Sequencing.

How does right sensorimotor integration promote activation of auditory-vocal interface?

Because the motor aspect is necessary.

Because speaking is just a more simple version of these exercises.

So there are processing centers for language in both of the hemispheres, allowing for a possible explanation for the cases above.

Not sure how this could have happened.

Maybe the brain is not restoring itself, but rather reforming itself. This would make sense because of neuroplasticity, since the brain must have had to undergo trauma for the individual to be experiencing Broca's aphasia.

This is because the left hemisphere could not compensate for the right hemisphere because it does not contain the brain structures necessary for music processing.

Because music requires listening and in order to synchronize with a beat, motor control and sequencing are required (as mentioned above).

Necessary for achieving the desired effects of music and language.

The social and cultural aspects of language.

I'm guessing it relates to your intentions in social situations?

Basically the process of aligning words in a sentence/phrase in our head (thoughts) and then producing it as speech?

So we can rebuild the speech rhythm processing centers by exposing the brain to music to activate the music rhythm processing centers?

The sequence of beats in the march music translated into speech signals in the brain?

Were the basal ganglia able to detect this predictable pattern and take up "sequencing?"

I'm guessing this is because the basal ganglia are responsible for making and carrying out plans, and this would include motor functions?

Ex. clapping and continuing to clap to maintain the beat.

Helps the brain facilitate actions necessary for eventually forming speech?

Play a part in MIT.

Obstruction of a blood supply (embolus or thrombus).

Damage to the cortical structures on the same hemisphere or in that same region of the brain.

The patterns of rhythm and sound used in poetry.

Order/arrangement of words.

Meaning they don't really know what causes it?

Includes the following structures: diencephalon, pituitary gland, limbic structures and the basal ganglia

Any region of the cerebral cortex.

Is this disorder the reason why non-fluent aphasia patients have difficulty forming speech?

words that carry meaning and words that don't (articles, prepositions, etc.)

Type of speech production where grammar is inaccessible.

A person knows what they want to say, but has difficulty producing speech.

Intonation is the various pitches a person covers when speaking. So I'm guessing this type of therapy involves humming, lip trills, and maybe even singing simple, common tunes (all important in vocal warm ups).

I want to immediately say that this is because we speak rhythmically, and certain patterns of musical rhythms can be found in our speech.

If we know the genre we are working in, we can communicate in a way that will benefit that audience.

I think this means we are far from robots. We have the potential to be vastly creative. The features present in a genre are subject to change by our environment and are able to be manipulated by the writer to create a product that they've designed; therefore, we are the reason that genres are constantly evolving, because we are constantly evolving as people and as a species. As we evolve, so does society. Society, people, and genres, all evolve and affect one another. This process does not seem robotic to me. Robots are predictable. Change is not.

I want to immediately say no, because we are emotional creatures. We have feelings, desires, ambitions, and care. But I also want to say yes because our brains are so complex and each structure is responsible for a process. So much must occur in the brain for the body to be able to carry out a desired movement.

It feels like they're describing theories for writing. "Formula" is a term commonly used in math. These formulas are consistent and never change over time. They cannot be altered. Theories can be altered based on new information that is discovered. Genres develop over time based on changes that are constantly occurring in our world.

A genre is reflective of the environment that the writers are working within, just as the environment that the writers are working in helps to form the genre, the genre set, and genre system.

I like this parallel drawn between nature and genres. It makes sense because genres were originally referred to as "worlds" in this article.

So it's not just what you create, but what you read and the things you circulate and comment on, because that too contributes to your thoughts and in turn, your writing. They are all contributing factors to the genre system, and therefore, the genre.

A network of writers that produce material within a particular genre.

You write differently based on which genre you're writing within, because it calls for different rhetorical devices and language.

This means that what consists within a genre evolves over time based on what the writers create and how the workplace/world/society evolves over time.

We can find patterns among the writings in a genre.

The requirements of a genre

A genre is defined by what people do with the writings contained in that genre.

I think this means genres. But the choice of the word "world" is smart because it implies that the possibilities are endless for writing. Our world is so vast and so are the genres that we write within.

I still am a little confused about creating my own link so that you can just see each of our individual annotations instead of us just posting to the general thread.

I like this because then we really are learning from one another

important because so many people don't cover their nose:(

What genres will we write about?

I do not think we rewrite the past, but rather bring to the forefront different thoughts and experiences that would align with our ideal future. And when our idea of the future changes, or when we get to the future and it is not what we expected, we change the thoughts at the forefront once more; therefore, are our stories are never going to be completely accurate.

We construct the future based on, and as a result of (due to prediction), the past.

Our life stories could never be like written stories in a book because unlike the author, we are not completely in control of our own destiny. There are external factors we have absolutely no control over which allows for unpredictability. To the contrary, an author has complete control of what they write when creating a book.

If you're not willing to listen to others' narratives, then you're robbing yourself of so many experiences that can lead you to understanding others. If you're not allowing yourself understand others, then I feel you haven't truly connected to people. People may be able to connect with you through you telling your narrative, but you cannot connect to them.

I think this is a way of saying that we must possess self-awareness. We must be able to understand when we are playing a role and not being ourselves. If we don't live truthfully, then our life story is not the truth.

Understanding the meaning of things will not always result in a positive, but is essential for growth. You cannot change what has happened to you, but you can grow through understanding.

This is why some may be afraid to share their story (because it does not properly align with what society expects everyone to do).

But can rehearsing the telling of a story provide for more time to understand our lives and make connections so that we are more equipped to tell a meaningful story and, as a result, make better connections between others?

As we age, we acquire abilities needed to understand stories. If we can understand and appreciate a story told in a book, then do we also develop the ability to understand and appreciate the life stories of others?

It is ironic that McAdams draws this comparison because all three of these roles are responsible for telling a story: an actor on stage, an agent in a report, and an author in a book.

This is extrinsic motivation. Telling a story for appeal, to seem interesting, and to be socially accepted.

Our developmental process as human beings is a life story in itself. We go through several stages of cognitive development, according to Piaget, and they can all be explained by our neural development. Toddlers cannot understand comparison, effect, and time because their brains are not fully developed. These stages have meaning.

I think a huge part of being able to make meaning of our experiences is to be truly present and in the moment when that experience is occurring.

Just as telling the story of our life is a way to make sense of the events that have occurred.

We don't always know why bad things happen until long after they occur and we have time to reflect and understand the meaning of them. Life's events may seem illogical sometimes. We don't know why people do what they do until we know them. And how do we get to know people? By talking to them and sharing parts about our lives. So until we understand each other, we cannot understand the bad things that happen to us.

We tell parts of our story because that is partially how we get to know people. The people we've met, experiences we've encountered, and the lives we've lived as a result all shape who we are and can help explain our behavior.

What defines "normal?"

These differences result in how we tell are stories. Are those who are more introspective more likely to tell a story with a narrative arc, whether it's truthful or not? And are those who are not introspective less likely to tell a life story with a narrative arc or more likely to lie and tell a narrative arc?

"What is the meaning of life?" This is a question that we are constantly asking ourselves, but the answer is right in front of us. Our life stories are not a strict, chronological account of the events that occurred, though it may feel like we are stuck in a routine most times. Our life stories should be formed with the intent of relaying the meanings of our experiences and what we learned from them. If we learn from our mistakes, we can create a better future for ourselves and as a result, progress toward self-actualization. The meaning of life is dependent upon whether we understand why things happen to us. It seems as though there are several meanings to life, and they all lie within our life stories (assuming that they are told with truthfulness).

If we tell a fabricated life story, then our personalities are fabricated as well.

A good example of this is social media. We can tell our story through these apps and often times people only post what they want you to see. Each account is a step into someone's life and their narrative arc. A social media account can become a part of who you are with constantly checking the feed, posting new material, and creating a reality that may not accurately represent one's life. Which then leads me to believe, does the telling of one's life story actually become part of who you are? Or have you told the story of a life that is not yours?

I think people choose to tell the story of their life with a narrative arc because it is natural to crave a meaningful, fulfilling life, and according to Freud's pyramid of motivation, human beings are ultimately striving for self-actualization (reaching their highest potential). These desires could be motivated intrinsically or extrinsically, which is why the word "choose" could either mean that one chooses to tell one's true life story, or choose to embellish it to resemble a narrative arc. But I think the telling of one's true life story could just so happen to have a narrative arc because that person might feel deeply about those in their life and care about the things that happen to them, so they tell it with emotion and passion, which is often times how some of the best stories are written. But if they are extrinsically motivated (looking for an external reward, such as being well-known) then they may "choose" to tell their life story with a narrative arc for appeal (extrinsic motivating factor).