Affiliation:
1. University of South Carolina
2. Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Carolina
3. ISpeech and Hearing Sciences Department and Program in Neuroscience Faculty, Indiana University Bloomington
4. Department of Cognitive Sciences, Department of Language Sciences, University of California, Irvine
Abstract
The fundamental distinction of grammatical deficits in aphasia, agrammatism and paragrammatism, was made over a century ago. However, the extent to which the agrammatism/paragrammatism distinction exists independently of differences in speech fluency has not clearly been investigated. Despite much research on agrammatism, the lesion correlates of paragrammatism are essentially unknown. Lesion-symptom mapping was used to investigate the degree to which the lesion correlates of agrammatism and paragrammatism overlap or dissociate. Four expert raters assessed videos of 53 right-handed patients with aphasia following chronic left-hemisphere stroke retelling the Cinderella story. Consensus discussion determined each subject’s classification with respect to grammatical deficits as Agrammatic, Paragrammatic, Both, or No Grammatical Deficit. Each subject’s lesion was manually drawn on a high-resolution MRI and warped to standard space for group analyses. Lesion-symptom mapping analyses were performed in NiiStat including lesion volume as a covariate. Secondary analyses included speech rate (words per minute) as an additional covariate. Region of interest analyses identified a double dissociation between these syndromes: damage to Broca’s area was significantly associated with agrammatism, p = 0.001 (but not paragrammatism, p = 0.930), while damage to the left posterior superior and middle temporal gyri was significantly associated with paragrammatism, p < 0.001 (but not agrammatism, p = 0.873). The same results obtained when regressing out the effect of speech rate, and nonoverlapping lesion distributions between the syndromes were confirmed by uncorrected whole brain analyses. Our results support a fundamental distinction between agrammatism and paragrammatism.
Funder
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
Cited by
44 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献