sciences and Disorders

The purpose of this single session exploratory study was to determine if

remediation targets could be selected to improve picture naming and promote

generalization to untrained items in 12 adults with early probable Alzheimer disease

(PAD). Because theories support competing predictions about the relative effects of

training typical versus atypical semantic category members with respect to subsequent

generalization, this study contrasted the effects of training typical and atypical semantic

category exemplars. Specifically, it examined changes in picture naming and category

generation following initial repetition of the items at pretest followed by a semantic

training. Stimuli included 24 items from each of 3 semantic categories, half of the items

were typical and half atypical based on Rosch's norms. Two categories received training,

one using a subset of typical items, one using a subset of atypical items; the third

category remained untrained to track effects of repetition. The untrained category showed









nonsignifieant improvements at post-test. Accuracy scores improved for all trained

categories; however, only trained, typical items were named significantly faster at post-

test. Generalization was found in the untrained typical items in the categories that were

trained with typical items, which were named more accurately at posttest. Neither

atypical items from the categories that were trained with typical items nor any of the

items in categories that were trained with atypical items showed improved accuracy after

training. These Eindings are consistent with those of other researchers investigating the

semantic deterioration in adults with PAD. Several studies have found an advantage for

typical items in this population. These Eindings are attributed to the redundant

connections among features in typical items, which allow them to be more resilient in the

face of progressive damage, allowing them to be more responsive to intensive semantic

training. Atypical items lack the redundancy of connections and, thus, are more vulnerable

to damage. These Eindings are extremely encouraging for the development of principled

strategies for choosing items to encourage generalization in the remediation of anemia, as

well as for the development of lexical-semantic treatment paradigms for individuals with

early PAD.















CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Probable Alzheimer disease (PAD), a progressive neurodegenerative disease, is the

most prevalent type of acquired cognitive dysfunction (Thal, 1999) and affects over four

million Americans (Kawas & Katzman, 1999). The prevalence of PAD accounts for 50-

80% of patients with dementia (Chui, 1989) and comprises the greatest percentage of the

dementias in the geriatric population (Chui, 1989; Henderson & Finch, 1989; Sclan &

Kanowski, 2001). Furthermore, PAD is already considered to be a maj or public health

concern, and by 2025, the number of Americans affected by the disease is expected to be

12 million (Rosenberg, 2005) and 14 million by 2050 (Katzman & Fox, 1999). Although

there is no known cure for PAD, and only symptomatic treatment is available at this time,

current research endeavors are aiming to halt the progression of the disease as well as

prevent its occurrence (Petersen et al., 2001; Rosenberg, 2005). Reducing the disability

until this occurs is important (Rothi et al., 2005). Furthermore, when drug therapies are

available that halt the progression of the disease, there will be a demand for linguistic and

cognitive rehabilitation for this population. Therefore, it is incumbent upon speech-

language pathologists to develop and test appropriate treatments for this population now,

so that tested methods are available that address the language difficulties in PAD (ASHA,

in press), which largely revolve around word finding

Word finding difficulties (i.e., anemia), as measured by poor performance on

picture naming tasks have been widely reported in adults with PAD (Barbarotto,

Capitani, Jori, Laiacona, & Molinari, 1998; Bayles, 1982; Bayles & Tomoeda, 1983;









Benson & Geschwind, 1985; Heilman, 2005; Hodges & Patterson, 1995; Hodges,

Patterson, Graham, & Dawson, 1996; Huff, Corkin, & Growdon, 1986; Huff, Mack,

Mahlmann, & Greenberg, 1988; Kirshner, Webb, & Kelly, 1984; Martin & Fedio, 1983;

Smith, Faust, Beeman, Kennedy, & Perry, 1995; Smith, Murdoch, & Chenery, 1989;

Williams, Mack, & Henderson, 1989; Williamson, Adair, Raymer, & Heilman, 1998).

However, to date, there are only three PAD anemia treatment studies (Abrahams &

Camp, 1993; Ousset et al., 2002; Rothi et al., 2005), and only one has reported

generalization to untrained items (Abrahams & Camp, 1993). Consequently, developing

treatments for this population that reduce the word finding difficulty is important (Rothi

et al., 2005), especially those that promote generalization.

Generalization of learning, an essential objective for rehabilitation (Kearns, 1989;

Thompson, 1989), has been described as an observation of an occurrence of a particular

trained behavior in a context that has not been trained (McReynolds, 1989).

Generalization is important for several reasons, including the clinical accountability of

the speech-language pathologist to use methodologies to measure the effectiveness of

treatment (Kearns, 1989). The mechanism underlying generalization has been a long-

standing question (Martin, Laine, & Harley, 2002), and although cognitive models have

been advanced over time, the construct of generalization remains a mystery (Francis,

Clark, & Humphreys, 2002). Perhaps due to this, there is still a lack of generalization

reported in the literature (Francis et al., 2002; Kearns, 1989; Kiran & Thompson, 2003b;

McNeil et al., 1998; McReynolds, 1989; Nickels, 2002; Thompson, 1989; Thompson,

Ballard, & Shapiro, 1998; Thompson et al., 1997; Thompson, Shapiro, Kiran, & Sobecks,










2003). Moreover, attempts to replicate methods that have promoted generalization in

initial studies have not always been successful (McReynolds, 1989; Thompson, 1989).

There are two types of generalization that, according to Thompson (1989), play an

important role in aphasia rehabilitation: response generalization (i.e., when an untrained

response occurs after other responses have been trained (e.g., production of different,

untrained items) and stimulus generalization (i.e., when there is carryover of a trained

behavior to a different, untrained stimulus condition, e.g., outside of the clinic). Without

the former, there would be an inordinate number of responses to train, and without the

latter, trained behaviors would occur only in the clinic setting (Thompson, 1989).

Although both of these are important, the current study focuses only on response

generalization.

Several investigators (Hillis, 1998; Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Plaut, 1996;

Thompson, 1989) have suggested that treatment studies might be able to influence the

recovery of language if they target factors that are modifiable. A principled selection of

materials for training as well as for testing generalization is just one example of this

(Hillis, 1998; Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Plaut, 1996; Thompson, 1989; Thompson et

al., 2003). One technique that has successfully induced generalization is to have a

structural relationship among and across the stimuli (Stokes & Baer, 1977; Thompson,

1989; Thompson et al., 1998; Thompson et al., 1997; Thompson et al., 2003). One

approach recommends choosing stimuli that are more versus less complex, a factor that

has been shown to be important for increasing generalization to untrained items (Kiran &

Thompson, 2003b; Plaut, 1996; Thompson et al., 1998; Thompson et al., 1997;

Thompson et al., 2003). This phenomenon has been referred to as the "complexity effect"









and the Complexity Account of Treatment Efficacy (Thompson et al., 1998; Thompson et

al., 1997; Thompson et al., 2003), which has been successfully used in syntactic

treatment studies in the aphasia population.

Kiran and Thompson (2003b) have equated the notion of semantic complexity with

category typicality (i.e., by the degree to which a semantic category exemplar is similar

to the category prototype, as described Rosch, (1975)) and applied this to a semantic

training in adults with aphasia. In this study, Kiran and Thompson (2003b) found

generalization to untrained items after atypical items from a category were trained.

Findings from this study replicated similar results from a connectionist model that were

simulated in a computer experiment of acquired dyslexia (Plaut, 1996). In a similar study,

Stanczak, Waters, and Caplan (2006) reported generalization for one of two participants

with aphasia, after training atypical category exemplars. However, two other aphasia

naming treatment studies (Mayer, Murray, & Karcher, 2004; Stanczak, Waters, &

Caplan, 2005) did not find generalization following training with either atypical and

typical items, although treatment effects were observed. Thus, it is important to further

explore the effectiveness of training typical or atypical category exemplars as a strategy

to encourage generalization (Murray & Clark, 2005).

All of these studies (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Mayer et al., 2004; Stanczak et al.,

2005, 2006) have tested the predictions of the Complexity Account of Treatment Efficacy

(Thompson et al., 2003), and contrasted it with an older approach based on the family

resemblance/prototype hypothesis by Rosch (1975). Arguments based on this view center

around the benefits of training qualities or features that are shared among many members

of a semantic category, so that many items in the category might benefit, and thus, it










provides a rationale for training typical items, which contain a larger proportion of shared

features. The structure of a semantic category is an essential element in the rationale for

treatments based on typicality (Plaut, 1996); therefore, a population with preserved

category structure such as individuals with PAD (Flicker, Ferris, Crook, & Bartus, 1987;

Huff et al., 1986; Martin & Fedio, 1983; Nebes, Boller, & Holland, 1986; Salmon,

Butters, & Chan, 1999; Schwartz, Marin, & Saffran, 1979; Schwartz, Kutas, Butters,

Paulsen, & Salmon, 1996; Warrington, 1975) might be optimal for testing these

hypotheses.

Some theories of how semantic representations are affected by PAD have

specifically suggested that items that have many shared or intercorrelated features might

be more preserved in PAD compared those with representations primarily consisting of

distinguishing features, with relatively fewer shared features (Altmann, Kempler, &

Andersen, 2001; Devlin, Gonnerman, Andersen, & Seidenberg, 1998; Gonnerman,

Andersen, Devlin, Kempler, & Seidenberg, 1997). This literature combined with the

evidence that the PAD population has worse performance on atypical items compared to

typical items (Sailor, Antoine, Diaz, Kuslansky, & Kluger, 2004; Smith et al., 1995)

provides further incentive to compare performance by adults with PAD on typical

category exemplars, which have many shared features, and atypical category exemplars,

which have relatively fewer shared features.

This exploratory study extends the small body of research comparing the effects of

training typical and atypical category exemplars in adults with aphasia (Kiran &

Thompson, 2003b; Mayer et al., 2004; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006) to those with mild-

moderate PAD using a modified version of the semantic feature generation task (Boyle,










2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho, McHugh, & Boyle, 2000). Since there were no

reports of this type of training with the PAD population, it seemed appropriate to Birst

apply it in a single session to determine its feasibility. Thus, the first aim of the study was

to determine if there is a facilitation effect (Hickin, Best, Herbert, Howard, & Osborne,

2002; Howard, 1985; Howard, Patterson, Franklin, Orchard-Lisle, & Morton, 1985;

Patterson, Purell, & Morton, 1983), for trained items from either item repetition alone

(Kendall, personal communication, 2005, Fuller et al. 2001; Hickin et al., 2002; Mayer et

al., 2004; Patterson et al., 1993; Rothi et al., 2005) or from the repetition plus a semantic

training (Drew & Thompson, 1999; Le Dorze, Boulay, Gaudreau, & Brassard, 1994;

Wiegel-Crump & Koenigsknecht, 1973). The second aim of the study was to determine

whether there was generalization of training to untrained items in the semantically trained

categories. The third aim of the study was to examine generalization to an untrained task,

category generation, using the same semantic categories as the naming and feature

analysis tasks.

The structure of this study is as follows. The next two chapters provide reviews of

the literature. Chapter 2 discusses the naming deficits (i.e., anemia) in adults with PAD,

and the anemia treatment studies for this population. The third chapter provides

background information on semantic theory, the two competing views, the relevant

Endings from the connectionist model (Plaut, 1996) and the treatment studies in adults

with aphasia using semantic category exemplar training with typical and atypical items

(Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Mayer et al., 2004; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006). This is

followed by a description of the current study, including rationale for applying these

techniques to adults with PAD. Additional findings from the aphasia treatment literature









are identified as they relate to the methodology for our study. Finally, our research

questions and predictions based on the above literature are described. In Chapter 4, the

study methods are explained in detail, followed by the results and discussion in Chapters

5 and 6, respectively. To foreshadow our results, this exploratory study provided good

preliminary evidence that semantic training can have significant effects on the anemia

found in PAD, and, with judicious choice of stimuli, this training may potentially

generalize to other items in the same category.















CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 1: NAMING DEFICITS IN PAD

It is common for patients in the early stages of PAD to have picture naming deficits

(Appell, Kertesz, & Fisman, 1982; Barker & Lawson, 1968; Bayles & Tomoeda, 1983;

Chertkow, Bub, & Seidenberg, 1989; Flicker et al., 1987; Grossman et al., 2004; Kirshner

et al., 1984; Lipinska & Backman, 1997; Schwartz et al., 1979; Warrington, 1975;

Williams et al., 1989; Williamson et al., 1998). Furthermore, the exact nature of

the naming deficit in PAD is controversial (Bell, Chenery, & Ingram, 2001; Nebes, 1992;

Nebes, Brady, & Huff, 1989) regarding whether the deficit stemmed from impaired

visual-perception, semantic memory, or lexical access (Nebes, 1989). An early theory

suggested that visual misperception is the reason for the naming deficit, and this is based

on the presence of visuo-perceptual errors, presumably due to difficulties perceiving the

object (Barker & Lawson, 1968; Kirshner et al., 1984). These theories and studies

providing evidence are discussed below, beginning with the semantic deficit, then the

lexical access, and followed by the semantic and lexical access deficit. Next, a discussion

of the few naming treatment studies that have targeted this population is provided

(Abrahams & Camp, 1993; Fuller et al., 2001; Ousset et al., 2002; Rothi et al., 2005).

These PAD naming therapy studies achieved a naming treatment effect (i.e., acquisition)

but only one also reported generalization (Abrahams & Camp, 1993). This limited

number of studies suggests a need for further research. Insights from all of these studies

and additional research from the aphasia literature provided techniques that were applied









in our exploratory study comparing the effects of training typical and atypical category

exemplars.

Semantic Memory Deficit in Probable Alzheimer Disease (PAD)

Several studies have suggested that there is semantic memory loss or degradation

and, consequently, a loss of information about semantic representations (Alathari, Trinh

Ngo, & Dopkins, 2004; Hodges & Patterson, 1995; Hodges et al., 1996; Hodges, Salmon,

& Butters, 1991, 1992; Huff et al., 1986; Huff et al., 1988; Margolin, Pate, Friedrich, &

Elia, 1990; Martin, 1992; Salmon, Butters et al., 1999; Salmon, Heindel, & Lange, 1999;

Salmon, Shimamura, Butters, & Smith, 1988; Schwartz et al., 1979). Evidence for this

theory includes impaired naming with semantic errors related to the superordinate

category or an associate item within the category (Bayles & Tomoeda, 1983; Martin &

Fedio, 1983; Salmon, Butters et al., 1999); the presence of consistent naming responses at

two different test periods (Henderson, Mack, Freed, Kempler, & Andersen, 1990) an

association between the inability to name an item and the inability to recognize its name

(Flicker et al., 1987; Huff et al., 1986; Huff et al., 1988); and a relationship between the

naming failures and the lack of core information provided about the corresponding item

(Hodges et al., 1996). In addition, deterioration of semantic memory in PAD has been

described based on poor performance on explicit tasks such as picture naming tasks and

category fluency (Bayles & Tomoeda, 1983; Chertkow & Bub, 1990; Flicker et al., 1987;

Huff et al., 1986; Martin & Fedio, 1983); tasks requiring generation of semantic feature

knowledge (Alathari et al., 2004), generation of verbal definitions (Garrard, Lambon

Ralph, Patterson, Pratt, & Hodges, 2005; Hodges et al., 1996); as well as questions

targeting feature knowledge (Chertkow et al., 1989; Giffard et al., 2002). Other tasks that

have showed similar findings include making judgments about semantic relatedness










(Bayles, Tomoeda, & Cruz, 1999); and associating words, defining words, and ranking

associations (Abeysinghe, Bayles, & Trosset, 1990).

There appears to be different interpretations or variants of this theory of semantic

memory loss or degradation in PAD. For example, several investigators have found that,

while attribute knowledge about a specific concept or exemplar in a category is impaired,

superordinate category knowledge is preserved (Chertkow & Bub, 1990; Flicker et al.,

1987; Giffard et al., 2002; Giffard et al., 2001; Hodges et al., 1991; Huff et al., 1986;

Lukatela, Malloy, Jenkins, & Cohen, 1998; Martin & Fedio, 1983; Nebes et al., 1986;

Salmon, Butters et al., 1999; Schwartz et al., 1979; Warrington, 1975). This led some

researcher to assert that the attributes of concepts are degraded in PAD (Chertkow et al.,

1989; Giffard et al., 2002; Giffard et al., 2001; Martin, 1992; Martin & Fedio, 1983).

Martin (1992) suggested that random damage from the pathological process of

PAD resulted in changes to the semantic representations such that they would be

degraded and thus more similar to one another. With progression of the disease, the

ability to distinguish between items in the same category would be diminished. Thus, on

a confrontation naming task, a semantic representation would be activated but it would

lack the specificity needed to correctly name the item and, as a result, several lexical

entries would be activated. Therefore, when the person with PAD sees a picture, the

semantic representation that is activated may be underspecified in terms of the details.

This is due to the absence of the essential attributes knowledge for that item such that the

activated distinguishing features of that obj ect are not strong enough to rule out other

similar items (Altmann et al., 2001; Devlin et al., 1998; Gonnerman et al., 1997; Martin,

1992).










A property verification task has also been used in a group of adults with PAD

(Smith et al., 1995). Participants were asked to verify brief statements containing

information about an item's properties. The items were high or low typicality (and

dominance, which relates to the relevance of the meaning of the item and is correlated

with typicality) category exemplars. The statements were either distinguishing

characteristics (i.e., distinctive) or shared features (i.e., common to the other items in that

category). The results from the accuracy scores and reaction times indicated a

degradation of property level information, particularly regarding both low dominance

typicality items in the category. This was not interpreted as a loss of representations of

the items' properties or a reorganization of relationships among properties of obj ects.

Instead, Smith et al. (1995) offered this as evidence that the representations of category

exemplars that are low-typical and low dominant have been degraded by the Alzheimer

pathology. Furthermore, these investigators hypothesized that task demands might be a

reason for differences in the literature. Smith et al. (1995) suggested that implicit

knowledge allows adults with PAD to have faster verification response times. Thus, in a

category verification task, the demands probably do not need the full semantic

specification. Smith et al. (1995) also suggested that while explicit knowledge is needed

to assess information could be impaired, for example, tasks requiring the participant to

use relevant information in a ranking task. This example comes from Grober, Buschke,

Kawas, and Fuld (1985) who reported that performance on an attribute ranking task

showed that attributes about a concept are preserved, but that the organization of

semantic information is altered by the disease process. Another example from Smith et al.

(1995) is that the naming process involves computation such that an obj ect' s properties









are activated to allow for distinction among other category members. If Alzheimer

disease processes affect both distinguishing and shared features that are low dominant

and low typicality, this could interfere with complete activation of the obj ect

representation (Smith et al., 1995). Consequently, it would reduce the accuracy on a

naming task. Better performance is seen when contextual information is provided, yet

when the task involves full semantic representation without the support, performance

declines (Smith et al., 1995).

While the evidence above for a progressive deterioration of the semantic system

comes largely from tasks requiring explicit access of semantic representations, evidence

for an overall preservation of semantic category knowledge comes from tasks that require

only implicit knowledge of word semantics.

For example, adults with PAD did not show a priming effect on a stem-completion

task and had reduced number of productions for the second semantically related item on a

free association task (Salmon et al., 1988). Hyper-priming has been reported on lexical

decision tasks and found to be associated with degraded semantic representations

(Chertkow et al., 1989; Giffard et al., 2002; Margolin, Pate, & Friedrich, 1996; Martin,

1992). To account for the hyper-priming in PAD, Martin (1992) suggested that changes

in semantic activation are more robust for processing information that is degraded, such

that a degraded semantic network benefits more from a semantic prime in than an intact

semantic network. To account for the difference in performance on tasks requiring

implicit versus explicit access to semantic representations, it has been suggested that

participants with PAD have difficulty performing an intentional search through semantic

memory, but perform relatively normally when relying on the automatic spread of









activation in the semantic network (Chertkow & Bub, 1990; Nebes, 1992; Ober, Shenaut,

& Reed, 1995).

All of these studies with explicit and implicit tasks suggest that at some level, the

semantic system is impaired (due to loss or degradation), and different investigators have

used different tasks and methodologies to address this. However, this theory does not go

unchallenged; an alternative argument suggests that lexical access, specifically, access of

the phonological word form from semantics, is the primary deficit in PAD.

Lexical Access Deficit in PAD

Several researchers have argued that the naming impairment in PAD results from

impaired access to the phonological form of the word (i.e., a retrieval deficit) in the

presence of an overall intact semantic knowledge structure (Albert & Milberg, 1989;

Benson & Geschwind, 1985; Nebes, 1992; Nebes et al., 1986; Nebes et al., 1989; Nebes,

Martin, & Horn, 1984; Neils, Brennan, Cole, Boller, & Gerdeman, 1988; Ober &

Shenaut, 1999; Thompson-Schill, Gabrieli, & Fleischman, 1999). Along these lines, it

has been suggested that the presence of semantic errors is actually an indication that

knowledge about the item is intact, despite the lack of the ability to retrieve it, rather than

in indication of a semantic impairment (Nebes, 1989).

Semantic priming paradigms (as discussed earlier) have been employed to evaluate

the status of semantic memory via an implicit task, in order to reduce the participant' s use

of attentional mechanisms (Ober, 1999). There are reports of normal priming in adults

with PAD (Nebes et al., 1984), as well as reports of hyper-priming which have been

interpreted as being caused by abnormal attentional processes in the presence of

preserved semantic memory (Hartman, 1991; Ober & Shenaut, 1995; Ober et al., 1995).

In a meta-analysis of semantic priming studies, Ober et al. (1995) reported that hyper-










priming was due to attentional mechanisms which co-occurred with large increases in

reaction times found in controlled priming paradigms. These researchers argued that the

hyper-priming represented evidence that automatic spreading activation was occurring

among semantic representations in the semantic priming task (Ober et al., 1995). Further

evidence for this comes from another study by Ober and colleagues (1995) in which

adults with PAD, as well as healthy young and older adults participated in a series of

lexical decision tasks. Results showed that priming effects were equal across the groups.

The PAD group demonstrated longer reaction times on low frequency words before

making lexical decisions, and this was interpreted as an indication that additional time

was needed for reaching activation level threshold for these items. Ober et al. (1995)

argued that these data reflected an intact semantic memory structure in PAD.

Two event-related potential (ERP) studies offered more support for an access

deficit in PAD (Ford et al., 2001; Schwartz et al., 1996). Event related potentials measure

electrical manifestations of particular psychological processes that occur in preparation

for or in response to discrete events (Fabiani, Gratton, & Coles, 2000; Kutas & Hillyard,

1980). The N400 is a negative going deflection occurring at ~400 ms and occurs in

response to anomalous information, specifically, semantic violations; for example it is

larger when the prime is unrelated to the target compared to when it is related (Fabiani et

al., 2000; Kutas & Hillyard, 1980). Schwartz et al. (1996) compared healthy older adults

and adults with PAD to determine whether or not the specificity of a category prime had

a differential effect on the degree of semantic priming in these two populations. Using a

variation of a category verification task, the investigators asked the participants first to

listen to a prime that was delivered auditorily as a name of a category (different levels,










e.g. superordinate and subordinate) and then, to read the written presentation of the target

name (i.e., a member of a category). While the most robust priming effects were found in

the young adults, the smallest priming effect and slowest reaction times were found in the

PAD group. Responsiveness to the category manipulation was revealed in priming effects

that were similar across the groups, not just in the reaction times but also in the ERP

N400 congruity effects being larger on some levels, for example, the subordinate

category level. Thus, category level manipulation affected the PAD group, and this was

interpreted as evidence for an intact semantic network. In contrast, longer response times

and smaller priming effects were attributed to the demands of the task and the necessity

of searching through memory while engaged in online processing required for this and

other similar tasks (Schwartz et al., 1996).

In a more recent ERP study, Ford et al. (2001) examined priming based on age and

dementia, and asked whether the N400 amplitude could be used to show specific

semantic memory deficits for obj ects that could not be named. The participants (adults

with PAD, healthy young controls and healthy older adult controls) completed a pretest

confrontation picture naming task consisting of items from 12 semantic categories. The

following week, the participants completed a picture naming verification task while ERPs

were measured. The participants were instructed to press a button to indicate whether or

not the prime (a picture) matched the target (a word). The consistent finding across the

groups was that for a word that did not match the picture, there was a more negative

N400 amplitude. The ability of the PAD group to correctly name pictures was not

associated with the N400 priming effect or any corresponding scalp distributions. Thus,

despite an inability to access the name of an item, there was evidence from the N400









results that the PAD group had sufficiently intact knowledge for priming responses at the

cortical level (Ford et al., 2001).

It has been suggested that while the structure of semantic memory is not damaged

in PAD, there is a generalized cognitive processing deficit, which is required for

intentionally retrieving and evaluating information, and decision making (Nebes, 1992).

This results in word retrieval or access deficits. Two ERP studies (Ford et al., 2001;

Schwartz et al., 1996) also provide evidence for a fairly preserved semantic structure in

PAD. Additional support for an access deficit in PAD comes from the finding by Ousset

et al., (2002) that initial syllable cues and the sound representing the item were among the

most effective cues during a oral naming to definition task, while providing the semantic

category was the least effective.

Semantic Impairment and Lexical Access Deficit in PAD

The most likely explanation of these disparate findings is that the naming deficit in

PAD is due to a combination of a breakdown in both semantic memory and retrieval

abilities (Bowles, Obler, & Albert, 1987; Huff et al., 1988; Watson, Welsh-Bohmer,

Hoffman, Lowe, & Rubin, 1999; Williamson et al., 1998). This has been suggested based

on results from confrontation naming and fluency tasks.

Williamson et al. (1998) made predictions about performance of healthy older

adults compared to adults with PAD on two confrontation naming tasks: the Boston

Naming Test (Kaplan, Goodglass, & Weintraub, 1983) and the Action Naming Test

(Nicholas, Obler, Albert, & Goodglass, 1985), based on knowledge about the underlying

anatomy and PAD pathology. More specifically, they predicted that, compared to action

naming; obj ect naming would be more impaired in PAD. This was because the disease

process had resulted in more extensive damage to the left temporal area which is needed









for naming obj ects, compared to the frontal areas required for naming actions. Compared

to the control group, the participants with PAD were less accurate on both measures, but

their overall performance was worse on the BNT, on obj ect naming test, compared to the

Action Naming Test. Williamson et al. (1998) suggested that obj ect naming revealed

significant impairments at the semantic specification and lexical levels. However, for

action naming, the impairment was mostly at the semantic specification level, while the

lexical level remained fairly intact. The authors also attributed the presence of more No

Response errors on obj ects than on actions to the corresponding damage to the anatomy

that underlies that function. Williamson et al (1998) concluded that compared to healthy

older control participants, adults with PAD are not as accurate when they name obj ects

and actions. Furthermore, the degree of deficit is more pronounced with obj ects, which

was attributed to impairment not just at the semantic specification level, but also at the

level of lexical access. Based on these findings, we designed our study to address both of

these levels of deficits. The participants engaged in both lexical and semantic tasks to

stimulate the system at both the lexical (e.g., repeating the correct name of the item to

access the word form) and semantic levels (e.g., answering questions about semantic

features of the item).

In summary, the naming impairment in PAD has been attributed to a loss of or

degradation in semantic memory storage and/or organization, disruption of the retrieval

of the information in the network, a combination of these, or other factors related to task

demands. However, there is reason to believe that the semantic structure, at least in terms

of semantic categories, is still fairly preserved in early PAD (Flicker et al., 1987; Huff et

al., 1986; Martin & Fedio, 1983; Nebes et al., 1986; Salmon, Butters et al., 1999;









Schwartz et al., 1979; Warrington, 1975). For example, although Cronin-Golomb et al.

(1992) reported longer reaction times on a category decision task as well as smaller

number of items on a category generation task, the pattern was normal across categories

and items were ranked by typicality in a normal manner. This was interpreted as being a

reflection of intact semantic category organization (Cronin-Golomb et al., 1992).

Naming Treatment Studies in PAD

Although there is a plethora of research on the naming impairment in PAD, there

are only a few naming treatment studies that involved participants with PAD (Abrahams

& Camp, 1993; Fuller et al., 2001; Ousset et al., 2002; Rothi et al., 2005). Like the

typicality training studies with the aphasia population (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Mayer

et al., 2004; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006), these three PAD studies also had picture

naming outcomes based on comparisons of performance before and after the intervention

(i.e., a treatment effect), and examined generalization to untrained items. Although these

three PAD treatment studies are very different from each other, they each have important

implications for the future of word finding treatment for this population.

Using a single subj ect design study with two adults with dementia, Abrahams and

Camp (1993) used spaced-retrieval training (SRT). Spaced retrieval training is a

technique that intersperses increasing time intervals between presentation of a target by

the clinician and recall of it by the participant. Participant I was diagnosed with

progressive dementia (16/30O on the Mini Mental Status Exam; MMSE) (Folstein,

Folstein, & McHugh, 1975) and Participant 2 had PAD (13/30 on the MMSE). Each

participant was tested on the Boston Naming Test (Kaplan et al., 1983). From these

results, nine training items from each participant were identified for use as a subset of

training and control items. While two of these items were treated, the other seven were









controls (Abrahams & Camp, 1993). Abrahams and Camp (1993) reported that the results

of two different treatment targets for each participant showed improved performance

(e.g., naming an item after a maximum of 300 seconds). Only Participant I was tested

two weeks later. This showed maintenance effects for one of the two items, despite a six

point drop in her MMSE score (10/30). Abrahams and Camp (1993) described

generalization to untrained exemplars of the trained items: a colored drawing of the

target; a second target; and an actual exemplar. The investigators reported that SRT was

effective in adults with dementia because they not only have word-finding deficits, but

also have cognitive deficits that affect the ability to remember new information. It was

suggested that SRT uses procedural memory, which appears to be intact in this

population, and thus enabled the participants to benefit from the anemia treatment

(Abrahams & Camp, 1993).

Although both participants did not have PAD, the findings from this early anemia

treatment study by Abrahams and Camp (1993) have value because they were the first to

demonstrate a treatment effect after using SRT, in the PAD population, even with

participants with low MMSE scores. Spaced retrieval training does not provide any

semantic information about the item, but uses repetition. It was not clear if the items that

showed generalization actually generalized. Instead, it could be that it was easier for the

participant to name the color drawing.

Ousset et al. (2002) compared the effects of an experimental lexical therapy

targeting both episodic and lexical stimulation in adults with mild PAD who were on an

acetyl cholinesterase inhibitor. The average MMSE score was 21.1. The participants were

divided into two groups of eight: one group received lexical therapy (with narratives and









definitions) and the other, a control group, received occupational therapy (i.e., pottery,

drawing, and conversations). The treatment was provided in 16 sessions, once a week,

with a two week break at the midpoint. The pre and posttest picture naming stimuli

consisted of 120 black and white line drawings from three categories. While 80 of these

items from the three categories were a part of the lexical therapy, the remaining 40 were

not. During each lexical therapy session, the participant first read aloud a narrative from a

computer screen and then listened while the examiner read it. Then, the participant

completed a naming to definition task on the computer. There were 20 definitions, half of

the words were in the narrative to provide both semantic and episodic reinforcement; and

half of the words were not in the narrative, to provide episodic reinforcement. When the

participant did not respond or was incorrect, the computer randomly provided one of five

different types of cues (i.e., semantic category, first syllable, first grapheme, presentation

of the item as a color drawing; or the item' s associated sound). If this did not result in a

correct response, the computer provided the answer. Compared to the control group,

Ousset et al. (2002) reported a significant improvement from pretest to posttest for the

treated items in the lexical therapy group (i.e., a treatment effect) but generalization to

untreated items was not significant. The investigators also commented about the possible

benefit of episodic long-term memory reinforcing the association between the obj ect' s

form and the name of it. Although the narratives (i.e., part of the lexical therapy) were

designed to assist in memorization of the lexical labels, the participants were better at

retrieving the words that were not in the narratives. Ousset et al. (2002) interpreted this

reduced naming as a possible indication that working memory was over-extended by the

semantic context in the narratives.









The analyses from the cues revealed that the presentation of the color drawings and

the initial syllable were the most effective cues, and Ousset et al. (2002) hypothesized

that both of these improved the process of searching the lexicon. The semantic category

cue was the least effective. To account for this, the authors suggested that the naming

deficit in their patients primarily affected their ability to access the phonological form

from semantics. Ousset et al. (2002) questioned if the participants actually had a semantic

deficit and used the training as a semantic intervention. Alternatively, it was hypothesized

that the participants were a subgroup of the PAD population, such that their anemia

might have been due to a retrieval deficit, and the lexical therapy provided rehearsal

targeting episodic lexical information and linking it to obj ects and their corresponding

names (Ousset et al., 2002).

This group study by Ousset et al. (2002) clearly showed treatment effects from the

training and provided an innovative approach to remediate anemia. Trained words were

unrelated to each other. It is unclear why Ousset et al. (2002) did not report

generalization to untrained items, when the training items were from three categories.

Also, further examination of the results indicated that there was generalization to another

ta~sk. The participants showed better naming performance at the posttest compared to the

pretest, but the treatment involved narratives and oral naming to definition, not naming

pictures. Generalization to another task suggests that the treatment strengthened

connections between semantic and phonological representations (Hillis, 1998). As

mentioned earlier, the Eindings from Ousset et al. (2002), which indicated that the

category cue was the least helpful on the naming task, could provide further support for

the notion that semantic category structure in PAD is still intact. The rationale for the use









of the semantic categories as the semantic cue was not addressed. Given the evidence of

preserved superordinate semantic category knowledge (Chertkow & Bub, 1990; Flicker

et al., 1987; Hodges et al., 1991; Huff et al., 1986; Lukatela et al., 1998; Martin, 1992;

Martin & Fedio, 1983; Nebes et al., 1986; Salmon, Butters et al., 1999; Schwartz et al.,

1979; Warrington, 1975) but degraded attribute knowledge (Martin, 1992) it is not

surprising that the category cue had minimal effects. Perhaps a more potent semantic cue

would have been to provide more distinguishing information about the item or possibly a

picture of it with some foils. This might have led to better performance on the oral

naming to definition task.

A recent single subj ect design study (Fuller et al., 2001; Rothi et al., 2005) also

used an acetyl cholinesterases inhibitor, but with an errorless learning paradigm to

improve confrontation naming in six adults with PAD. The scores for the patients on the

MMSE were > 10. In this stud the stimuli consisted of 100 words, evenly divided for

high and low frequency, matched with black and white line drawings from eight semantic

categories representing both natural kinds (e.g., animals) and artifact categories (e.g.,

clothing) with 10 exemplars per category. Three subsets of stimuli based on baseline

performance were developed for each participant using three categories, allowing for

training on two of these, while the third subset was used both for generalization and

experimental control. To establish baseline stability, each participant named the 100

pictures over eight daily probes (i.e., over eight sessions). Sixty minute therapy sessions

were provided four times per week, until criterion was met (90%) or after 20 sessions

(20-3 5 sessions were needed to complete the entire protocol) (Fuller et al., 2001; Rothi et

al., 2005).









The therapy included two similar treatment phases to determine if the

improvements seen in Phase I would show response generalization to performance from

Phase 2, which at that point would be an untrained set of stimuli. There were two

treatment conditions, immediate and delayed repetition. For Phase One, Treatment

Condition One involved simultaneous repetition in which the clinician presented the

picture, stated the correct name of it and had the participant repeat it. For Treatment

Condition Two, delayed repetition was used in which the clinician presented the picture

and if the participant knew the name, he/she stated it. If/when the participant did not

know the name of the item, he/she informed the clinician. Then, the clinician stated it and

had the participant repeat it (Fuller et al., 2001; Rothi et al., 2005). In other words, there

was a delay from the time the participant saw the picture until he/she repeated. The

results revealed that half of the participants (i.e., three of six) showed a treatment effect.

There was no generalization to the untrained items. However, results from the three

month maintenance probes showed that the treatment effect was still evident. The

investigators also conducted a post hoc review of the participant' s records and identified

two other factors that appeared to play a role in the outcomes. The three participants who

responded to the treatment both lived at home (versus in an institution) and were not on

medications that could affect the learning process and brain plasticity (Fuller et al., 2001;

Rothi et al., 2005).

This study (Fuller et al., 2001; Rothi et al., 2005) was the first to demonstrate

successful application of errorless learning (i.e., treatment and maintenance effects) in a

naming treatment in the PAD population. Furthermore, the influence of both the living

status and the medications are important considerations for treatment planning. Perhaps









another reason for the treatment effect was the use of semantic categories (both man-

made and natural kinds) and their exemplars.

These three studies (Abrahams & Camp, 1993; Fuller et al., 2001; Ousset et al.,

2002; Rothi et al., 2005) were theoretically motivated, well-designed, and offer different

approaches for improving the naming performance in adults with PAD, including single

subject and group design. More specifically, two of these treatment approaches combined

cholinergic medication with training items from semantic categories, one in a lexical

training with narratives and naming to definition (Ousset et al., 2002) and the other via an

errorless learning paradigm (Fuller et al., 2001; Rothi et al., 2005). Generalization to

untrained items essentially did not occur in any of these studies. However, the finding

that treated behaviors were maintained for one participant two weeks after training

(Abrahams & Camp, 1993) and for three participants three months after training (Rothi et

al., 2005) is remarkable. This reflects the responsiveness to the training and that the effect

was robust despite the MMSE scores. The lack of generalization to untrained items

following anemia treatment in the PAD warrants further investigation.

According to Nadeau and Gonzalez Rothi (2004), the connectionist approach views

anemia (that is caused by a semantic deficit) as a reflection of insufficiently engaged

representations of features that are critical for making distinctions among concepts. When

a network is damaged, a large amount of information still remains in the network, so the

focus should be on refining the damaged network via semantic therapy. In particular, the

network needs to be changed in terms of its connectivity so that there is more reliable

engagement of the distinguishing features, while simultaneously there is relatively a

disengagement of the shared features (Nadeau & Gonzalez Rothi, 2004). These findings










suggest that participants with early PAD might therefore be appropriate for the

semantically based training provided in our study which compared typical and atypical

category exemplars.















CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW 2: A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE ORGANIZATION OF
SEMANTIC MEMORY

Since this study relied heavily on the predictions of theories about semantic

category structure, it is important to provide a brief overview of some semantic theories

and categorization. This is followed by a discussion of the two views which can be used

to compare training with typical and atypical category exemplars. The family

resemblance/prototype (Rosch, 1975) view provides support for training typical items,

while support for training atypical items to achieve maximum generalization comes from

the Complexity Account of Treatment Efficacy (Thompson et al., 2003), and a

connectionist model of a computer simulation of acquired dyslexia (Plaut, 1996). Next,

there is a brief description of the four studies that have compared these views in the

context of a naming intervention with typical and atypical category exemplars for adults

with aphasia (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Mayer et al., 2004; Stanczak et al., 2005,

2006). A rationale for applying this training in adults with mild to moderate probable

Alzheimer disease (PAD) is also be provided. This leads to a discussion of the current

study .

A Brief Overview of Semantic Memory and Categorization

Semantic memory has been described as a hierarchical network consisting of

conceptual information and knowledge, storing semantic representations of facts,

knowledge for obj ects and concepts, words and their corresponding meanings, as well as

associations (Au & Bowles, 1991; Bayles, Kasniak, & Tomoeda, 1987; Tulving, 1983).









Within the semantic system, the representations are organized in a hierarchical order and

distributed throughout the association cortices of the brain (Marshall, 1988; McCarthy &

Warrington, 1990).

It is important to briefly describe the networks that allow for this organization at

the word level. The spreading activation theory (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Quillian, 1967)

suggests that there are at least two levels of representations, semantic, which is organized

based on semantic similarity of the meaning of the word, and lexical, which is organized

based on the phonemic similarity (and to an extent, orthographic similarity). Furthermore,

concepts have been hypothesized to have representations as nodes in a network that have

features of the concept that are represented as associated connections to other nodes

(Collins & Loftus, 1975; Quillian, 1967). These links are based on the importance or

relevance of the information to the concept' s meaning such that more important nodes

have shorter links or distances between two concepts, and together the nodes make up the

network (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Quillian, 1967). The similarity allows for information

to spread along pathways in the network (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Quillian, 1967).

Support for the notion of a semantic network and the spreading activation theory

(Collins & Loftus, 1975; Quillian, 1967) comes from the semantic priming effect,

initially described by Meyer and Schvaneveldt (1971), in which participants had faster

reaction times when the prime in a lexical decision task was associated with the target,

but were slower when it was not associated. For example, responses to "butter" were

faster when preceded by "bread" than when preceded by "window." It was theorized

these faster responses (i.e., facilitation) occurred as a result of spreading activation due to

shared semantic contexts. The decision was faster because there was an increase in the









availability of the target as a result of the prime. More specifically, the memory system is

connected to the node for butter, so when one is activated, the activation spreads to

connected nodes (Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971). According to Martin (1992), semantic

priming assumes that there should be automatic activation of an obj ect' s representation

upon presentation of the obj ect (picture presentation or word), and related concepts

should be activated by the spread of activation, which increases accessibility to the name

of the object.

Martin (1992) further suggested that these explanations of semantic priming are

based on the assumption that the brain is a distributed neural network that instantiates

semantic representations. For example, presentation of a picture results in activation of a

corresponding neural network, which includes representations of the attributes of the

item. Items that are closely related have many shared attributes and overlapping networks

that represent them (Martin, 1992). This also explains how the semantic network

responds to such information, and when activated above the threshold, semantic

processing allows for selection of the target word instead of others (Boyle, 2004; Boyle

& Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000). Although there are different theories related to this

topic, it is beyond the focus of our study.

The contents of mental representations have been used to account for a range of

phenomena such as knowledge of correctly recognizing obj ects by their name (i.e.,

word' s label) (Medin & Smith, 1984). There is a large body of research on semantic

categories and how they are represented (Kiran & Thompson, 2003a). This literature

review focuses on the superordinate classification of a category, which is a higher-level









grouping allowing for concrete obj ects to be classified into various divisions (Rosch,

1975).

There are several benefits of categorization, for example, it is both economic and

informative. In terms of economy, categories frankly provide a practical and adaptive

means for classifying similar items in order to avoid the overwhelming cognitive task of

considering all items as if they were unique (Anderson, 1991). Categorizing also allows

for assumptions about information that is not explicitly provided, for example, that the

item will share similarities with other items in that category (Anderson, 1991; Komatsu,

1992).

Historically, different views have been put forth to account for concepts and

categorization. Within some theories of psychology and philosophy the nature of

categories is described as Aristotelian (Rosch, 1973a, 1975): They are logical; have clear

boundaries; and criteria-based membership. Thus, being a category member requires

having a basic set of essential attributes or features such that each item is fully and

equally a member. This approach is known as the classical view which suggests that the

representation of categories is achieved by having a set of defining features (Kiran &

Thompson, 2003a).

The classical view was challenged by Wittgenstein (1953) who argued that the

requirements of formal criteria were not necessary from either a logical or psychological

point of view (Rosch & Mervis, 1975). Despite critique, the classical view was

researched during the 1960s and considered to be adequate as an appropriate way to

describe lexical concepts found in everyday living (Komatsu, 1992). However, by the

1970s, problems with the classical view surfaced, including a lack of evidence for









"defining properties" of obj ects and concepts, identification of categories that did not

have clear-cut boundaries, and evidence suggesting that there is inequality among

category members, and resulted in its decline (Kiran & Thompson, 2003a; Komatsu,

1992; Medin & Smith, 1984; Posner & Keele, 1968; Rosch, 1973a, 1975). This led to the

development of other theories, including the family resemblance/prototype view (Rosch,

1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975), which has been described as being among the most widely

cited psychological concepts (Hampton, 1995) and is discussed in more detail below.

Family Resemblance/Prototype View

Rosch (1973a; Rosch, 1975) argued that for many natural semantic categories, the

Aristolean approach does not apply. "Family resemblance" is the term that was applied to

highlight the structural principles governing category membership. The notion of family

resemblance means that there is an internal structure to the category, such that it is

organized around a category prototype (Rosch & Mervis, 1975). This allows for a very

general approach to the relationships and for application to categories whether they share

features with other category members or meet formal criteria for membership in the

category. Some of the original work on this topic (Rosch, 1973a) revealed that the

prototype of the category is the "best example" of a category and/or "the clearest case" of

category membership. The prototype occupied the central location within the category,

surrounded by other category members that differed in degree of similarity to the

prototype, and, thus, were not equal in terms of category membership (Rosch, 1973a).

Rosch (1975) reasoned that there were graded representations of what the category

represented signified. Consequently, some items were better representatives of a

category. This approach offered an alternative to the classical view, with both its need for

clear-cut boundaries for categories and criteria of defining features for category









membership. Rosch (Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975) theorized that categories have

an internal structure such that they are organized by a family resemblance to a

prototypical category member, and it was the degree and type of resemblance to the

category prototype that was the foundation of the category structure.

More specifically, the notion of categories having an internal structure of categories

has been tested by asking healthy participants to use a seven-point scale to rate how well

a category member fits their image of a given category's name (Rosch, 1975; Rosch &

Mervis, 1975). The results showed that some items were more representative than others

of that category and these ratings, because they shared features with other items in that

category. Thus, they had a family resemblance. These were considered good examples,

while others were considered to be poor examples because they did not. These ratings

also have been found to be reliable predictors of category verification task performance

in which the participants are presented with a statement (e.g., a _(i.e., an exemplar) is

a _(i.e., a category)) and decide if it is true or false. Faster reaction times and higher

ratings are found when an item shares features with the category prototype. For example,

the exemplar robin is a good example because it is much closer to the prototype,

compared to a penguin (a poor example); participants were faster and more accurate

verifying that a robin was a bird than that a penguin was a bird (Rips, Shoben, & Smith,

1973; Rosch, 1973a, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975). This is called the typicality effect and

additional reports of it are discussed below. It has been suggested that the organization of

semantic categories that is based on family resemblance to a prototype is relevant to

semantic memory and retrieval (Rips et al., 1973; Rosch, 1973b, 1975).









One of the corollaries of the family resemblance/prototype theory is that the most

prototypical members of a category have the most shared attributes with other items in

that category and, consequently, represent the central tendency of the category (Rosch,

1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975). Moreover, as a result of being a prototype defining the

category, the prototypical members have the least family resemblance with other

categories (Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975). Furthermore, the more typical items in

a category are, the more they share features with the prototype and with each other (e.g.,

robins, bluej ays) while the more atypical items share fewer features with the category

prototype and also have more in common with items from other categories (e.g.,

penguins, ostrichs). Therefore, categories have an internal organization somewhat like a

target, such that the prototype is at the center of the bull's-eye, surrounded by typical

category exemplars that have many overlapping features with each other and the

prototype. Atypical items are more distant from the prototype and share fewer features

among themselves and with the prototype (Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975).

Some of the conclusions from the family resemblance/prototype view (Rosch,

1973a, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975) are applicable to our study. First, there are clear and

pervasive findings suggesting that semantic categories have internal structure that

influence the processing of words. This is inconsistent with the classical view, but

compatible with the spreading activation theory of semantic memory (Collins & Loftus,

1975; Quillian, 1967). Second, faster reaction times to pictures of obj ects than words,

would suggest that the underlying nature of the semantic representation could be closer to

pictures (i.e., more visual than verbal) (Rosch, 1973a, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975).









A wide range of studies have investigated the predictions of the family resemblance

view. The typicality effect, the finding of better performance (e.g., faster reaction times

and better accuracy) for typical compared to atypical category members has been widely

reported in non-brain damaged adults (Hampton, 1995; Kiran & Thompson, 2003a;

Posner & Keele, 1968; Rips et al., 1973; Rosch, 1973a, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975).

The various tasks tend to involve words, and these are discussed first, for example

in category exemplar rating tasks (Rosch, 1975; Uyeda & Mandler, 1980) and priming

paradigms involving category verification (Fujihara, Nageishi, Koyama, & Nakajima,

1998; Kiran & Thompson, 2003a; Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975; Smith, Shoben,

& Rips, 1974). Patterns have also been used in a task requiring learning items in a

category (Posner & Keele, 1968). A description of the task is provided below, and this is

followed by some studies that suggest that the use of pictures might be different from

words.

In the priming studies that used the category verification task with words, the

superordinate semantic category name was used as the prime, and the target was a typical

or atypical category exemplar from that category. Participants were instructed to decide if

the target item was a member of that category. The results revealed faster reaction times

and more accurate responses for primes that had been rated as good examples, and these

were typical items. Longer reaction times and lower accuracy scores were found for poor

examples, and these were mostly atypical exemplars (Fujihara et al., 1998; Kiran &

Thompson, 2003a; Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975; Smith et al., 1974).

The typicality studies using categorization tasks offer a comparison of how typical

and atypical items are processed in these tasks (Collins & Loftus, 1975). Typical items









have distinguishing features that reduce a positive decision on the basis of the

superordinate connection (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Quillian, 1967). Also, superodinate

connections have different strengths which relates to accessibility, which is dependent

upon use (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Quillian, 1967). Furthermore, there is a high

correlation between typicality ratings and accessibility (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Quillian,

1967). Thus, the typicality effect provides more evidence that semantic similarity

increases the speed of making a positive decision and reduces the time for making a

negative decision. In contrast, increased reaction times are found for atypical items,

because, based on the overlap of features, they represent only some of the category that

they belong to and might overlap with other categories as well (Collins & Loftus, 1975;

Kiran & Thompson, 2003a; Quillian, 1967; Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975).

Further support for the typicality effect comes from a study using event-related

potentials (i.e., ERPs) during a category verification task in healthy adults (Fujihara et al.,

1998). Event related potentials measure electrical manifestations of particular

psychological processes that occur in preparation for or in response to discrete events

(Fabiani et al., 2000; Kutas & Hillyard, 1980). The N400 is a negative going deflection

occurring at ~400 ms and occurs in response to anomalous information, specifically,

semantic violations; for example it is larger when the prime is unrelated to the target

compared to when it is related (Fabiani et al., 2000; Kutas & Hillyard, 1980). Fujihara et

al. (1998) found that participants had different responses to typical and atypical words.

The N400 were more negative after atypical words, than they were after typical words. A

typicality effect was found (i.e., fastest and most accurate responses occurred after the

typical words). This led to the conclusion that greater priming occurred during typical









words compared to atypical words. This was interpreted to be consistent with the

hypothesis that the prototype represents the concept of the category, which is the central

tendency for each of the category members (Fujihara et al., 1998).

Pictures have also been used as stimuli in category tasks, and according to

Snodgrass and McCullough (1986) pictures from a category look similar to each other

compared those from different categories, for example, they cite the finding by Rosch

(Rosch, 1977, 1978) that based on visual similarity ratings of items from categories of

fruit, animals, and vehicles, the ratings were higher for the ones that looked similar to

each other. Snodgrass and McCullough (1986) provided more evidence that the time to

decide if a picture belongs to a category could be increased or decreased based on the

similarity of the items in the category. The investigators suggested that people can

categorize a picture and a word via semantic access, but with a picture, people can just

use the visual stimulus or the prototype of the category. It was suggested that both visual

and semantic strategies are used. Snodgrass and McCullough (1986) thus concluded that

picture categorization is not an appropriate task for a comparison of speed of

understanding of words and pictures. Although this study did not compare typical and

atypical items, it might have referred to them in terms of similar (i.e., typical) and

dissimilar (i.e., typical). There is at least one study that provided evidence for the notion

that identification of objects first occurs at a level of abstraction that is not the greatest

degree of general or specific "entry point", but instead varies based on typicality

(Jolicoeur, Gluck, & Kosslyn, 1984). This suggested that identification of typical items

occurred at the "basic level" compared to atypical items, which are subordinate to this

level (Jolicoeur et al., 1984).









The term representativeness has also been used to refer to typicality such that high

representativeness suggests typical items and low representativeness indicates atypical

items (Grossman, Robinson, Biassou, White-Devine, & D'Esposito, 1998). Grossman et

al. (1998) has reported that pictures were used with healthy older adults and they showed

sensitivity to the degree of typicality (i.e., typicality effect). Another study using pictures

found that older adults showed typicality effects with both category judgment tasks and

exemplar judgment tasks (Cobb, 2005).

All of these studies examining the typicality effect have involved healthy, non-

brain damaged adults. The findings have shown that typical items are processed faster

and more accurately. Several of these and other studies were primarily focused on adults

with brain damage, but it was important to reveal the pattern in the normal population

prior to addressing the patient groups. These include adults with probable Alzheimer

disease and other research with adults with aphasia. Some examples are discussed next.

Some studies have found typicality effects in adults with probable Alzheimer

disease (PAD) using category verification tasks (Cobb, 2005; Grossman et al., 1998).

Other variations of this task, for example ranking attributes or ordering the

representativeness of category exemplars (Cronin-Golomb et al., 1992) and some also

included rankings of dominance, which relates to the significance of the feature to the

meaning of the item (Nebes et al., 1986; Nebes & Brady, 1990). In a category fluency

task adults with PAD have shown normal variations in the typicality of the items

produced (Ober, Dronkers, Koss, Delis, & Friedland, 1986). Grossman et al. (1998)

found normal typicality effects on a category judgment task, but this was only in the










subgroup of PAD participants who did not have a semantic impairment, but had naming

deficits.

In contrast, Grossman et al. (1998) reported that the other subgroup of their PAD

participants had a semantic deficit, demonstrated naming deficits and insensitivity to the

representativeness. These participants did not differentiate among the levels (low,

moderate, and high) and this was attributed to compromised ability to make similarity

judgments (Grossman, 1981; 1998). Other PAD studies have shown no typicality effects

or otherwise differences in processing atypical and typical item in this population, for

example impaired performance on ranking attributes (Grober et al., 1985). Sailor et al.

(2004) compared the responses of healthy older adults and PAD participants on a

category generation task. The analyses revealed that compared to healthy older adults, the

PAD group produced significantly fewer atypical items. This was the trend across the

categories of fruit, vegetables, animals, and footwear. It was concluded that the PAD

group had a slower search rate through semantic memory compared to the healthy older

adults (Sailor et al., 2004). Also, as mentioned in the previous chapter, a property

verification task revealed worse performance on category generation low typical items

(Smith et al., 1995).

Although most of these studies indicated that the PAD population has deficits on

atypical items, to the best of our knowledge, there is at least one study that showed better

performance on atypical items (Cobb, 2005). The purpose of this study by Cobb (2005)

was to attempt to understand if typical items were affected by the pathology of Alzheimer

disease. Using the bottom-up deterioration hypothesis in PAD, Cobb (2005) theorized

that the vulnerability of typical items compared to atypical items could be described as:









Generalized (equal); Strength (not as vulnerable); Distinctiveness (more vulnerable).

Category judgment tasks and exemplar judgment tasks were used in which pictures were

shown and the participants verified them. The results indicated that like the healthy older

adults, the PAD group showed a typicality effect on the category judgments (i.e., faster

and more accurate responses were found on the typical items). In contrast, on the other

task of verifying the exemplars, the PAD group showed deficits on the typical items

compared to healthy older adults. Cobb (2005) suggested that these Eindings provide

some evidence that the typical items were more vulnerable to the deterioration, and thus

provided support for the distinctiveness model. However, Cobb (2005) also cautioned

about generalizing the results because of this preliminary study due to some issues related

to methodology.

Research on the typicality effect has also been conducted in the aphasia population.

In a category generation task, Grossman (1981) compared the number and typicality of

the exemplars generated (i.e., typical and atypical) between a group of participants with

nonfluent aphasia and another group with fluent aphasia. The majority of the items

produced by the nonfluent group were typical items. Grossman (1981) suggested that this

occurred because these participants used the central tendency of the category as a guide

and compared the target item to it. In contrast, the fluent aphasia group produced a more

even distribution of typical and atypical exemplars, starting out with more typical items

(like the nonfluent group), but then producing items that were as close to the central part

of the category and even from other categories. Moreover, participants with fluent

aphasia actually produced many responses that were not members of the specified

category. To account for these Eindings, Grossman (1981) suggested that these










participants were aware of the central tendency of the category but had reduced mental

representations related to the category's border. Thus, they violated category

boundaries(Grossman et al., 1998). Grober et al. (1980) used a category verification task

in two modalities (i.e., pictures and words) to determine if performance on these tasks

could distinguish groups of patients with anterior (i.e., nonfluent) aphasia and posterior

(i.e., fluent) aphasia. There were no differences between performance with pictures and

words for any of the patient groups. Furthermore, across groups, the typicality effect was

realized as both faster response times and better accuracy for the typical exemplars.

However, while the nonfluent patients were fairly accurate in their classifications of

atypical category exemplars, this was not the case for the fluent patients. When the item

clearly belonged to a given category, the fluent group was accurate, but when the item

was at the category boundary, they were less accurate. Grober et al. (1980) suggested this

difficulty with atypical items was due to a disruption of the underlying semantic structure

of semantic categories in fluent aphasia. Although this task was different from the

category generation task used by Grossman (1981), the findings for the patients with

fluent aphasia are compatible.

In a category verification study, Kiran and Thompson (2003a) compared the

performance of two groups of adults with fluent and nonfluent aphasia to young and older

adults without brain damage. Typicality effects were expected to occur in all of the

groups. However, based on previous research (Grober et al., 1985; Grossman, 1981), the

pattern of activation for the fluent aphasia group was expected to be different. Kiran and

Thompson (2003a) used words from the categories of vegetables, birds, and fish

typicality ratings that they developed based on the seven-point scale used by Rosch










(1975). Participants first read a category name and decided if the next word was a

member of that category or not. Furthermore, the overall results were consistent with the

predictions: typicality effects were found in all the groups, and the fluent group displayed

a different pattern of performance from the other groups. The fluent group had the

smallest effect of typicality and the greatest number of errors. Although this group was

more accurate on the typical items compared to the atypical items, their reaction times for

accepting the correct typical items were not significantly faster than the correct atypical

items. Kiran and Thompson (2003a) interpreted this as two different manifestations of a

semantic impairment from the fluent aphasia. The first was that weakened boundaries of

the target category led to increased numbers of errors. The second difficulty was that

there was a decrease in the ability to access the prototype and this caused a deficit when

comparing the target with the prototype of the category. They concluded that the findings

of longer reaction times and more errors with atypical exemplars suggested impoverished

associations linking atypical exemplars with their category's prototype. Kiran and

Thompson (2003a) theorized that these findings could offer more information about the

nature of atypical category exemplars as having differential representation in semantic

memory. Furthermore, the greater number of dissimilarities among atypical items in a

category allows them to convey a broader range of variation across the category, and thus

they were considered to be "more complex" (Kiran & Thompson, 2003a).

Thus, in the aphasia literature, there is at least one study suggesting that fluent

aphasia affects the processing of atypical category exemplars in a category generation

task (Grossman, 1981). This is understandable given that category generation requires

searching semantic memory for an item within a category when only provided with the









superordinate category label. Some category verification task studies have shown

typicality effects in adults with nonfluent aphasia (Grober et al., 1980; Kiran &

Thompson, 2003a; Stanczak et al., 2005), including transcortical motor aphasia (Stanczak

et al., 2006), and fluent aphasia (Stanczak et al., 2005), including conduction aphasia

(Stanczak et al., 2006). In others studies, the typicality effect was found but was

somewhat disrupted in adults with fluent aphasia (Grober et al., 1980; Grossman, 1981;

Kiran & Thompson, 2003a), as shown by more difficulty (e.g., slower or less accurate)

on atypical items. Although the typicality effect indicated better performance with typical

items, at least one study did not find that typical items were verified faster than atypical

items that were correct (i.e., member of the given category) by the adults with fluent

aphasia (Kiran & Thompson, 2003a).

In summary, the family resemblance/prototype view (Rosch, 1975; Rosch &

Mervis, 1975) has had a strong influence on natural language research in category

representation (Barr & Caplan, 1987). Based on the family resemblance/prototype

hypothesis, there are several reasons for training typical category exemplars and they

could have an advantage over training atypical category exemplars. Typical items have

richer representations, and people have greater knowledge of them so they are used more,

and therefore accessed faster (Heilman, 2005, personal communication). Evidence from

adults with brain damage suggests that knowledge about atypical items is disrupted

following strokes to the posterior portion of the left hemisphere (Grober et al., 1985;

Grossman, 1981; Kiran & Thompson, 2003a), and also as a result of PAD (Sailor et al.,

2004; Smith et al., 1995).









The Complexity Account of Treatment Efficacy

As described above, atypical items have been hypothesized to be more complex

(Kiran & Thompson, 2003a). The Complexity Account of Treatment Efficacy (CATE)

was developed by Thompson et al. (2003) based on their study in which adults with

agrammatic aphasia were trained to use sentences that were syntactically complex. As a

result, participants showed generalization to less complex sentences whose structures

shared processes with trained items. Several studies by Thompson and colleagues

(Thompson et al., 1998; Thompson et al., 1997; Thompson et al., 2003) have reported

that adults with aphasia have shown generalization following treatments in which

complex syntactic structures were trained. This was because when more complex items

were trained, this included variables that are relevant to items that are simpler. This

promoted greater degrees of access to untrained items compared to the training of simple

items (Thompson et al., 1998; Thompson et al., 1997; Thompson et al., 2003). Thompson

et al. (2003) concluded that these findings were compatible with other studies in the

literature and suggested that enhancement of performance is found under the following

two conditions: when there is related linguistic structure and when treatment moves from

greater degrees of complexity to lesser degrees of complexity. In addition to acquired

language disorders, complexity has been used by Gierut (2001) as a guide for stimuli to

promote generalization with children who have phonological disorders. The findings also

have been positive and indicate that with greater degrees of target complexity, there are

greater degrees of gains in phonological skills; these behaviors have been shown to

generalize to untreated sounds (Gierut, 2001). These principles are borrowed from motor

skill learning in adults and conditions under which the behavior is practiced (Schmidt &

Lee, 1999). Generalization to untrained items in a picture naming study has also been









found to be successful when the focus has been on atypical items as a means for stimuli

selection because they have a hierarchical complexity (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b). This

and other behavioral studies are discussed below. However, it is important to first

understand the initial work in this area by Plaut (1996) in which he compared the training

of atypical and typical items in a connectionist model of acquired dyslexia.

Connectionist Model and Computer Simulations

Prior to describing the computer simulations by Plaut (1996), a brief overview of

the connectionist or parallel distributed processing (PDP) model is provided. The PDP is

a computational framework that allows for exploration of cognitive processes of normal

and damaged systems. Simulations are conducted to learn more about the processes and

to contribute to the development of potential rehabilitation programs (Plaut, 1996).

Parallel processing is the term used to describe how individual processing units (similar

to neurons), in a large array, are connected, but each performs a basic function and

represents a component of the modeled entity (Nadeau, 2000; Plaut, 1996; Rumelhart,

McClelland, & PDP Research Group, 1986). The units are linked by connections and the

strength of these connections reflects the knowledge of the network (Nadeau, 2000;

Nadeau & Gonzalez Rothi, 2004). Large patterns of activation, based on excitatory and

inhibitory signals, represent a concept which is referred to as a distributed representation

(Nadeau, 2000; Plaut, 1996; Rumelhart et al., 1986).

Plaut (1996) tested the family resemblance theory using a connectionist computer

model in which he simulated acquired dyslexia in three experiments. Only the first two

are discussed here. First, Plaut (1996) trained the model, then lesioned it to simulate the

effects of stroke. Finally, he retrained the model to simulate therapy after stroke in order

to better understand the degree and speed of recovery; how generalization occurs from









treated to untreated items, and the way this generalization might be maximized via

selection of the treatment items.

In Plaut' s (1996) first experiment, he programmed the network and trained it to

generate semantic information of about 40 words from five semantic categories (natural

kinds and man-made) based on orthographic input. The training was done to allow

mapping from the written words to their corresponding meanings. Then, Plaut (1996)

damaged the network by random selection and removal of some of the units representing

semantics and others representing orthography. Plaut (1996) randomly identified items

for retraining: half of the words that were trained correctly and half that were not trained

correctly. The remaining words were not retrained. Plaut (1996) reported that, compared

to initial learning, retraining was faster because there was a re-establishment of

consistency that was relevant among words and thus untreated words improved. Plaut

(1996) suggested that location of the damage was important. When the semantic level

was damaged, there was fast relearning and generalization was substantial. However,

when the orthography level sustained damage, relearning was slower and generalization

did not occur. Thus, there was better generalization at the semantic level because the

words had relationships based on their meanings. This was based on the structure of the

semantic organization of the set of words. Plaut (1996) hypothesized that the part of the

system that was damaged could influence recovery. Furthermore, Plaut (1996) suggested

that generalization had improved because the semantic categories from which the words

were derived had a substantial amount of overlap in their semantic representation. This

experiment provided support for using items from semantic categories in therapy because

the consistency inherent in the items in the category allowed for efficient processing and









generalization. These findings also offer support for the family resemblance/prototype

hypothesis (Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975) for achieving a treatment effect.

However, in terms of maximizing generalization, Plaut (1996) provided evidence for the

benefit of training atypical items, and this was discovered in Experiment 2.

Plaut (1996) theorized that generalization could be obtained if the nature of the

semantic representation of the items was a good estimate of semantic structure relevant to

the whole set of words in the training stimuli. Selection of words for training were based

on the word' s semantic representations (Plaut, 1996). Acknowledging that nouns are

categorically organized, Plaut (1996) also used typicality, a semantic variable that is

essential because it reflects the proximity to the central tendency of a category (Rosch,

1975). Plaut (1996) hypothesized that the extent of generalization from retraining is

affected by the relative typicality of the treated words (i.e., typical versus atypical).

The training items that Plaut (1996) chose were 100 artificial "words" from one

semantic category. These words were evenly divided into two sets in which the meaning

was generated by varying the degree of featural overlap between a prototype item and

other items in the category. Thus, the semantic features for the typical words were closer

to the prototype of the category; whereas the features for the atypical words were further

from the prototype. Training the network involved iterations that allowed for generation

of the correct semantic representation for each word when the corresponding

orthographic form was presented. Then, to lesion the network, Plaut (1996) randomly

selected and deleted connections. Next he retrained 25 of the typical words and 25

atypical words in different networks. This allowed for evaluation of the impact of

typicality on generalization to untrained typical items and untrained atypical items. The









results were consistent with Plaut's (1996) predictions. The lesion rendered typical words

more impaired compared to atypical words. Thus, Plaut (1996) suggested that typical

words were more vulnerable to damage because they had more competitors that were

close, due to the overlap. Thus, distinguishing typical words from other typical words

(compared to distinguishing atypical words) required better accuracy by the network. In

contrast, there were not as many competitors for atypical words, and distinguishing

among atypical words was not as difficult as it was with typical words. However, as a

result of retraining, trained typical words had significantly better performance compared

to trained atypical words (Plaut, 1996).

Although these findings are relevant to recovery, Plaut (1996) argued that the more

critical finding is the fate of the untreated words, because this related to choosing stimuli

that could influence generalization, an important component of rehabilitation that

clinicians could control. When the training was with either typical or atypical words,

there was overall substantial improvement in the untreated typical words. However,

atypical words only improved when the network was trained with atypical words. When

atypical words were retrained there was more generalization to both untrained atypical

and typical words compared to when typical words were trained. In contrast, when the

network was trained with typical words, this had a negative impact on performance of

untreated atypical words. To account for these results, Plaut (1996) hypothesized that

typical words just focus on the central tendency of its category, without indicating the

semantic features that can differ from the prototype Thus, the typical words offer a good

estimate about the degree of variation in the semantic features that is shared by other

typical words, but not the information about the variation for the atypical words. In









contrast, atypical words indicate the amount of variation that can exist across members of

a category while also approximating the category's central tendency. Thus, Plaut (1996)

hypothesized that atypical words collectively estimate the semantic representations that

span more of the features required by the full set of words compared to representations of

typical words. Consequently, training atypical words should result in generalization to

typical words, because the semantic representations of the atypical words included

information about the degree of variability within the category structure as well as

information about the central tendency of the category (Plaut, 1996). While Plaut (1996)

recommended using this approach, he cautioned that the atypical items should not be

extremely atypical. The semantic dimensions should be relevant and thus allow for the

average effects to be near the category's central tendency. Plaut (1996) recommended

that future research endeavors should involve training atypical items from several

categories at the same time.

In summary, the PDP model has been described as operating in a manner consistent

with the brain (Nadeau, 2000; Plaut, 1996; Rumelhart et al., 1986). Overall findings from

Plaut (1996) provided a rationale for training items within a semantic category. Also,

while training typical items resulted in better performance (i.e., acquisition or a training

effect), training atypical yielded better generalization to untrained items. The results from

Plaut (1996) are very positive and have great implications for clinical application. In

particular, both category structure and atypical items are important in promoting

generalization because they relate to the semantic representations of the items. However,

it is important to remember that computer simulations involve isolated information and

events, in which the experimenter programs all of the inputs and thus has complete









control over the information in the model. For example, the second experiment used

artificial words from one category and the typical and atypical items were created by the

network. This differs from the wide range of variation in humans in terms of semantic

memory, learning, and the effects of brain damage and behavioral manifestations of

different disorders. Nevertheless, as discussed below, studies with humans have been

conducted and some of the findings are consistent with Plaut (1996).

Similar Behavioral Studies

A series of experiments on category learning in non-brain damaged college

students was conducted by Posner and Keele (1968). Participants looked at patterns with

varying degrees of distortions. These distortions ranged from high (i.e., the distance from

the central tendency of the category was greater) to low (i.e., closer to the central

tendency). The participants pressed a button to specify their selection for the given

pattern, and received feedback about accuracy. This was repeated over several trials to

allow for learning. Results showed that the participants had better generalization from

learned patterns to new ones after training with highly variable patterns compared to

when the training emphasized low variability. To account for this, Posner and Keele

(1968) suggested that variability is an important part of the learning process. Although

this study did not involve naming or a patient population, and did not use the term typical

and atypical, the patterns with higher variability might be considered atypical, whereas

those with much lower variability might be considered typical. Furthermore, the

theoretical underpinnings are along the same lines, and can be considered support for

training atypical items (Plaut, 1996).

More recently, three different groups of investigators (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b;

Mayer et al., 2004; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006) examined and compared the effects of









training typical and atypical category exemplars, and thus compared the two opposing

views of typicality discussed above (Plaut, 1996; Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975).

Each of these therapy studies involved adults with aphasia in the context of a single-

subj ect design targeting confrontation picture naming, and showed consistent evidence of

treatment effects. However, the results were mixed, especially in terms of generalization.

A brief description of these three studies is provided below. This is followed by a brief

critique pertaining to both their strengths and limitations, highlighting how they offer

unique contributions to the literature and have implications for the current study.

Kiran and Thompson (2003b) predicted that when atypical items were trained, this

process would result in emphasizing both how much the features in the category vary a~s

well as the prototype's features. This, in turn, would result in a strengthening of the

associations among the typical items, increased access to these typical items, and finally

generalization to untrained typical items. In contrast, they argued that training typical

category exemplars would have more limited effects, because typical items have limited

variation, focusing only on the central tendency of the category (Plaut, 1996). Kiran and

Thompson (2003b) argued that, compared to typical items, the atypical items were more

complex because their semantic features have a greater degree of dissimilarity with each

other, and thus they offer more diversified information about the whole category, as a

collective unit (Plaut, 1996; Thompson et al., 1998; Thompson et al., 2003).

To test these predictions, Kiran and Thompson (2003b) provided therapy for four

adults with fluent aphasia on a naming task. Baseline naming performance was assessed

using 48 items consisting of 24 exemplars from each of two semantic categories (birds

and vegetables). The study design allowed for each participant to be separately trained on









one category at a time, starting with either eight atypical category exemplars or eight

typical items from each category. After the participant met the criteria the next category

was trained with the opposite typicality. The participants attended two hour therapy

sessions twice a week until either criteria of 7/8 correct was achieved over two

consecutive sessions or after a maximum of 20 training sessions had been completed

(Kiran & Thompson, 2003b). During training, participants performed a variety of

semantic tasks tapping both comprehension and production skills: picture naming,

category sorting, feature selection, answering yes/no questions; and picture naming again.

Participant I was first trained on typical birds for seven weeks and this led to a

treatment effect (i.e., acquisition of the trained items) but there was no generalization to

untrained intermediate or atypical items. Subsequent training of atypical birds resulted in

improved performance on those items. At that time, there were no changes on

performance of the control category (vegetables). Then Participant 1 was trained on

atypical vegetables, and in 8 weeks, acquisition criterion was observed as was

generalization to untrained intermediate and typical birds. Participant 2 was first trained

with atypical birds and in 11 weeks, met criteria and showed generalized naming on

intermediate and typical items. At that time, performance on the vegetable category

remained the same. Treatment of birds led to no change in performance on the untreated

category, vegetables, so the participant was subsequently trained on atypical vegetables.

This resulted in a treatment effect and generalization to untrained intermediate and

typical items. Participant 3 was first trained with typical vegetables and although criteria

was met, there was no generalization to intermediate or atypical vegetables. Next,

Participant 3 was trained on atypical vegetables that resulted in improved performance on









the trained atypical vegetables; no further treatment was provided with the bird category

because of the extended time for training on the first (28 weeks). Participant 4 was

trained only on atypical items and showed a pattern similar to Participant 2: a treatment

effect after 6 weeks of training on vegetables and after nine weeks on birds, and

generalization to both untrained intermediate and atypical items.

The patients in the Kiran and Thompson (2003b) study acquired atypical items

faster acquisition than typical items. Furthermore, naming of untrained typical and

intermediate items improved following training of atypical items, thus showing

generalization. However, when the typical items were trained, there was no

generalization to exemplars that were atypical or of intermediate typicality. Kiran and

Thompson (2003b) suggested that the training for the atypical items emphasized how the

semantic features in the category varied; whereas the training for the typical items was

limited to a small number of features that were shared among the other typical items.

Moreover, maintenance of the treatment effects was found 6-10 weeks after the training.

Kiran and Thompson (2003b) conducted an error analysis to gain some insights

into the effects of the treatment. Before the intervention, the errors were primarily

general, as characterized by superordinate labels, no responses, and neologisms. This was

attributed to the participants failing to retrieve the specified semantic and/or phonological

details of the target name. However, after the treatment, the participants showed more

accurate naming on trained items and on untrained items, reflecting better semantic and

phonological access to the representation. The shift in the type of errors, from general at

baseline to semantic and phonemic after the training was attributed to a greater impact of

excitation at the level of semantics and phonology that had occurred when the









participants attempted to name the items. However, this interfered with the ability to

accurately select the target name from others that were also activated. Kiran and

Thompson (2003b) suggested that although the treatment had a positive impact that was

illustrated in enhanced spread of activation to targets within a category that were related,

the intervention was not completely successful in eliminating the interference caused by

many category exemplars being activated at the semantic/phonemic level during naming.

Kiran and Thompson (2003b) suggested that there was improved performance because

the treatment was based on semantics and highlighted the underlying elements of

semantic representations and processing. The investigators suggested that this was

compatible with the literature using the semantic feature approach (Boyle, 2004; Boyle &

Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000; Drew & Thompson, 1999). Kiran and Thompson

(2003b) concluded that their findings provided more support for improving generalization

to untrained items based on using more complex training items, and thus providing more

evidence for the Complexity Approach to Treatment Efficacy (Thompson et al., 1998;

Thompson et al., 2003) as well as for training atypical items to achieve better

generalization (Plaut, 1996).

In this study, Kiran and Thompson (2003b) were the first to show that the computer

simulations of acquired dyslexia by Plaut (1996) could be successfully applied to adults

with fluent aphasia. The findings illustrated the value of training atypical category

exemplars in the context of a training highlighting semantic category structure. This

study was well designed, including the development of typicality ratings and semantic

attributes, intentionally selecting low frequency items to avoid effects of word frequency,

the use of both comprehension and production tasks to activate the entire word










representation, and a training regimen that focused on just one category at a time. Two of

the training tasks, feature selection and yes/no questions provided comprehensive

information about the items, including the written form. However, specific information

was provided by the clinician, and the participant had to select it. It is possible that the

training might have been even more robust if the participants were required to generate

the information. More importantly, there appears to be a lack of generalization probes for

untrained atypical items and untrained typical items that have the same and the opposite

typicality of the items that were trained (i.e., trained atypical and trained typical items).

Our study included a measurement of untrained atypical and typical items for the same

and opposite typicality of the trained items (i.e., that were trained with atypical and

typical items; e.g., Training on typical items and untrained typical items), and a more

active role for the participants on the training tasks. These are discussed later.

Mayer et al. (2004) attempted to replicate the findings of Kiran and Thompson

(2003b) in three participants with severe aphasia and to determine if other semantic

categories might yield potent typicality effects. Each participant had a different type of

aphasia. Participant I had global aphasia. Participant 2 was considered borderline fluent,

(i.e., fairly intact auditory comprehension and reading ability, with fluent speech and

neologisms including some word approximations). Participant 3 had mixed nonfluent

aphasia (i.e., intact auditory comprehension for basic information, and although

nonverbal, he spontaneously gestured and used facial expressions and drawings).

A total of six categories were used by Mayer et al. (2004): animals, clothing,

furniture, sports, tools, and vehicles. Each participant was trained separately on 10

atypical items from one category, and then on 10 typical items from another category.









Each category was treated for nine weeks, for a total of 18 weeks. Two other categories

were used as treatment probes (before and after treatment) and generalization probes. To

maximize support in a structured way using phonological and semantic stimulation,

training utilized a response-contingent hierarchy (Bandur & Shewan, 2001). The clinician

presented a picture and guided the participant through a semantic and phonological

cueing hierarchy (starting with the least effective and moving to the most effective). This

was used until the participant named the item. Then, the participant was asked to repeat

the correct name of the item five times (Pring, Hamilton, Harwood, & MacBride, 1993),

before completing a confrontation naming task. The results indicated that there was a

treatment effect for each participant, but this did not generalize to any untrained items

that were probed. Mayer et al (2004) reported that one participant initially showed

progress and typicality effects that were described as subtle: generalized naming to

untrained typical sports items after training on atypical sports items. However, because

there were unanticipated improvements in not just in trained categories but also in

untrained categories, Mayer et al. (2004) indicated that this could not be considered

generalization.

Mayer et al. (2004) identified three factors to explain the lack of generalization.

First, they considered it possible that the severity of the aphasia might have interfered

with the cognitive processes needed for rehabilitation. Second, Mayer et al. (2004)

suggested that the training tasks were structured to compensate for the severity of the

deficits, and, thus, perhaps did not have the metalinguistic requirements of the tasks used

by Kiran and Thompson (2003b). Third, Mayer et al. (2004) discussed Plaut' s (1996)

assumption pertaining to the retraining and the mapping; this might not have been










applicable to their participants. According to Plaut (1996) generalization might require a

good estimate of the relevant semantic information of the training set overall and this

needs to be in alignment with the consistency of the mapping that the damaged part of the

network is responsible for carrying out. Mayer et al. (2004) reasoned that the severity of

the brain damage in their participants negatively affected the integrity of their lexical-

semantic network, rendering it incapable of retrieving the semantic features in order to

demonstrate generalization.

This study by Mayer et al. (2004) was carefully designed and included various

nuances that are important in therapy, including development of typicality norms,

selecting six categories that were based on participants' interests when possible. In

addition they included repetition of the target as a training task, to minimize phonological

access deficits.

Stanczak et al. (2005) also sought to understand the relationship among

performance on a category verification task (i.e., a measure of online typicality), training

typical and atypical category exemplars for naming production, and generalization. Two

participants with anomic aphasia, one fluent and the other nonfluent participated in the

study. First, prior to the baseline picture naming probes, the participants completed a

category verification task (with stimuli from the Kiran and Thompson (2003b) study).

The purpose of this was to determine if they would show typicality effects (i.e., faster

reaction times and more accurate responses on typical versus atypical items) in response

to the written category primes and their written exemplar targets. Then the participants

completed baseline probes. This was followed by a naming therapy, in which each

participant was simultaneously trained on two categories, birds and vegetables, one with









typical category exemplars and the other with atypical. The training tasks were naming

the target picture, verification of semantic attributes related to it, and naming the picture

again. The results of the category verification task that was completed at the onset of the

study indicated that the participants were faster to verify typical items compared to

atypical items (i.e., this was described as "online typicality effects"). The naming

treatment had differential effects. The participant with fluent aphasia only demonstrated

acquisition of trained typical birds, but not atypical vegetables. In contrast, the participant

with nonfluent aphasia demonstrated treatment effects for the atypical birds only (not

typical vegetables). There was no generalization to untrained items in either participant.

The finding of a typicality effect on the category verification task was interpreted by

Stanczak et al. (2005) as activation occurring in a bottom-up fashion (i.e., the semantic

retrieval was automatic). The differences in these two participants' responses to the

typical and atypical training was attributed to their lesion site and fluency (anterior and

nonfluent versus posterior and fluent) interacting with the semantic processes involved

with typical versus atypical items. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the controlled

semantic processing in the fluent participant was relatively intact, allowing for better

performance with the typical words, despite their similarity with other items and higher

degrees of semantic interference. However, learning the atypical items was considered to

be more difficult. In contrast, the nonfluent participant, Stanczak et al. (2005), theorized

that the demands for atypical items were less than the typical items (i.e., fewer

competitors), and thus yielded better performance. This study by Stanczak et al. (2005)

provided an intriguing interpretation of the results by linking them to neural substrates.









This is feasible. However, one limitation was that the investigators did not elaborate

about the difficulty related to atypical words.

Very recently, Stanczak, Waters, and Caplan (2006) further extended this research

by applying the same protocol (Stanczak et al., 2005) to two different participants with

anemia from different etiologies. The purpose of this study was to determine if

generalization would be affected by the type of deficit and the type of treatment provided.

Participant I had conduction aphasia, and her deficits were primarily phonological; her

training was with atypical vegetables and typical birds. These were trained over a 20

week period. Participant 2 had transcortical motor aphasia and had phonological and

semantic impairments; his training was on atypical birds and typical vegetables. The

results indicated that compared to atypical items, typical items were learned faster by

both participants. Although both participants showed significant treatment effects and

better learning of birds compared to vegetables, the patterns of responsiveness to the

training varied for each participant. Participant 1, who had a primary phonological

impairment, displayed greater learning when trained with typical items compared to

atypical items. In contrast, Participant 2, who exhibited both semantic and phonological

deficits, did not initially show a difference between learning typical versus atypical items,

but did show better learning of atypical items as the treatment continued. Participant 2,

who had been trained on atypical birds and typical vegetables, also had statistically

significant generalization to untrained typical birds, and only marginal generalization to

atypical vegetables.

To account for these different findings, Stanczak et al. (2006) offered

interpretations which again were based on neural substrates. It was not the phonological









impairment in Participant 1 that resulted in the lack of leaming atypical items, but the

greater degree of semantic difficulty inherent in atypical items. However, for participants

with damage to the left prefrontal area, as in Participant 2 (with both semantic and

phonological impairments), the typical items initially should be learned better because of

the high degree of similarity in the features but, then over time, this overlap leads to

confusion. Stanczak et al. (2006) hypothesized that learning atypical items, which have

greater variation, should result in better performance because the degree of competition is

less. Despite the better performance on birds, the investigators refuted the possibility that

this was a category specific learning (i.e., that it was easier to learn birds compared to

vegetables), and provided a rationale for the effects of typicality on learning (i.e. both

participants were responsive to being trained with typical items but only one responded to

the training with atypical items). Stanczak et al. (2006) concluded that while their

Endings were broadly consistent with Plaut (1996) and Thompson et al. (2003), the

differences from Eindings by Kiran and Thompson (2003b) might be attributable to

differences in the training (i.e., training two categories at that same time) or the

participants (degree of semantic impairment).

These four studies (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Mayer et al., 2004; Stanczak et al.,

2005, 2006) were theoretically motivated and well planned, including programming for

generalization. The training tasks included at least some information about the target item

in terms of semantics and the phonological form, as well as confrontation naming. Some

potential limitations of these studies, with the exception of Mayer et al. (2004) included

the use of only two animate categories without a third control category (although the

second category was used as a control) and a lack of information about the clinician's









response to a failed naming attempt by the participant (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b;

Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006). The clinician' s response to the participant's naming failure

is important because it could affect the outcome. This is because it provides information

about the response so that the patient can better understand the information and can learn

to self-evaluate (Bandur & Shewan, 2001).

Also, in some of the studies it was not clear if generalization probes to untrained

items that had the same, different, or both types of typicality as the items that were

trained (e.g., train atypical items, probe untrained typical items in the trained category). It

appears that the generalization probes were not measured on both in some of the studies.

Other broader methodological concerns about these four studies include the lack of

opportunity to or ability to generate semantic information about the item in a more active

manner (i.e., beyond yes/no questions). Although yes/no tasks, sorting and other similar

tasks are used in the literature and have value, they require the participant to play a less

active role in the therapy. Mayer et al. (2004) and Stanczak et al. (2006) identified

concerns related to this in terms of the severity of their patient population and how it

might have affected generalization. Another possibility that Mayer et al. (2004) identified

was that the semantic category structure in their patients was impaired such that they

were unable to benefit from the training which was built around the semantic

representations of the category (Plaut, 1996). Another important consideration about

achieving a generalization effect has been raised by Murray and Clark (2005): it is not

known if it is the combination of training typical and atypical category exemplars in the

context of semantic training requiring task requiring processing of semantic

representations (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b), or simply the use of atypical and typical










category exemplars. We attempted to address some of these issues in the methodology of

the current study.

The Current Study

Rationale for Applying the Training to the PAD Population

Brain damage can cause a language impairment, and obj ect naming is a sensitive

marker for this (Benson, 1979). There is some evidence that the semantic system is

preserved in adults with nonfluent and fluent aphasia based on similar performance on a

lexical decision task compared to non-brain damaged adults (Gerratt & Jones, 1987).

However, several of the studies discussed above examining adults with aphasia suggested

there was a disruption or disorganization of the semantic system in adults with fluent

aphasia (Grober et al., 1985; Grossman, 1981; Kiran & Thompson, 2003a). There are

other reports of a semantic level impairment in adults with aphasia based on impaired

performance on property verification and category verification tasks (Koemeda-Lutz,

Cohen, & Meier, 1987); and lexical-semantic discrimination tasks (Chieff6, Carlomagno,

Silveri, & Gainotti, 1989; Gainotti, 1981). More specifically, in transcortical sensory

aphasia and anomic aphasia, disturbed semantic processing has been identified as the

underlying mechanism causing the language deficits (Raymer et al., 1997; Raymer &

Gonzalez Rothi, 2001). It is possible that these deficits involving the semantic category

structure might prevent generalization to untrained items and perhaps account for such

Endings in the literature (Mayer et al., 2004; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006).

The current study proposed that individuals with early PAD provide an alternative

population to study the effects of typical and atypical exemplar training from semantic

categories. The rationale for this is based on the disease process, which results in diffuse

damage (as opposed to focal damage from a stroke) and evidence that to some degree, the









semantic system's structure is preserved in PAD (Albert & Milberg, 1989; Benson &

Geschwind, 1985; Hartman, 1991; Nebes, 1992; Ober et al., 1995; Schwartz et al., 1996).

This assertion is supported by findings that show knowledge about semantic categories is

preserved in PAD (Flicker et al., 1987; Huff et al., 1986; Martin & Fedio, 1983; Nebes et

al., 1986; Salmon, Butters et al., 1999; Schwartz et al., 1979; Warrington, 1975).

The goal of our exploratory study was to determine if choosing remediation targets

for anemia based on typicality (i.e., atypical and typical) would result in generalization to

untrained items. This involved a comparison of the family resemblance/prototype (Rosch,

1975) favoring typical category exemplars and the Complexity Account of Treatment

Efficacy (Thompson et al., 2003), as well as the connectionist model of a computer

simulation of acquired dyslexia (Plaut, 1996) favoring training atypical category

exemplars for achieving generalization. We provided both lexical phonological

information about the item via repetition as well as a semantic feature training with

atypical and typical items for adults with PAD. In designing our study, relevant findings

were culled from the PAD literature, particularly the three naming treatment studies

(Abrahams & Camp, 1993; Fuller et al., 2001; Ousset et al., 2002; Rothi et al., 2005), the

five aphasia studies comparing typical and atypical category exemplars (Kiran &

Thompson, 2003b; Mayer et al., 2004; Plaut, 1996; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006), and

other relevant findings from the aphasia treatment literature.

According to Nadeau and Gonzalez Rothi (2004), the connectionist approach views

anemia (that is caused by a semantic deficit) as a reflection of insufficiently engaged

representations of features that are critical for making distinctions among concepts. When

a network is damaged, a large amount of information still remains in the network, so the









focus should be on refining the damaged network via semantic therapy. In particular, the

network needs to be changed in terms of its connectivity so that there is more reliable

engagement of distinguishing features simultaneously while there is relatively a

disengagement of the shared features (Nadeau & Gonzalez Rothi, 2004). These Eindings

suggest that participants with early PAD might therefore be appropriate for the

semantically based training provided in our study which compared typical and atypical

category exemplars.

As noted previously from the aphasia literature, a facilitation effect refers to

improved performance on trained items from pretest to posttest in a single session

(Howard, 1985; Patterson et al., 1983). Our study used a single session for different

reasons, including the lack of picture naming treatment studies in the PAD literature, and

to determine if the lexical-semantic system affected by PAD could be stimulated in a

short period. This information would be useful to know prior to development of an

intervention for naming deficits in adults with PAD.

For the purpose of this study, the term "response generalization" is adapted from

Thompson (1989) to indicate that a participant has improved naming of untrained items

based on training of other items. Thompson (1989) suggested that for response

generalization to occur, the training and the probes should allow for sampling of

responses that have a similarity to the trained items, either within a defined set or across

it. The methodology for our study allowed for a measure of generalization to untrained

atypical and untrained typical items regardless of the type of training that category

received. (e.g., in the Train-Typical vehicles condition, there were untrained typical

vehicles and untrained atypical vehicles). The aphasia literature suggests criteria to









measure generalization; some examples include an increase in performance from baseline

by 40% (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b) or 50-80% (Thompson, 1989). Another approach

has been an increase of baseline performance as measured by three or more probe items

(Boyle, 2004). In our exploratory study, we chose to measure generalization based on an

increase from pretest that was statistically significant at the alpha .05 level.

The typicality ratings from Rosch (1975) provided categories and their exemplars

for this study. Using 24 items per semantic category allowed for an adequate number of

training and generalization items (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Rothi et al., 2005). Two

categories were used for the training (seven atypical and seven typical items) and the

other was a control category (Mayer et al., 2004; Rothi et al., 2005). While three of the

four aphasia treatment studies comparing typical and atypical category exemplar training

(Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006) used the categories of birds and

vegetables, two of them reported generalization just one used a combination of natural

kinds and man-made artifacts (Mayer et al., 2004).

Our study involved three artifact categories: vehicles, clothing and tools. Although

at least one PAD study has suggested that there was no significant difference in

performance on natural kinds and artifacts (Tippett, Grossman, & Farah, 1996), others

have found there is evidence that adults with PAD have shown lower levels of

performance on natural kinds (Chertkow, Bub, & Caplan, 1992; Montanes, Goldblum, &

Boiler, 1995; Warrington, 1975), or that the profile changes with the progression of the

disease (Gonnerman et al., 1997). To avoid this controversy, the current study used only

artifact categories.









It has been suggested that providing feedback is an important part of the learning

process (Bandur & Shewan, 2001). Repetition has been used as a training task, and found

to be effective in obtaining a treatment effect (Fuller et al., 2001; Mayer et al., 2004;

Patterson et al., 1983; Pring et al., 1993; Rothi et al., 2005). Hickin et al. (2002)

suggested that presenting a picture stimuli and repeating the name of the word actually

elicits semantic processing. Our study combined these three components. This was

followed by the semantic training requiring generation of semantic information about the

target item. The rationale for this comes from studies that suggest that the naming deficit

in PAD was both due to semantic specification and lexical access deficits (Bowles et al.,

1987; Williamson et al., 1998). Our study used repetition so that if the PAD participants

have a deficit in both the semantic system and lexical access, the form of the word was

provided and being reinforced, and the semantic training targeted the semantic part of the

deficit.

Evidence of a treatment effect has been reported after training with a combination

of semantic and lexical (i.e., word form) tasks (Drew & Thompson, 1999; Le Dorze et al.,

1994; Wiegel-Crump & Koenigsknecht, 1973). Two other anemia treatment approaches

have also been found to result in treatment and generalization effects in adults with

aphasia are semantic distinction training (Hillis, 1998); and semantic feature analysis

(SFA) (Boyle, 2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000). Both of these

approaches combined specific training of semantic features with presentation of the

phonological form. As noted above, Kiran and Thompson (2003b) applied a similar

process and suggested it was an important aspect of the study. The three other typicality









studies (Mayer et al., 2004; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006) also used a more simplified

version of this.

Our study attempted to achieve some of the benefits of SFA (Boyle, 2004; Boyle

& Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000), for example, to facilitate a threshold level of

activation of the semantic network that surrounds the targeted item. Furthermore, like

SFA, we aimed for systematic activation of the distinguishing features of the item rather

than shared features (Boyle, 2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000). This

process is based on the spreading activation theory, which posits that selection of the

target item among competitors is based on the highest activation achieved (Collins &

Loftus, 1975; Dell & O'Seaghdha, 1992; Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999). Once the

concept is selected, phonological information is activated so that the target item is

produced (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Dell & O'Seaghdha, 1992; Levelt et al., 1999).

Finally, SFA has also been shown to result in both a treatment effect and generalization

to untrained items (Boyle, 2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000). More

specifically, our training protocol was a modified version of SFA (Boyle, 2004; Boyle &

Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000). Our PAD participants answered questions about the

target item and then named it. We also included an aspect of the semantic distinction

training (Hillis, 1998), by asking them about how an item differs from others like it.

When the participant was unable to respond correctly, the clinician provided the

information and had the participant repeat it, based on Coelho et al. (2000).

Other studies also required active production of information, including the use of

antonyms and synonyms (McNeil et al., 1998), personalized cueing (Freed, Marshall, &

Nippold, 1995; Lowell, Beeson, & Holland, 1995; Marshall, Freed, & Karow, 2001); and










the participant using circumlocution (i.e., describing the item) (Francis et al., 2002).

Some of these studies also reported generalization to untrained items (Francis et al.,

2002; Lowell et al., 1995). In conclusion, we used information from the three PAD

naming treatment studies (Abrahams & Camp, 1993; Fuller et al., 2001; Ousset et al.,

2002; Rothi et al., 2005), studies comparing training atypical and typical category

exemplars (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Mayer et al., 2004; Plaut, 1996; Stanczak et al.,

2005, 2006) and other aphasia studies that showed treatment and generalization effects

(Boyle, 2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000; Davis & Pring, 1991; Francis

et al., 2002; Hickin, Best, Herbert, Howard, & Osborne, 2001; Hillis, 1998; Howard et

al., 1985; Pring et al., 1993; Raymer, Thompson, Jacobs, & le Grand, 1993). Many of

these studies also provided rationale for predictions about our research questions, which

are discussed below.

Research Questions and Predictions

The first four research questions focused on performance (i.e., accuracy and

reaction times) on picture naming. While the first two research questions addressed the

effects of repetition and the training (i.e., facilitation effects), the third question addressed

changes in performance on untrained items (i.e., generalization or practice effects). The

fourth question also addressed generalization, but to another task, category generation.

These questions are listed below with their corresponding predictions. The type of

training (i.e., training type) always refers to the typicality of trained items in a particular

trained category, and are always referred to as Train-Atypical, to indicate that atypical

items were trained, and Train-Typical, to indicate that typical items were trained.

Research Question 1: Does repetition of the control items (i.e., not with semantic

training) impact performance at posttest?









Prediction: There will be better performance (higher accuracy and faster reaction

times) on repeated items compared to items that were not repeated (Fuller et al.,

2001; Patterson et al., 1983; Pring et al., 1993; Rothi et al., 2005)

Research Question 2. What are the effects of semantic training on trained items?

Research Question 2a: Do accuracy scores and the reaction times for trained items

change from pretest to posttest?

Prediction: Accuracy and reaction times for trained items will show a facilitation

effect after training: Accuracy scores will be higher and reaction times will be

faster on the trained items at the posttest (Drew & Thompson, 1999; Howard, 1985;

Le Dorze et al., 1994).

Research Question 2b: Does the type of training (i.e., Train-Atypical or Train-Typical)

impact the performance on trained items at posttest?

Prediction 2b. 1: Performance will improve after both types of training, but there

will be a greater improvement after training typical items (Plaut, 1996).

Prediction 2b.2: Performance will only improve after training typical items (Rosch,

1975).

Research Question 3a: Will there be an overall change in performance on untrained items

from trained categories?

Prediction 3a: Accuracy will increase and reaction times will decrease in untrained

items in trained categories (Boyle, 2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al.,

2000; Hillis, 1998; Plaut, 1996; Wiegel-Crump & Koenigsknecht, 1973).

Research Question 3b: Does the type of training (i.e., Train-Atypical/Train-Typical)

affect performance on untrained items in trained categories (i.e., generalization)?









Prediction 3b.1: Training atypical items (Train-Atypical) will result in greater

generalization as shown by higher accuracy scores and faster reaction times (Kiran

& Thompson, 2003b; Plaut, 1996; Stanczak et al., 2006; Thompson et al., 2003).

Prediction 3b.2: Training typical exemplars will result in greater generalization:

higher accuracy scores and faster reaction times for typical exemplars within the

same category (Rosch, 1975).

Prediction 3b.3: Training typical exemplars will result in greater generalization to

both untrained typical and atypical items, because typical items have richer

representations and share more features with all other category members (Heilman,

personal communication, 2005).

Research Question 3c: Is there an interaction between time and item typicality (i.e.,

atypical items and typical items)?

Prediction 3c: Untrained typical items from trained categories will show more

improvement than atypical items from trained categories after training.

Research Question 3d: Is there an interaction among time, training type, and item type?

Prediction 3d. 1: Training atypical items will result in generalization to untrained

typical items (Kiran & Thompson, 2003b; Plaut, 1996; Stanczak et al., 2006) and

to untrained atypical items (Plaut, 1996; Stanczak et al., 2006).

Prediction 3d.2: Training typical items will have a positive impact on untrained

typical items from trained categories and a negative impact on the performance

with atypical items from trained categories (Plaut, 1996).

Research Question 4: Is there generalization to category generation?






69


Prediction 4: There will be an increase in the number of items named in the

trained categories, and this will be greater for the trained categories compared to

the untrained categories (Ousset et al., 2002).















CHAPTER 4
METHOD S

The purpose of this exploratory study was to extend previous research on the

effects of training typical and atypical category exemplars on generalization (Kiran &

Thompson, 2003b; Mayer et al., 2004; Plaut, 1996; Stanczak et al., 2005, 2006) while

comparing two views of typicality (Plaut, 1996; Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975).

Participants with early probable Alzheimer disease participated in this picture naming

training study. The primary goal was to determine if remediation targets could be chosen

based on typicality, to maximize generalization to untrained items (Kiran & Thompson,

2003b; Plaut, 1996; Stanczak et al., 2006). This was achieved by training atypical (i.e.,

Train-Atypical) and typical (i.e., Train-Typical) category exemplars from two semantic

categories and leaving untrained atypical and typical items in each category for both the

same item typicality that was trained (e.g., Train-Atypical, untrained atypical items), and

the opposite (e.g., Train-Atypical, untrained typical items). Using a repeated measures

(i.e., within subj ect) design, our study provided each participant with a modified semantic

feature based training (Boyle, 2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000) for each

category. This was completed in a single session and the results were analyzed for a

facilitation effect (Hickin et al., 2002; Howard, 1985; Howard et al., 1985; Patterson et

al., 1983) and generalization to untrained items. While the outcome measures (i.e.,

dependent variables) for the picture naming were accuracy and response time means (in

milliseconds), the number of items generated was the outcome measure for the category

generation task.









Participants

Following approval from the UF Institutional Review Board (Appendix A), the

participants with PAD were recruited and enrolled into the study. Recruitment of

participants was accomplished with the help of the University of Florida Memory and

Cognitive Disorder Clinics. Additional recruitment efforts included presenting

information and flyers about the study at the Alzheimer's Association, and Al'z Place, an

adult day care facility for individuals with Alzheimer disease and other dementias.

Participants were compensated $20 for their time.

Diagnosis of the participants with mild-moderate PAD was made by a team of

medical professionals including neurologists and neuropsychologists based on criteria

from the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders & Stroke

(NINCDS), and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (ADRDA)

(McKhann et al., 1984). Individuals were not eligible for the study if they had any history

of brain or head injury, psychiatric hospitalization, alcohol or drug abuse; any chronic

medical or psychiatric conditions, or any developmental learning disability. Participants

were pre-screened at the UF Memory Disorders Clinics for PAD. Some of the results

from the neuropsychological testing are shown in Table B-1, Appendix B.

A phone screen was used to confirm eligibility and to collect demographic

information. Twelve adults (7 women and 5 men) with newly diagnosed early PAD

completed the study. The average age was 77.6 (SD = 9.6) and the average number of

years of education was 15.8 (SD = 3.8). The mean score for the Mini Mental Status Exam

(Folstein et al., 1975) was 22.6 (SD = 3.4) with a range of 17-27. More specific

demographic information and performance scores for each participant are shown in Table

4-1.










Table 4-1. Participant Demographics and Scores on Mini Mental Status Exam and Reading
Subtest
ID # Age Years of Gender Mini Mental Status Reading Subtest
Education Exam WRAT-3 (percentile)
1001 72 17 F 21 87
1002 77 13 F 24 50
1003 76 10 AI 17 8
1004 92 24 M 24 91
1005 82 12 F 19 10
1006 78 12 F 22 50
1007 55 20 M 27 90
1008 84 15 F 25 75
1009 69 18 NJ 20 50
1010 86 16 F 19 63
1011 75 16 M 27 81
1012 85 16 F 26 87

Mean 77.6 15.8 22.6 61.8
Notes: Mini Mental Status Exam (Folstein et al., 1975); WRAT-3=Wide Range Achievement
Test-3 Reading subtest (Wilkinson, 1993).


Experimental Stimuli

There were six training lists (1-6) that were counter balanced using a Latin Square

for training conditions (i.e., Train-Atypical, Train-Typical, Control) and semantic

category (i.e., vehicles, clothing, and tools). As depicted in Table 4-2, each list had two

training conditions and one control condition. Participants were assigned to these lists

sequentially, as they were enrolled into the study. For example, the first participant

(#1001) had List 1, and this process continued with the remaining participants (e.g.,

participant eight (#1008) had list 2).

Table 4-2. Lists of Training. Conditions and Corresponding. Training. Conditions
List # Vehicles Clothing Tools
1 Train-Typical Control Train-Atypical
2 Train-Atyical Train-Tyical Control
3 Control Train-Atypical Train-Typical
4 Train-Typical Train-Atypical Control
5 Control Train-Typical Train-Atypical
6 Train-Atypical Control Train-Typical










The pre and posttesting picture naming stimuli consisted of 72 black and white line

drawings from three categories: vehicles, clothing, and tools. (Table C-1, in Appendix C,

shows the list of 72 items used in the study). Since there are several variables being

addressed, it is important to first clarify the terminology for the items in the pre and

posttest naming tasks, then the details related to the training are discussed. All items were

designated as either typical or atypical, based on the ratings in the Rosch norms (Rosch,

1975). Items were chosen from these three categories based on the seven-point typicality

ratings from Rosch (1975), such that half the items in each category were atypical and the

other half were typical. Typicality ratings for items used in this study ranged from 1.02

(the most typical) to 5.36 (the most atypical). For each category, the typical and atypical

items were selected at about a midpoint range so that half would be typical and the other

half would be atypical. The mean typicality score for the atypical items 3.5 (SE = .12),

and the mean typicality score for the typical items was 1.6 (SE = .08). An independent t-

test indicated that these groups of items were significantly different, t(70)=12.967, p =

.00.

The picture stimuli were gleaned from a variety of sources, with the maj ority from

the Florida Semantic Battery (Raymer et al., 1990). Name agreement was determined by

piloting the naming task on 10 University of Florida (UF) undergraduates in the

Language over the Lifespan Lab.

Each semantic category was designated as either the control category (i.e., no items

received semantic training), Train-Typical (i.e., only typical items received semantic

training), or Train Atypical (i.e., only atypical items received semantic training). There

were several reasons for the choice and number of categories. All artifact categories were









chosen to avoid the possible confound of mixing biological and artifact categories.

Furthermore, it was important to prevent any overlap from other semantic categories

(e.g., vehicles and sports). Also, previous research on picture naming has included these

categories (Grossman, 1981; Mayer et al., 2004), although other studies of typicality

effects have only included natural kinds (Fuller et al., 2001; Kiran & Thompson, 2003b;

Rothi et al., 2005). There were 24 exemplars in each category (Kiran and Thompson,

2003b) 12 typical and 12 atypical.

From these 72 items, the semantic training stimuli were selected. For each

category, seven atypical items were designated as the training set for when the category

appeared in the Train-Atypical condition, and 7 typical items were designated as the

training set for when that category appeared in Train-Typical condition. Thus, in a

category that appeared in the Train-Typical condition, for example, the 7 typical items in

the training set would receive semantic training, leaving 5 untrained typical items and 12

untrained atypical items from that category to analyze for generalization. Untrained items

were those items that received no semantic training, but were members of the trained

category. Therefore, for any given item, it was necessary to specify whether it was typical

or atypical, trained or untrained, and what type of training, if any, that category received.

The control items were untrained items in the untrained category. Control items were

named at both pretest and posttest. Because all items from the trained categories were

repeated, half of the items from the control category were also repeated to determine

what effect simple repetition without semantic training had on lexical access. An example

based on list 1 is found in Table 4-3.









Table 4-3. Example from List 1: Train-Typical Vehicles and Train-Atypical Tools.
Trained Untrained (same as trained) Untrained (opposite of trained)
7 Typical Vehicles 5 Typical Vehicles 12 Atypical Vehicles
7 Atypical Tools 5 Atypical Tools 12 Typical Tools
Note: The control category was comprised of 24 items of clothing.

The list of phrases or cues for the semantic training was developed by polling

volunteers (ranging from a Ph.D. investigator, a certified speech-language pathologist,

and several undergraduate research assistants) who are members of the UF Language

over the Lifespan Lab in the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders.

These cues were compiled and selected based on the most salient ones.

In a series of post hoc analyses of the stimulus words from these pictures, we

examined a possible influence from four variables on the atypical and typical items:

typicality (Rosch, 1975), which we expected to show a significant difference, written

word frequency (Frances & Kucera, 1982) and familiarity (Wilson, 1987), and phoneme

length. We used an independent sample t-test to compare the complete list of 72 atypical

and typical items on the four variables. For typicality and phoneme length, ratings were

available for each item. The independent t-test for the typicality ratings had a p- value of

.000, indicating a significant difference in terms of typicality between the atypical and

typical items. The independent t-test for phoneme length was not significant, t(70)=2.528,

p = .69, indicating there was no difference between the atypical and typical items. In

other words, the phoneme length for the atypical and typical items did not influence the

results.

The independent t-test comparing typical and atypical items from the Complete List

was not significant for frequency, t(70) =-1.3 89, p =. 169, suggesting that there was no

difference in the frequency ratings between the atypical and typical items. However,

although the independent t-test for familiarity was significant, t(3 8) =-3.625, p = .00, this










analysis was only computed on 40/72 items (i.e., many of the items did not have

familiarity ratings). Thus, the results must be interpreted with caution. Table 4-4 depicts

the means of the four variables discussed above.

Table 4-4. Means for Complete List of Atypical and Typical Items.
Train Type Typicality Score Frequency Familiarity Phoneme Length
Atypical 3.6 15.7 480 4.8
Typical 1.7 25.1 551 4.9
Notes: Typicality (Rosch, 1975); Freuency (Frances and Kucera, 1982); Familiarity (Wilson,
1987).


Procedure

Prior to participation in the study, written informed consent was obtained from each

participant. As needed, the clinician allowed time for the participant to read the informed

consent form. Then, the clinician answered any questions and assisted the participant in

interpreting the information.

Screening

Two measures were used for the screening: The Mini-Mental Status Exam

(Folstein et al., 1975) and the reading subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test

(WRAT-3) (Wilkinson, 1993). The clinician administered the MMSE using the standard

procedure (Folstein et al., 1975). Next, the clinician presented a computerized version of

the reading subtest (Wilkinson, 1993) in which the participant read aloud the individual

words from the screen. These responses were digitally recorded on an Olympus DM-10

digital recorder (Olympus, 2002) and response times (RTs) were collected via DirectRT

(Jarvis, 2004) for later scoring and analysis.

Pretesting

The pretest consisted of two tasks, Category Generation (Benton, 1968) and Picture

Naming. For the Category Generation task, the clinician provided instructions for the










participant to name as many items as possible in one minute for a given category (i.e.,

vehicles, clothing, and tools). The categories were presented in a pre-determined random

order. The clinician wrote the responses verbatim on the pretest form, and responses were

also digitally recorded for checking reliability.

The Picture Naming task consisted of the complete set of 72 line drawings

randomly presented on the computer via DirectRT (Jarvis, 2004). At the onset of the task,

the clinician read aloud the set of instructions that appeared on the screen and confirmed

comprehension of the task. The clinician controlled the pace of the session by using the

mouse button presses on a wireless mouse. Each picture stayed on the screen until the

clinician advanced to the next picture (i.e., the picture did not disappear or time out).

There were four practice items from the category of fruit. After the participant attempted

to name a presented picture, the clinician informed the participant if he/she was correct or

not, and then asked the participant to repeat the correct name of the item three times. If

the participant produced a correct alternative name of the item (e.g., "j et" for "airplane")

their response was accepted as correct, and this word was repeated (Appendix C includes

a list of acceptable alternative names for items). The clinician then advanced to the next

trial. As stated above, twelve items from the control category were not repeated (half

were typical and half were atypical). A prompt appeared on the computer screen to alert

the clinician as to whether this was a repeated item or not. This procedure was used for

all of the items in the two trained categories, and for half of the control items (i.e., repeat

or no repeat, without semantic training).

More specifically, after the participant named an item, the word "repeat" appeared

on the lower center section of the screen. Next, the clinician provided verbal feedback









and directed the participant to repeat the name of it three times (i.e., "That' s correct, now

you say it three times or It' s supposed to be a _, now you say it three

times, _,_ ") (Kendall, personal communication, 2005; Fuller et al. 2001; Rothi

et al. 2005). When an unrepeated item was presented, the participant named the item,

then the words "Go on" appeared in place of the word "Repeat," and the clinician

advanced to the next item. Thus, on these control items the clinician did not provide

feedback about the participant' s response, and the item was not repeated. The clinician

continued this process with each of the remaining pictures until all 72 items had been

named. At this point, the participant took a short break while the clinician set up for the

semantic training. All of the naming responses were digitally recorded for later

transcription and analysis, and response times were collected via DirectR (Jarvis, 2004).

Semantic Training

This was a guided, feature generation task, loosely based on semantic feature

analysis (Boyle, 2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho et al., 2000) and semantic

distinction training (Hillis, 1998). The computer presented the pictures from one of the

training categories (i.e., seven items) in random order and the clinician asked the

participant to answer each of the following questions about the item: 1. "What is its

function?"; 2. "Who uses it?"; and 3. "How is it different from other _?" (i.e., things like

it). After the participant answered the three questions, the clinician asked the participant

to name the item. Whenever a participant was unable to correctly answer a question or

provided ambiguous information, the clinician provided cues from a pre-determined

typed list. Whenever the participant was unable to name the item, the clinician stated it

and asked the participant to repeat it. The clinician continued this process with the

remaining six training items for that category. Each participant was trained on the two









categories from their designated list. The trained categories (e.g., Train-Atypical Tools,

and Train-Typical Vehicles) were randomly presented in blocks, but the order of the

items presented within each category was random. This allowed each participant to be

trained on each category and the corresponding training type (i.e., Train-Atypical, Train-

Typical) for a total of six practice sets (i.e., three presentations for each category). Then,

the participant took a break while the clinician prepared for the posttesting. The responses

from the training were also digitally recorded.

Posttesting

The posttesting consisted of the same two tasks and instructions as the pre-testing:

Category Generation and Picture Naming. During the Category Generation task, the

participant was given the same instructions and the same random order for generating as

many items as possible for each of the three categories (vehicles, clothing, and tools).

The clinician wrote down participants' responses verbatim and also digitally recorded

them in order to check reliability.

For the Picture Naming task, the same 72 item picture set was presented by

computer running Direct-RT (Jarvis, 2004). Items were presented in a different random

order than at pretest. In this version, the participant only named the pictures aloud,

without feedback or repetition.

Scoring

The scoring for the screening tasks was completed as follows. The Mini Mental

Status Exam was scored using the standard scoring outlined by Folstein et al. (1975).

Digital recordings of the reading subtest from the WRAT-3 (Wilkinson, 1993) were used

to code the data for accuracy of production by a trained research assistant. The clinician

scored the responses and calculated raw and standard scores and converted them to the










percentiles, based on instructions from the WRAT-3 Manual (Wilkinson, 1993). It is

important to note that normative data for adults with PAD is not provided in the WRAT-3

Manual (Wilkinson, 1993), and that most of our PAD participants were beyond the age

ranges provided (i.e., 55-64. 11; and 65-74. 11). Thus, these findings must be interpreted

with caution.

The pre and posttest picture naming performance for accuracy and response times

was collected by Direct RT (Jarvis, 2004). Accuracy and response times were tracked by

the clinician's mouse clicks (i.e., left for correct and right for incorrect) based on the

participant' s response and coded these as ones and zeros. The list of acceptable alternate

names is displayed in Appendix C. The clinician used the same procedure for the

response times (i.e., left for usable and right for unusable). For the response times, only

fluent, correct responses were computed in the analyses (e.g., response times were

excluded if the participant said, "uh airplane", but the response would be scored as

accurate/correct). Furthermore, response times for each participant were adjusted for

outliers by replacing any value that was greater than three standard deviations above the

mean, with the mean value.

The responses for the Category Generation task were transcribed independently by

a trained research assistant. The clinician and research assistant then compared these

results to the clinician's original on-line written documentation from the session and

discrepancies were resolved by referring back to the corresponding voice files until

agreement was reached. Informal reliability measures were carried out with ~ 50% of the

data, using the voice files. Agreement was ~98% and disagreements about scoring of










responses were resolved by consensus during the Language over the Lifespan Lab

meetings.

Responses from the Picture Naming task were also transcribed by a trained research

assistant. The clinician used these transcripts to verify coding of 100% of the picture

naming scoring.

Statistical Analyses

Our study used a repeated measures design. The analyses compared pre and post-

test category generation and picture naming performance using both accuracy and

response times where possible. Analyses evaluated the effects of repetition and practice

from data in the control condition, the effects of semantic training, and generalization

effects to untrained items in trained categories. The effects of training atypical and typical

category exemplars were also examined.

The pre and posttest picture naming data were analyzed using t-tests, repeated

measures analysis of variances (ANOVAs) and follow-up post hoc t-tests where

necessary. It is important to point out that the pretest naming data reflects the

participants' initial attempt at naming the pictures; this was followed by the repetition

and semantic training. Thus, the effect of repetition and training can only be evaluated by

comparing pre and posttest performance. Due to an error in the programming related to

the control items, four participants repeated all items. Consequently, data from only eight

of the twelve participants could be included in the analysis of repetition effects.

Since inspection of the data for some of the analyses showed pronounced

differences at pretest, difference scores were calculated from the pre and posttest data and

then analyzed. The dependent variables for picture naming were means from the accuracy

and response time data. The independent variables varied according to the questions, but









included time (pre /posttest), repetition (no repeat/repeat), training type (i.e., the Train-

Atypical/Train-Typical), item typicality (i.e., item type, atypical/typical). For

consistency, whenever possible the term atypical is always discussed before typical, this

convention is alphabetical and used in order to reduce confusion with the terminology

(there is no intentional bias).

The dependent variables for the pre and posttest category generation data were the

number of items generated per category, and the independent variables were time and

training type (i.e., Control category, Train-Atypical, Train-Typical). The data was

analyzed with repeated measures ANOVAs.

Research Question 1: Control Items

Does repetition of the control items (i.e., not with semantic training) impact

performance at posttest? This question addressed the possibility of a repetition or practice

effect. Only accuracy and response time means from the untrained items in untrained

categories (i.e., the control condition) made up the dependent variable. Half of these were

in the repetition condition and half were not (i.e., not repeated). The independent

variables were time (pre/post) and repetition (yes/no). A (2) Time (pre/post) X (2)

Repetition (yes/no) repeated measures ANOVA was used to answer this question.

Research Question 2: Trained Items in Trained Categories

This two-part question addressed the possibility of a facilitation effect in

semantically trained items (i.e., Train-Atypical and Train-Typical). The data consisted of

scores from the 14 trained items (i.e., the seven atypical and seven typical items from the

two trained categories). This within category measure was assessed as a comparison of

pretest and posttest performance on the confrontation naming task









Research Question 2a: Do accuracy scores and the response times for trained items

change from pretest to posttest? The independent variable was time (i.e., change from

pretest to post test).

Research Question 2b: Does the type of training (i.e., Train-Atypical or Train-

Typical) impact the performance at posttest? The independent variables were time and

training type.

To answer both of these questions, (2) Time (pre/post) x (2) Training type (Train-

Atypical/Train-Atypical) repeated measures ANOVAs were computed.

Research Question 3: Untrained Items in Trained Categories

Question 3 had several subcomponents, but overall addressed the possibility of a

primary generalization effect. If there was a facilitation effect in question 2, the purpose

of questions 3a, b, c, and d was to determine if the facilitation effect generalized to

untrained items within the same trained category.

Research Question 3a: Is there generalization to untrained items in the trained

category? The independent variable was time (pre/post).

Research Question 3b: Does the type of training (i.e., Train-Atypical/Train-

Typical) affect generalization to untrained items in trained categories? The independent

variables were training type and time.

Research Question 3c: Does the typicality of the untrained item (i.e., atypical items

and typical items) determine whether it will benefit from generalization? The

independent variables were time and item type.

Research Question 3d: Do time, training type, and item type interact to promote

generalization limited to a particular item type following a particular training type? The

independent variables were time, training type, and item type.









The analyses for Question 3 used the 34 untrained items in the two trained

categories (i.e., 17 untrained items in each trained category). For the accuracy means, we

used a (2) Time x (2) Training Type (Train-Atypical/Train-Typical) x (2) Item Type

(Atypical/Typical) repeated measures ANOVA.

The response time means were analyzed differently. For Question 3a, a t-test was

used to compare pre and posttest performance. To answer Questions b, c, and d

difference scores were computed between pre- and posttest response times and analyzed

via a (2) Training Type x (2) Item type repeated measures ANOVA.

Research Question 4: Category Generation

Research Question 4: Is there generalization from picture naming to category

generation? Does the type of training the category receive affect whether there is

generalization to category generation. The independent variables were time and training

type. The dependent variable was total number of items generated per category and these

were analyzed with a (3) Training Type (Train-Atypical, Train-Typical and Control) x (2)

Time repeated measures ANOVA.















CHAPTER 5
RESULTS

In this study we compared the performance of adults with probable Alzheimer

disease (PAD) on picture naming and category generation tasks before and after a

semantic training using atypical and typical category exemplars. The accuracy means and

response times (in milliseconds, ms) from pre and posttest picture naming, and number of

items generated per category on a category generation task were analyzed with t-tests and

repeated measures analysis of variances (ANOVAs). To control for some of the

differences in the pretest scores across conditions, difference scores were computed for

several of the questions and then analyzed to compare direction and magnitude of change.

An a priori decision was made to use a .05 level of significance for all of the analyses.

The two training conditions are always referred to as Train-Atypical (i.e., training

atypical items) and Train-Typical (i.e., training typical items).

Research Question 1: Control Items

Question 1 asked if repetition of the control items (i.e., not with semantic training)

impacted the performance of picture naming at posttest. The dependent variables were

the accuracy and response times, and the independent variables were time and the

repetition and no repetition conditions. The data for these analyses were from the control

categories (i.e., untrained items in untrained categories) in which half of the items were

repeated (i.e., repetition condition) and the other half were not (i.e., no repetition

condition).









A (2) Time (pre/posttest) x (2) Repetition (yes/no) repeated measures ANOVA was

used to examine the data from eight participants. The results showed that there were no

significant main effects or interactions for the accuracy means. Although the items in the

repetition condition were somewhat higher (Mean (M)1 = .89, SE = .04) compared to items

in the no repetition condition (M~= .80; SE = .04), this was not significant, F(1,7) = 3.691;

p = .096; r12= .35. There were no other main effects or interactions with the accuracy

means for the control items. Thus, repetition did not have a significant effect on the

accuracy means.

The response time means showed a similar pattern from the (2) Time x (2)

Repetition repeated measures ANOVA. There were no significant main effects to suggest

that repetition alone impacted performance from pretest to posttest. There were decreases

in the response time means, indicating faster responses, but these were not significant.

One was for time, F(1,7) = 3.702; p = .096; r12 = .346; 2Mre = 2456 ms (SE = 521); 2Most

= 1858 ms (SE = 243). The other was for repetition, F(1,7) = 4.416; p = .074; r12 = .387;

M~REP = 1979 ms (SE=-321 ms), M~NoRep = 2334 ms (SE = 440 ms). The interaction was not

significant, F(1,7) =1.566; p =.251; r12 = .183.

The items in the control condition did not receive any semantic training, but half of

them were repeated at pretest. Although the accuracy in the control condition means were

slightly higher, this was not significant. The response times decreased somewhat, but not

significantly. Thus, repeating items in the control condition did not result in statistically

significant changes in accuracy or response times.

Research Question 2: Semantically Trained Items

Questions 2a and b asked if performance on the semantically trained items (i.e.,

Train-Atypical and Train-Typical) changed from pre to posttest, and, if so, whether there