Dataset Information

Differences in linguistic cohesion within the first year following right and left hemisphere lesions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Characterizing productive language deficits following lesions to the right (RH) or left hemispheres (LH) is valuable in identifying appropriate therapeutic goals. While damage to the LH classically is associated with deficits in language, RH lesions also result in changed communication beyond prosody due to cognitive-linguistic effects. Cohesion, reference to introduced content across sentences within discourse, relies on a listener's clear and unambiguous understanding that a reference has occurred. To date, we are not aware of any prior work that has compared patterns of cohesive strategy between RH and LH lesioned individuals with cohesion deficits.

Aims

The purpose of the present study is to determine whether individuals with communication deficits following RH and LH lesions differ in the inclusion and clarity of cohesive markers.

Methods & procedures

Seventy-six RH samples and 145 LH samples were used for comparison of cohesion performance in a Cookie Theft picture description task. Cohesive ties were assessed following the protocol outlined in Liles and Coelho (1998). It was hypothesized that individuals with LH lesions would present a different pattern of cohesion behaviour than RH lesioned individuals when considered both acutely and chronically.

Outcomes & results

Overall, samples from LH and RH groups did not differ in word counts or cohesive marker usage. However, the patterns of markers they chose to employ were different. LH samples used conjunctions and personal pronouns more frequently and used lexical cohesive markers less frequently than RH samples. Acutely, patterns of cohesive marker use between LH and RH samples were more similar. Chronically, LH samples contained more personal pronouns and the differences in lexical cohesive markers remained unchanged. When cohesion was unsuccessful, LH and RH damage were associated with different patterns of error. LH samples tended to omit information needed to clarify the intended referent, resulting in incomplete cohesion errors. RH samples tended to sustain breakdowns in cohesion from sentence to sentence, not resolving incorrectly chosen pronouns or ambiguities left in their samples.

Conclusions

LH and RH lesions resulted in differing patterns of chosen cohesive markers and errors when cohesion was unsuccessful. This was particularly true in lexical cohesion, which has been far less studied than closed-class cohesive markers like referential pronouns. It was also noted that cohesive behavior did not appear to "recover" for either group, suggesting spontaneous recovery is minimal and present strategies for language therapy may not effectively address this linguistic function.

SUBMITTER: Stockbridge MD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7953865 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The neural mechanisms underlying recovery of language after left hemisphere stroke remain elusive. Although older evidence suggested that right hemisphere language homologues compensate for damage in left hemisphere language areas, the current prevailing theory suggests that right hemisphere engagement is ineffective or even maladaptive. Using a novel combination of support vector regression-based lesion-symptom mapping and voxel-based morphometry, we aimed to determine whether local grey matter volume in the right hemisphere independently contributes to aphasia outcomes after chronic left hemisphere stroke. Thirty-two left hemisphere stroke survivors with aphasia underwent language assessment with the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised and tests of other cognitive domains. High-resolution T1-weighted images were obtained in aphasia patients and 30 demographically matched healthy controls. Support vector regression-based multivariate lesion-symptom mapping was used to identify critical language areas in the left hemisphere and then to quantify each stroke survivor's lesion burden in these areas. After controlling for these direct effects of the stroke on language, voxel-based morphometry was then used to determine whether local grey matter volumes in the right hemisphere explained additional variance in language outcomes. In brain areas in which grey matter volumes related to language outcomes, we then compared grey matter volumes in patients and healthy controls to assess post-stroke plasticity. Lesion-symptom mapping showed that specific left hemisphere regions related to different language abilities. After controlling for lesion burden in these areas, lesion size, and demographic factors, grey matter volumes in parts of the right temporoparietal cortex positively related to spontaneous speech, naming, and repetition scores. Examining whether domain general cognitive functions might explain these relationships, partial correlations demonstrated that grey matter volumes in these clusters related to verbal working memory capacity, but not other cognitive functions. Further, grey matter volumes in these areas were greater in stroke survivors than healthy control subjects. To confirm this result, 10 chronic left hemisphere stroke survivors with no history of aphasia were identified. Grey matter volumes in right temporoparietal clusters were greater in stroke survivors with aphasia compared to those without history of aphasia. These findings suggest that the grey matter structure of right hemisphere posterior dorsal stream language homologues independently contributes to language production abilities in chronic left hemisphere stroke, and that these areas may undergo hypertrophy after a stroke causing aphasia.

Project description:The relative contributions of the left and right hemispheres to the processing of metaphoric language remains unresolved. Neuropsychological studies of brain-injured patients have motivated the hypothesis that the right hemisphere plays a critical role in understanding metaphors. However, the data are inconsistent and the hypothesis is not well-supported by neuroimaging research. To address this ambiguity about the right hemisphere's role, we administered a metaphor sentence comprehension task to 20 left-hemisphere injured patients, 20 right hemisphere injured patients, and 20 healthy controls. Stimuli consisted of metaphors of three different types: predicate metaphors based on action verbs, nominal metaphors based on event nouns, and nominal metaphors based on entity nouns. For each metaphor (n = 60), a closely matched literal sentence with the same source term was also generated. Each sentence was followed by four adjective-noun answer choices (target + three foil types) and participants were instructed to select the phrase that best matched the meaning of the sentence. As a group, both left and right hemisphere patients performed worse on metaphoric than literal sentences, and the degree of this difficulty varied for the different types of metaphor - but there was no difference between the two patient groups. Tests for literal-metaphor dissociations at the level of single cases revealed two types of impairments: general comprehension deficits affecting metaphors and literal sentences equally, and selective metaphor impairments that were specific to different types of metaphor. All cases with selective metaphor deficits had injury to the left hemisphere, and no known comprehension difficulties with literal language. Our results argue against the hypothesis of a specific or necessary contribution of the right hemisphere for understanding metaphoric language. Further, they reveal deficits in metaphoric language comprehension not captured by traditional language assessments, suggesting overlooked communication difficulties in left hemisphere patients.