Abstract：
Van den Hoven et al. contested my interpretation of Wernicke regarding the role of the arcuate fasciculus (AF) in word production. Here, I clarify and defend my interpretation. They also questioned the assumption of AF subtracts in my modern account, stating that subtracts are difficult to distinguish anatomically due to overlapping terminations. Here, I make clear that overlap in terminations was actually part of my account, in which differentially damaged subtracts explained patients\' differential naming and repetition performance as well as types of repetition performance.
摘要：
VandenHoven等人。质疑我对Wernicke关于弓形束状结构（AF）在文字制作中的作用的解释。这里,我澄清并捍卫我的解释。他们还质疑我现代账户中AF减法的假设，指出由于重叠的终止，减法很难在解剖学上区分。这里,我明确表示，终止合同的重叠实际上是我帐户的一部分，其中差异受损减法解释了患者的差异命名和重复表现以及重复表现的类型。
