Dataset Information

Two types of phonological reading impairment in stroke aphasia.

ABSTRACT: Alexia is common in the context of aphasia. It is widely agreed that damage to phonological and semantic systems not specific to reading causes co-morbid alexia and aphasia. Studies of alexia to date have only examined phonology and semantics as singular processes or axes of impairment, typically in the context of stereotyped alexia syndromes. However, phonology, in particular, is known to rely on subprocesses, including sensory-phonological processing, motor-phonological processing, and sensory-motor integration. Moreover, many people with stroke aphasia demonstrate mild or mixed patterns of reading impairment that do not fit neatly with one syndrome. This cross-sectional study tested whether the hallmark symptom of phonological reading impairment, the lexicality effect, emerges from damage to a specific subprocess of phonology in stroke patients not selected for alexia syndromes. Participants were 30 subjects with left-hemispheric stroke and 37 age- and education-matched controls. A logistic mixed-effects model tested whether post-stroke impairments in sensory phonology, motor phonology, or sensory-motor integration modulated the effect of item lexicality on patient accuracy in reading aloud. Support vector regression voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping localized brain regions necessary for reading and non-orthographic phonological processing. Additionally, a novel support vector regression structural connectome-symptom mapping method identified the contribution of both lesioned and spared but disconnected, brain regions to reading accuracy and non-orthographic phonological processing. Specifically, we derived whole-brain structural connectomes using constrained spherical deconvolution-based probabilistic tractography and identified lesioned connections based on comparisons between patients and controls. Logistic mixed-effects regression revealed that only greater motor-phonological impairment related to lower accuracy reading aloud pseudowords versus words. Impaired sensory-motor integration was related to lower overall accuracy in reading aloud. No relationship was identified between sensory-phonological impairment and reading accuracy. Voxel-based and structural connectome lesion-symptom mapping revealed that lesioned and disconnected left ventral precentral gyrus related to both greater motor-phonological impairment and lower sublexical reading accuracy. In contrast, lesioned and disconnected left temporoparietal cortex is related to both impaired sensory-motor integration and reduced overall reading accuracy. These results clarify that at least two dissociable phonological processes contribute to the pattern of reading impairment in aphasia. First, impaired sensory-motor integration, caused by lesions disrupting the left temporoparietal cortex and its structural connections, non-selectively reduces accuracy in reading aloud. Second, impaired motor-phonological processing, caused at least partially by lesions disrupting left ventral premotor cortex and structural connections, selectively reduces sublexical reading accuracy. These results motivate a revised cognitive model of reading aloud that incorporates a sensory-motor phonological circuit.

SUBMITTER: Dickens JV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8432944 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Attempts to personalize aphasia treatment to the extent where it is possible to reliably predict individual response to a particular treatment have yielded inconclusive results. The current study aimed to (i) compare the effects of phonologically versus semantically focussed naming treatment and (ii) examine biographical and neuropsychological baseline factors predictive of response to each treatment. One hundred and four individuals with chronic post-stroke aphasia underwent 3 weeks of phonologically focussed treatment and 3 weeks of semantically focussed treatment in an unblinded cross-over design. A linear mixed-effects model was used to compare the effects of treatment type on proportional change in correct naming across groups. Correlational analysis and stepwise regression models were used to examine biographical and neuropsychological predictors of response to phonological and semantic treatment across all participants. Last, chi-square tests were used to explore the association between treatment response and phonological and semantic deficit profiles. Semantically focussed treatment was found to be more effective at the group-level, independently of treatment order (P = 0.041). Overall, milder speech and language impairment predicted good response to semantic treatment (r range: 0.256-0.373) across neuropsychological tasks. The Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Spontaneous Speech score emerged as the strongest predictor of semantic treatment response (R 2 = 0.188). Severity of stroke symptoms emerged as the strongest predictor of phonological treatment response (R 2 = 0.103). Participants who showed a good response to semantic treatment were more likely to present with fluent speech compared to poor responders (P = 0.005), whereas participants who showed a good response to phonological treatment were more likely to present with apraxia of speech (P = 0.020). These results suggest that semantic treatment may be more beneficial to the improvement of naming performance in aphasia than phonological treatment, at the group-level. In terms of personalized predictors, participants with relatively mild impairments and fluent speech responded better to semantic treatment, while phonological treatment benefitted participants with more severe impairments and apraxia of speech.

Project description:Background: Non-linguistic cognitive training has been suggested to improve the communication skills of patients with post-stroke aphasia (PSA). However, the association between language and non-linguistic cognitive functions is not fully understood. In this study, we used the Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment (LOTCA) to evaluate the characteristics of non-linguistic cognitive impairments in Chinese PSA patients. Methods: A total of 86 stroke patients were recruited in this study. Language and non-linguistic cognitive impairments were evaluated by the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) and LOTCA, respectively. The patients were divided into two groups (PSA and non-PSA), and the Chinese norm (the data came from 44 Chinese individuals without neurological disorders in a previous study) was used as the control group. The LOTCA scores were compared among the three groups. Patients in the PSA group were subdivided into the fluent aphasia group (FAG) and the non-FAG according to the Chinese aphasia fluency characteristic scale. The LOTCA scores were also compared between the PSA subdivisions. Potential confounders were adjusted in the analysis of covariance. Partial correlation analysis between the subscores of WAB and LOTCA was also performed. Results: The total LOTCA scores in the PSA group (75.11 ± 17.08) were significantly lower compared with scores in the non-PSA (96.80 ± 7.75, P < 0.001) and the control group (97.65 ± 16.24, P < 0.001). The PSA group also had lower orientation, visual perception (VP), spatial perception (SP), visuomotor organization, thinking operation, and attention scores. The total LOTCA, orientation, VP, SP, and MP scores were lower in the non-FAG (69.24 ± 18.06, 8.62 ± 5.09, 12.76 ± 2.47, 7.48 ± 3.01, and 9.62 ± 2.25, respectively) compared with the FAG (80.36 ± 14.07, 12.14 ± 3.99, 14.09 ± 1.93, 9.68 ± 3.01, 10.55 ± 1.63, respectively, P's < 0.05). The aphasia quotient was positively correlated with the total score of LOTCA and scores of orientation, VP, SP, and MP (r = 0.710, 0.744, 0.565, 0.597, and 0.616; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Compared with stroke patients without aphasia, patients with PSA often have more extensive and serious non-linguistic cognitive impairments. Patients with non-fluent aphasia often present with serious cognitive impairments than those with fluent aphasia, especially the impairments of orientation and SP. Non-linguistic cognitive impairments correlate with language impairments in aphasia.

Project description:Purpose:The purpose of this study was to describe the linguistic environment of phonological paraphasias in 3 variants of primary progressive aphasia (semantic, logopenic, and nonfluent) and to describe the profiles of paraphasia production for each of these variants. Method:Discourse samples of 26 individuals diagnosed with primary progressive aphasia were investigated for phonological paraphasias using the criteria established for the Philadelphia Naming Test (Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, 2013). Phonological paraphasias were coded for paraphasia type, part of speech of the target word, target word frequency, type of segment in error, word position of consonant errors, type of error, and degree of change in consonant errors. Results:Eighteen individuals across the 3 variants produced phonological paraphasias. Most paraphasias were nonword, followed by formal, and then mixed, with errors primarily occurring on nouns and verbs, with relatively few on function words. Most errors were substitutions, followed by addition and deletion errors, and few sequencing errors. Errors were evenly distributed across vowels, consonant singletons, and clusters, with more errors occurring in initial and medial positions of words than in the final position of words. Most consonant errors consisted of only a single-feature change, with few 2- or 3-feature changes. Importantly, paraphasia productions by variant differed from these aggregate results, with unique production patterns for each variant. Conclusions:These results suggest that a system where paraphasias are coded as present versus absent may be insufficient to adequately distinguish between the 3 subtypes of PPA. The 3 variants demonstrate patterns that may be used to improve phenotyping and diagnostic sensitivity. These results should be integrated with recent findings on phonological processing and speech rate. Future research should attempt to replicate these results in a larger sample of participants with longer speech samples and varied elicitation tasks. Supplemental Materials:https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.5558107.

Project description:Lexical retrieval and reading aloud are often viewed as two separate processes. However, they are not completely separate-they share components. This study assessed the effect of an impairment in a shared component, the phonological output lexicon, on lexical retrieval and on reading aloud. Because the phonological output lexicon is part of the lexical route for reading, individuals with an impairment in this lexicon may be forced to read aloud via the sublexical route and therefore show a reading pattern that is typical of surface dyslexia. To examine the effect of phonological output lexicon deficit on reading, we tested the reading of 16 Hebrew-speaking individuals with phonological output lexicon anomia, eight with acquired anomia following brain damage and eight with developmental anomia. We established that they had a phonological output lexicon deficit according to the types of errors and the effects on their naming in a picture naming task, and excluded other deficit loci in the lexical retrieval process according to a line of tests assessing their picture and word comprehension, word and non-word repetition, and phonological working memory. After we have established that the participants have a phonological output lexicon deficit, we tested their reading. To assess their reading and type of reading impairment, we tested their reading aloud, lexical decision, and written word comprehension. We found that all of the participants with phonological output lexicon impairment showed, in addition to anomia, also the typical surface dyslexia errors in reading aloud of irregular words, words with ambiguous conversion to phonemes, and potentiophones (words like "now" that, when read via the sublexical route, can be sounded out as another word, "know"). Importantly, the participants performed normally on pseudohomophone lexical decision and on homophone/potentiophone reading comprehension, indicating spared orthographic input lexicon and spared access to it and from it to lexical semantics. This pattern was shown both by the adults with acquired anomia and by the participants with developmental anomia. These results thus suggest a principled relation between anomia and dyslexia, and point to a distinct type of surface dyslexia. They further show the possibility of good comprehension of written words when the phonological output stages are impaired.

Project description:Objective: Aphasia and apraxia of speech (AOS) after stroke frequently co-occur with a hand motor impairment but few studies have investigated stroke recovery across motor and speech-language domains. In this study, we set out to test the shared recovery hypothesis. We aimed to (1) describe the prevalence of AOS and aphasia in subacute stroke patients with a hand motor impairment and (2) to compare recovery across speech-language and hand motor domains. In addition, we also explored factors predicting recovery from AOS. Methods: Seventy participants with mild to severe paresis in the upper extremity were assessed; 50% of these (n = 35) had left hemisphere (LH) lesions. Aphasia, AOS and hand motor assessments and magnetic resonance imaging were conducted at 4 weeks (A1) and at 6 months (A2) after stroke onset. Recovery was characterized in 15 participants showing initial aphasia that also had complete follow-up data at 6 months. Results: All participants with AOS and/or aphasia had LH lesions. In LH lesioned, the prevalence of aphasia was 71% and of AOS 57%. All participants with AOS had aphasia; 80% of the participants with aphasia also had AOS. Recovery in aphasia (n = 15) and AOS (n = 12) followed a parallel pattern to that observed in hand motor impairment and recovery correlated positively across speech-language and motor domains. The majority of participants with severe initial aphasia and AOS showed a limited but similar amount of recovery across domains. Lesion volume did not correlate with results from behavioral assessments, nor with recovery. The initial aphasia score was the strongest predictor of AOS recovery. Conclusion: Our findings confirm the common occurrence of AOS and aphasia in left hemisphere stroke patients with a hand motor impairment. Recovery was similar across speech-language and motor domains, even in patients with severe impairment, supporting the shared recovery hypothesis and that similar brain recovery mechanisms are involved in speech-language and motor recovery post stroke. These observations contribute to the knowledge of AOS and its relation to motor and language functions and add information that may serve as a basis for future studies of post stroke recovery. Studies including neuroimaging and/or biological assays are required to gain further knowledge on shared brain recovery mechanisms.

Dataset Information

Two types of phonological reading impairment in stroke aphasia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets