-
impulsive responses are common for damage in which area of the brain
wernikie's area, right hemisphere
-
effects of brain damage: (8)
apdciddo
- 1. altered responsiveness
- 2. persevertation (stuck on something)
- 3. diminished response flexibility
- 4. concreteness and difficulty with abstract concepts
- 5. impaire self-monitoring
- 6. difficulty focusing and sustaining attention
- 7. disturbances of personality and emotion
- 8. other information processing deficits
-
what did aphasia definition used to be?
used to describe any language problem
-
to be considered aphasic...
damage needs to be in left hemisphere and/or affect language
-
aphasia is considered what kind of disorder?
central
-
central disorder (aphasia) means:
the language disorder was central to the language modalities
-
expressive language modalities
speech, writing, gestural
-
receptive language modalities
visual/reading, auditory, tactile
-
who created first aphasia test, wrote books, created graph of aphasia impairment curve
Schuell
-
how is aphasia described in relation to the modalities affected
deep central disorder
-
shallow centrality of modalities
receptive or expressive modalities affected
-
deep centrality of modalities
all modalities affected
-
2 kinds of anomia
omission and commission
-
three different kinds of paraphasias
- phonemic
- verbal
- neologistic
-
phonemic paraphasias
substitutions, addition, or rearrangement of speech sounds so that the error sounds similar to the target (pike for pipe)
-
two types of verbal paraphasias
semantic and unrelated
-
semantic verbal paraphasia
- error bears semantic relationship to the target
- ex: wife for husband
-
unrelated verbal paraphasia
- error bears no semantic relationship to the target
- ex: chair for scissors
-
verbal paraphasia
a pathological breakdown in the semantic boundaries between words that are related
-
neologistic paraphasia
- fluently spoken paraphasia, bear no relationship to the patient's native language, usually dont t recognize their error
- ex: planker for comb
-
agrammatisms are associated with fluent or non fluent patients?
non-fluent
-
agrammatisms
- word retrieval difficulties
- disorders of syntax/grammar
-
in agrammatisms, which words of the sentence are ommitted
functors (words that dont carry meaning), content words are kept
-
degree of agrammatism, the number of words omitted in an utterance, depends on:
the severity of the patient
-
pseudoagrammatism
ex...
one word phrases that sum up a response
ex: answer with "stroke" instead of "I had a stroke"
-
telegraphic speech
ex:
- basic parts of a sentence may be uttered in a simple utterance
- ex: go target buy candy
-
telegraphic speech vs pseudoagrammatism
telegraphic speech is less severe
-
verbal stereotypic speech
ex:
involuntary, repeated utterance that may make up the patient's entire vocab
ex: "I know:...
-
auditory comprehension and reading comprehension processes are more/less impaired than expressive modalities
less impaired
-
5 factors that can affect comprehension:
- 1. length of stimulus
- 2. semantic and syntactic complexity of stimulus
- 3. rate and pausing
- 4. plausibility
- 5. negation
-
length of stimuli affect on comprehention
- shorter stimuli: can be easier
- longer stimuli: more descriptive, context of many words vs 1 word
- too long: cause neurological break down, more memory load, processing time is slower--the processing is hindered if too long
-
affect of Semantic and syntactic complexity of stimulus on comprehension
- the less complex--easier to understand--more syntactic.
- semantic complexity differs in words (toothbrush has more word frequency than asparagus)
-
affect of rate and pausing on comprehension
patient must have time to process what they read and hear: add pauses and slow down your speech when talk to them
-
affect of plausibility on comprehension
if what is read/heard is more plausible (more likely to happen) they have easier time understanding
-
affect of negation on comprehension
patient can understand positive statements better than negative (dont use: not, on, don't, 'n't)
-
how and why is aphasics classified?
- classified into syndromes.
- is helpful in professional communication: there are fixed patterns of linguistic behaviors
-
what is the problem with classifying aphasic patients?
classifying into syndromes makes the assumption that everyone in that group has similar symptoms with similar patterns and ignore important individual differences
-
3 different classification systems for aphasia
- 1. fluent vs nonfluent
- 2. anterior vs posterior
- 3. Boston system
-
anterior vs posterior classification system for aphasia
location of lesion relative to the rolandic fissure (central sulcus)
-
boston system of aphasia
related to syndromes
-
nonfluent aphasic syndromes (3)
broca's, global, transcortical motor
-
fluent aphasic syndromes
wernicke's, conduction, anomic, transcortical sensory
-
4 classification factors of Boston system:
- 1. naming (have naming problem)
- 2. fluency
- 3. auditory comprehension (good/bad)
- 4. repetition (good/bad)
-
what percentage of aphasic patients are classifiable?
95-97%
-
based on boston system, symptoms of wernicke's aphasia
naming problem, fluent, poor comprehension, poor repetition
-
based on boston system, symptoms of transcortical sensory aphasia
naming problem, fluent, poor comprehension, good repetition
-
based on boston system, symptoms of conduction aphasia
naming problem, fluent, good auditory comprehension, poor repetition
-
based on Boston system, symptoms of anomic aphasia:
naming problem, fluent, good auditory comprehension, good repetition
-
based on Boston system, symptoms on transcortical motor aphasia
naming problem, non-fluent, good auditory comprehension, good repetition
-
based on Boston system, symptoms of broca's aphasia
naming problem, non-fluent, good auditory comprehension, poor repetition
-
based on boston system, symptoms of global aphasia
naming problem, non-fluent, poor auditory comprehension
-
area of the brain affected with Broca's aphasia
extend little posterior of the central sulcus and quite aways down
-
area of the brain affect with conduction aphasia
lesion along the communication pathway from the temporal lobe to the frontal lobe
-
language symptoms of conduction aphasia
they can say words, but cannot repeat them
-
language symptoms of transcortical sensory aphasia
can repeat, but do not comprehend well
-
language symptoms of transcortical motor aphasia
their repetition is better than fluency
-
most common type of aphasia
brocca's (25% of patients)
|
|
