Anomic aphasia represents one of the most intriguing and ubiquitous linguistic disruptions encountered in clinical neurology and cognitive neuropsychology. While individuals suffering from this condition retain fluent speech output, intact auditory comprehension, and grammatical dexterity, their expressive language is persistently sabotaged by an inability to access the names of concepts, objects, and people. Understanding the neurobiological, psycholinguistic, and therapeutic dimensions of anomic aphasia provides crucial insight into how the human brain maps abstract semantic concepts onto the phonetic architecture of spoken language.<\/p>\n
Anomic aphasia<\/strong> (also known as nominal aphasia or dysnomia) is a selective, fluent form of acquired language disorder characterized predominantly by an isolated impairment in word retrieval, specifically naming objects, actions, and entities, while speech production, repetition, syntax, and comprehension remain relatively preserved.<\/p>\n Clinically, individuals with this condition exhibit a persistent, pervasive inability to access lexical labels despite knowing exactly what they wish to communicate. Unlike severe fluent forms of aphasia where discourse is disorganized or comprehension is compromised, anomic discourse is grammatically well-formed, rhythmically natural, and conceptually coherent. However, it is heavily punctuated by mid-sentence pauses, hesitant searching for target words, circumlocution (talking around an elusive word by describing its function, shape, or contextual properties), and the frequent overreliance on nonspecific placeholder nouns and empty words such as "thing," "stuff," or "whatchamacallit."<\/p>\n Although present to some degree across virtually all aphasic syndromes, the designation of anomic aphasia as an independent diagnostic category is reserved for cases where lexical retrieval deficits occur in relative isolation or emerge as the chronic residual presentation following significant recovery from other major aphasias, such as Wernicke’s, Broca’s, or conduction aphasia.<\/p>\n The term anomic<\/em> is derived from the Classical Greek prefix a-<\/em> (\u1f00-), signifying absence, negation, or privation, and onoma<\/em> (\u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1), denoting "name." When combined with the suffix -ic<\/em>, the term translates literally to "pertaining to the absence of names." The substantive condition aphasia<\/em> traces its linguistic lineage back to the Greek aphasia<\/em> (\u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1), meaning "speechlessness" or "inability to speak," compounded from a-<\/em> (without) and phasis<\/em> (\u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, "speech" or "utterance"), stemming from the PIE root *bha-<\/em>, which relates to speaking or telling.<\/p>\n Historically, early English and Continental medical authorities alternatively labeled the condition nominal aphasia<\/em> (from Latin nomen<\/em>, "name") or amnesic aphasia<\/em> (from Greek amnesia<\/em>, "forgetfulness"), emphasizing the selective "forgetting" or failure to recall substantive lexical items while keeping grammatical frames intact. Over the mid-twentieth century, the nomenclature standardized around "anomic aphasia" to align with contemporary taxonomies in aphasiology<\/a> and cognitive neurology, differentiating it from generalized memory syndromes.<\/p>\n Pronunciation:<\/strong> \/\u02cce\u026a\u02c8n\u0252m\u026ak \u0259\u02c8fe\u026azi\u0259\/ (British English) or \/\u02cce\u026a\u02c8n\u0251\u02d0m\u026ak \u0259\u02c8fe\u026a\u0292\u0259\/ (American English).<\/p>\n Grammatical Form:<\/strong><\/p>\n To conceptualize anomic aphasia accurately, one must examine the operational sequence of normal word production. In psycholinguistic models of language, such as those established by Willem Levelt and Gary Dell, naming an object requires traversing multiple discrete yet interconnected stages: conceptual preparation (semantic processing), lexical selection (retrieving the abstract word form or "lemma"), phonological encoding (retrieving the specific sounds or "lexeme"), and motor execution (articulating the phonemes). Anomic aphasia typically represents a functional rupture between the semantic representation of an object and its corresponding phonological word-form, rather than a degradation of semantic knowledge itself.<\/p>\n A person with anomic aphasia who sees a picture of an apple knows unequivocally what the object is: they recognize that it is an edible fruit, grows on trees, possesses a core and seeds, comes in varieties such as Granny Smith or Honeycrisp, and can be baked into pies. They can gesture its use, match it effortlessly to related items, and identify it correctly if presented with multiple-choice auditory labels. Yet, when tasked with uttering the single word "apple," the transmission link between the fully activated semantic concept and the specific lexical-phonological address fails. The speaker experiences an acute, heightened, and persistent state analogous to the universal tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon<\/a>, but occurring with an incapacitating frequency across ordinary, everyday vocabulary.<\/p>\n The boundaries of anomic aphasia are defined by what remains functional. Syntactic planning remains largely uncompromised; the speaker constructs intricate subordinate clauses, applies inflections correctly, and uses auxiliary verbs, prepositions, and pronouns without error. Auditory comprehension of complex narratives is generally well-preserved, distinguishing anomic patients from those with Wernicke’s or transcortical sensory aphasia. Similarly, articulatory agility and phonetic accuracy remain sharp, separating them from the effortful, telegraphic output of Broca’s aphasia. The primary expressive disruption is an agonizing void precisely where concrete nouns, active verbs, or specific names should appear in the temporal flow of speech.<\/p>\n When this lexical block happens, the patient typically employs compensatory mechanisms. The most ubiquitous strategy is circumlocution, wherein the speaker defines or describes the properties, location, or purpose of the target concept in order to bypass the missing lexical node. For instance, rather than saying "key," a patient might state, "the little metal jagged thing you stick in the door lock to twist and open up the house." Alternatively, speakers might rely on semantic approximations (saying "clock" instead of "watch"), phonological approximations, or indefinite pronouns. If the communicative partner supplies the elusive word, the individual with anomic aphasia instantly recognizes it with visible relief, confirming that receptive lexical identification remains unhindered.<\/p>\n The systematic study of anomic aphasia developed in parallel with the evolution of nineteenth-century localizationist neurology. While early historical records dating back to ancient Greek and Roman medicine described patients who could no longer name their own family members or common utensils following head trauma, systematic clinical documentation began in earnest with Paul Broca and Carl Wernicke in the late 1800s. Early neurologists focused predominantly on non-fluent expressive aphasias and fluent receptive sensory aphasias, often regarding isolated naming difficulties as minor atypicalities or transitional artifacts of broader deficits.<\/p>\n In 1885, German neurologist Ludwig Lichtheim proposed his classical connectionist model of language circuitry, incorporating centers for concept representation, motor images of words, and auditory images of words. While Lichtheim did not demarcate anomic aphasia as an autonomous category within his primary diagram, his framework laid the theoretical groundwork for understanding how a lesion interrupting the pathways between semantic concept stores and auditory word representations could precipitate naming deficits without destroying either comprehension or articulation.<\/p>\n The formal recognition of nominal aphasia as an independent syndrome was profoundly advanced by British neurologist Sir Henry Head in the 1920s. Head rejected the rigid, overly mechanistic localizationist schemes of nineteenth-century continental neurology, instead proposing a functional taxonomy based on clinical linguistic behavior. In his seminal 1926 work, Aphasia and Kindred Disorders of Speech<\/em>, Head categorized language impairments into four clinical types: verbal, syntactical, semantic, and nominal aphasia. Head defined nominal aphasia explicitly as a selective inability to choose, retain, or assign appropriate verbal designations to objects and abstract ideas, emphasizing the psychological integrity of the underlying thoughts.<\/p>\n During the mid-to-twentieth century, the Boston School of Aphasia, led by Harold Goodglass and Edith Kaplan, solidified the modern diagnostic criteria for anomic aphasia. Through the development of the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE), Goodglass and Kaplan demonstrated through quantitative psychometric profiles that patients with anomic aphasia exhibited fluent conversational speech, normal auditory comprehension, and preserved repetition, contrasting sharply with patients experiencing global, conduction, or transcortical aphasias. In the modern neuroimaging era (1990s to the present), functional MRI, positron emission tomography (PET), and lesion-symptom mapping have unraveled the distributed, multifaceted network underpinning word retrieval, dispelling the historical myth of a single, monolithic "naming center."<\/p>\n Anomic aphasia occupies a critical place within cognitive psychology and neurolinguistics, serving as an empirical testbed for models of the mental lexicon. Dual-stage and interactive activation models of lexical access provide the primary theoretical scaffolding for interpreting anomia.<\/p>\n Under Willem Levelt’s Feedforward Model (WEAVER++), word generation follows a sequential, discrete trajectory:<\/p>\n Anomic aphasia is widely conceptualized within this framework as a functional bottleneck at the lemma-to-lexeme interface. The conceptual nodes are fully energized, and the correct lemma is often selected (as evidenced by the patient’s grammatical preservation and accurate knowledge of the word’s syntactic category), but spreading activation fails to reliably trigger the phonological form (lexeme). This theoretical paradigm accounts for why patients frequently know the gender or grammatical function of an inaccessible word and are instantly receptive to phonemic cueing (e.g., providing the first sound "\/p\/" for "pen" immediately unlocks the entire lexeme).<\/p>\n Conversely, connectionist and interactive activation models, notably proposed by Gary Dell, postulate that activation cascades simultaneously across semantic, lexical, and phonological levels, with bidirectional feedback loops continuously updating the system. In Dell’s model, anomia arises when global activation levels are depressed, decay rates are pathologically accelerated, or connection weights are disrupted by neural injury. If activation of the target lexical node decays before reaching the threshold needed for phonological output, competitor words\u2014often semantically related neighbors within the same associative network\u2014may cross the threshold instead, generating semantic paraphasias, or no word crosses the threshold at all, yielding an omission error or anomic pause.<\/p>\n From a neuroanatomical standpoint, theoretical frameworks have shifted from circumscribed single-lesion models toward distributed neurocognitive networks. While historical localization associated anomic aphasia primarily with damage to the left angular gyrus<\/a> (Brodmann Area 39), contemporary neuroimaging demonstrates that anomia can manifest following lesions in diverse nodes across the dominant hemisphere’s language network. Damage to the left middle and inferior temporal gyri, the temporoparietal junction, the left anterior temporal pole, and the white matter pathways connecting these regions (such as the arcuate fasciculus and the inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus) can precipitate severe naming deficits. Depending on which node of this distributed network is structurally or functionally compromised, the exact behavioral profile of the anomia varies, reflecting either impaired semantic access, disrupted lemma retrieval, or phonological assembly failure.<\/p>\n Anomic aphasia is characterized by several core clinical features, manifestations, and distinct subtypes classified according to the underlying stage of cognitive failure:<\/p>\n To contextualize anomic aphasia in real-world clinical practice, consider the following communicative transcript and clinical case presentation.<\/p>\n Clinical Dialogue Demonstration:<\/strong><\/p>\n Clinician:<\/em> "Can you describe what you usually do when you wake up in the morning?" In this interaction, notice the preservation of complex syntax, fluid cadence, and accurate articulation. The patient exhibits no grammatical breakdowns or receptive misunderstandings. However, the discourse is repeatedly stalled by naming deficits, prompting immediate, functional circumlocutions that demonstrate complete semantic and conceptual awareness of each object described.<\/p>\n Case Illustration: Mr. E. (Post-Stroke Residual Anomia):<\/strong><\/p>\n Mr. E., a 62-year-old high school history teacher, sustained an ischemic stroke within the territory of the left middle cerebral artery, initially presenting with marked Wernicke’s aphasia characterized by neologistic jargon, impaired auditory comprehension, and fluent, disorganized speech. Over 18 months of intensive rehabilitation, his comprehension recovered remarkably to 90% of normal baseline, and his paraphasic errors virtually ceased.<\/p>\n However, Mr. E. transitioned into a chronic presentation of anomic aphasia. When shown visual stimuli from diagnostic batteries, he struggled severely to name items spontaneously. When shown a picture of a microscope<\/em>, he immediately placed his eye to a mock lens and simulated turning an adjustment knob, saying: "You use this in biology. You look down into it to see tiny cells, bacteria, things that are too small for your eyes. My students use them every Tuesday. But I cannot say its name." When the clinician offered the phonemic cue "\/ma\u026ak\/…", Mr. E. instantly exclaimed, "Microscope! Of course!" Mr. E.’s case highlights two classic features of anomic aphasia: its role as a common endpoint of aphasia recovery, and the dramatic diagnostic utility of phonemic prompting to unlock preserved phonological forms.<\/p>\n Assessing anomic aphasia requires an extensive psychometric and qualitative evaluation designed to map the integrity of the language system across multiple modalities, isolate the exact locus of word retrieval breakdown, and differentiate anomia from broader cognitive or aphasic disorders.<\/p>\n Standardized Diagnostic Instruments:<\/strong><\/p>\n Qualitative and Neuroimaging Protocols:<\/strong><\/p>\n Assessment must also involve continuous conversational and discourse analysis to quantify the frequency of pauses, filler words, and circumlocutions during unstructured communicative tasks (e.g., describing the "Cookie Theft" picture or narrating a personal life event). Structural neuroimaging, via high-resolution T1\/T2-weighted MRI, identifies anatomical lesions (such as ischemic strokes, hemorrhagic events, or localized neoplasms). Functional neuroimaging (fMRI) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) map white matter tract disruption across the language network, distinguishing localized anomic aphasias from neurodegenerative patterns such as the asymmetric left temporal lobe atrophy characteristic of primary progressive aphasia.<\/p>\n The practical, clinical, and social ramifications of anomic aphasia extend into acute rehabilitation, vocational reintegration, and psychotherapeutic support. Although frequently described in neurological literature as the "mildest" or least debilitating form of aphasia, the lived experience of anomic aphasia can be profoundly frustrating and socially isolating.<\/p>\n In educational and vocational domains, anomic aphasia disproportionately compromises professionals whose careers depend on rapid, articulate, and precise verbal performance\u2014such as educators, attorneys, physicians, executives, and customer-facing specialists. The constant, unpredictable failure to retrieve technical terminology or colleagues’ names can induce performance anxiety, leading to conversational avoidance, withdrawal from professional activities, and secondary clinical depression.<\/p>\n Within speech-language pathology (SLP), understanding the specific mechanics of anomic aphasia directs individualized, evidence-based therapy. Interventions are broadly bifurcated into restorative (impairment-based) techniques and compensatory strategies:<\/p>\n Modern empirical research into anomic aphasia spans cognitive neuroscience, neuroplasticity, and pharmacological-neuromodulatory clinical trials. Groundbreaking work by researchers like Argye Hillis and colleagues has elucidated the acute neural mechanisms of anomia using perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (PWI). Hillis demonstrated that acute naming impairments in early stroke are frequently caused by hypoperfusion (inadequate blood flow) within intact cortex surrounding the ischemic core, such as the left posterior superior temporal gyrus or inferior temporal cortex. Crucially, when therapeutic reperfusion is achieved via thrombolysis or blood pressure optimization, naming performance recovers in immediate alignment with restoring regional cortical blood flow.<\/p>\n Cognitive neuroscientists including Matthew Lambon Ralph have conducted extensive longitudinal studies contrasting the stable anomia seen in post-stroke populations with the insidious, progressive anomia characteristic of Semantic Variant Primary Progressive Aphasia (svPPA). Lambon Ralph’s work using the "Hub-and-Spoke" model of semantic representation provides empirical evidence that post-stroke anomic patients typically experience a retrieval "access" deficit from peripheral computational spokes or white matter connections, whereas svPPA patients experience degradation of the central transmodal semantic "hub" situated in the bilateral anterior temporal lobes. This explains why stroke patients benefit dramatically from phonemic prompts, whereas patients with semantic degeneration do not.<\/p>\n Recent neurorehabilitation studies have pioneered the integration of behavioral speech therapy with non-invasive brain stimulation, specifically transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Clinical trials conducted by researchers such as Julius Fridriksson have demonstrated that applying anodal tDCS to intact regions of the left hemisphere language network during concurrent naming therapy leads to statistically significant, long-term enhancements in naming accuracy compared to behavioral therapy alone. These findings highlight that lexical retrieval relies on distributed, plastic networks that can be systematically modulated through neurostimulation.<\/p>\n The manifestation, assessment, and social impact of anomic aphasia vary across different languages and cultural landscapes. Cross-linguistic aphasiology shows that the structural properties of an individual’s native language dictate the specific behavioral signature of naming breakdown.<\/p>\n In agglutinative and morphologically rich languages\u2014such as Turkish, Finnish, Hungarian, or Arabic\u2014words are frequently built by attaching multiple prefixes, suffixes, and inflections to a central root. Anomic individuals speaking these languages may successfully access the complex grammatical affixes while missing only the central lexical root, or conversely, produce the semantic root while failing to attach the correct bound morphemes. In tonal languages, such as Mandarin Chinese or Vietnamese, a failure in phonological lexeme retrieval can uniquely isolate the lexical tone from the segmental vowel and consonant phonemes, resulting in situations where a patient knows the correct syllable segment but cannot retrieve the lexical pitch contour, or vice versa.<\/p>\n Furthermore, standard confrontational naming tools like the Boston Naming Test are notoriously vulnerable to cultural and socioeconomic bias when translated directly without rigorous normative standardization. Items that are universally familiar in North American urban environments (such as an "iguana," "pretzel," or "beaver") may be obscure to individuals from rural sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, or indigenous communities, causing clinicians to misdiagnose culturally unfamiliar items as pathological anomia. Cross-cultural adaptations of naming instruments require careful selection of concepts that reflect equivalent lexical frequency, imageability, and cultural salience within the specific target population.<\/p>\n Cultural attitudes toward aging, communicative pauses, and communicative efficiency also shape the perceived disability of anomic aphasia. In societies that place high value on conversational speed, assertiveness, and uninterrupted speech, anomic pauses are often perceived as severe cognitive decay. Conversely, in cultures that prioritize conversational deference, reflection, and comfortable silence, anomic latencies are accommodated more gracefully by conversational partners, mitigating the psychological burden on the speaker.<\/p>\n Despite its long-standing presence in diagnostic classifications, the clinical status of anomic aphasia remains a subject of debate among aphasiologists, neurolinguists, and cognitive neuropsychologists.<\/p>\n A primary theoretical critique targets the nosological validity of anomic aphasia as an autonomous clinical entity. Critics point out that anomia is the single universal symptom shared across every<\/em> type of aphasia. A patient with Broca’s aphasia has anomia; a patient with Wernicke’s aphasia has anomia; a patient with conduction aphasia has anomia. Consequently, many aphasiologists argue that anomic aphasia is essentially an exclusionary, "wastebasket" diagnosis applied to any patient whose deficits have resolved to the point where only the universal baseline symptom of lexical retrieval failure remains. The categorization may describe a functional plateau rather than a distinct neuroanatomic or psycholinguistic syndrome.<\/p>\n A second ongoing debate centers on the exact cognitive architecture of anomic errors. Proponents of single-stage connectionist models challenge the traditional multi-stage feedforward models (such as Levelt’s modular conceptual-lemma-lexeme architecture). They argue that attempting to neatly divide anomia into "semantic access anomia" versus "phonological output anomia" creates an artificial dichotomy that fails to reflect the continuous, bidirectional feedback occurring throughout the brain’s cortical language hubs during natural conversational discourse.<\/p>\n Finally, there is substantial debate regarding ecological validity in diagnostic testing. Standardized confrontational naming tests present isolated static pictures on cards, forcing the patient to produce a single predetermined noun. Critics emphasize that this artificial exercise bears little resemblance to spontaneous, real-world human discourse, where words are retrieved within dynamic narrative frameworks, enriched by emotional context, syntactic momentum, visual pragmatics, and gestural communication. Relying solely on isolated confrontational naming tests risks overestimating functional impairment in patients who navigate real-world discourse via rich circumlocution, or underestimating impairment in patients who perform adequately on simple naming tests but struggle during complex multi-speaker workplace meetings.<\/p>\n Understanding anomic aphasia requires establishing precise clinical boundaries between it and other related communicative, linguistic, and cognitive conditions:<\/p>\n Anomic aphasia is a selective, fluent acquired language disorder characterized primarily by a persistent inability to retrieve target words, particularly nouns and verbs, despite preserved conceptual understanding, intact auditory comprehension, normal repetition, and fluent, grammatical speech output. Rooted etymologically in the Greek terms for "without names" and "speechlessness," the condition reflects an interruption at the interface between abstract semantic concepts and their corresponding phonological word-forms within the brain’s distributed lexical retrieval network.<\/p>\n Patients with anomic aphasia manage their lexical retrieval blocks through functional strategies such as circumlocution and the use of generic placeholder words. The condition commonly presents as the chronic residual stage following recovery from more severe initial aphasias or as a consequence of focal lesions within the dominant left hemisphere, including the middle temporal gyrus, inferior temporal cortex, and angular gyrus. Diagnosis relies on psychometric tools like the Boston Naming Test and the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised, alongside conversational discourse analysis, which collectively highlight strong responses to phonemic cueing.<\/p>\n Rehabilitation combines restorative speech therapies, such as Semantic Feature Analysis and Phonological Components Analysis, with non-invasive neuromodulation techniques and compensatory strategies designed to preserve functional social communication. Ultimately, anomic aphasia demonstrates that human language is organized into distinct, modular cognitive processes, proving that thinking of a concept and pronouncing its name are fundamentally separate operations in the human brain.<\/p>\n Anomic aphasia is a selective, fluent language disorder marked by word retrieval failure, circumlocution, and intact comprehension and grammatical production.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"template":"","categories":[294,1181,4787],"tags":[10644,32780,29820,6238,5656,899,34433],"class_list":["post-11650","psych_term","type-psych_term","status-publish","hentry","category-cognitive-neuroscience","category-neuropsychology","category-speech-language-pathology","tag-anomia","tag-anomic-aphasia","tag-aphasia-syndromes","tag-neurolinguistics","tag-speech-therapy","tag-stroke-rehabilitation","tag-word-retrieval"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/psych_term\/11650","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/psych_term"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/psych_term"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/psych_term\/11650\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11650"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11650"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ashadocs.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11650"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}2. Etymology & Linguistic Origin<\/h3>\n
3. Pronunciation & Grammatical Form<\/h3>\n
\n
4. Detailed Conceptual Explanation<\/h3>\n
5. Historical Development<\/h3>\n
6. Theoretical Foundations<\/h3>\n
\n
7. Key Components, Types & Dimensions<\/h3>\n
\n
8. Examples & Illustrative Cases<\/h3>\n
\n
Patient:<\/em> "Well, I get out of… you know, the soft thing where you sleep… the bed. Yes, the bed. Then I go into the, uh, where you wash. The room with the water and the mirror. Bathroom! I turn on the… the turners… the handles with the hot and cold water. I pick up that white handle with the bristles, the… oh, I know what it is! You put the paste on it, the minty stuff, and you scrub your mouth. A toothbrush! Yes, that’s it, a toothbrush. It takes me forever to find the words, but they are all up there somewhere."<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n9. Measurement & Assessment<\/h3>\n
\n
10. Applications & Practical Significance<\/h3>\n
\n
11. Research & Empirical Evidence<\/h3>\n
12. Cultural & Cross-Cultural Considerations<\/h3>\n
13. Criticisms, Debates & Limitations<\/h3>\n
14. Related Terms & Distinctions<\/h3>\n
\n
15. Summary \/ Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n
References<\/h2>\n
\n