1 / 36

Language and Cognition Colombo 2011

Language and Cognition Colombo 2011. Psycholinguistic Assessments of Language Processing in Aphasia - Writing With acknowledgement to Jane Marshall. Aims. Familiarise students with writing routes Introduce patterns of writing impairment

ernst
Download Presentation

Language and Cognition Colombo 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Language and CognitionColombo 2011 Psycholinguistic Assessments of Language Processing in Aphasia - Writing With acknowledgement to Jane Marshall

  2. Aims • Familiarise students with writing routes • Introduce patterns of writing impairment • Familiarise students with methods for assessing writing • Introduce principles of therapy and therapy approaches

  3. 3 Spelling routes • Phoneme to Grapheme conversion • Non-lexical route • Lexical route • Reliance of PGC so regular>irregular spelling • Non-semantic/direct lexical route • Accesses a whole word spelling in the orthographic output lexicon from the POL • Semantic lexical route • Entry in the OOL is accessed from semantics

  4. Phoneme to Grapheme Conversion (non lexical) Speech Pictures/Objects Writing Auditory Analysis Picture Analysis Visual Analysis Picture Recognition VIL AIL GPC Semantics POL OOL Buffer Buffer PGC Speech Writing

  5. Phoneme to Grapheme Conversion (lexical) Speech Pictures/Objects Writing Auditory Analysis Picture Analysis Visual Analysis Picture Recognition VIL AIL GPC Semantics POL OOL Buffer Buffer PGC Speech Writing

  6. Non-semantic/direct lexical route Speech Pictures/Objects Writing Auditory Analysis Picture Analysis Visual Analysis Picture Recognition VIL AIL GPC Semantics POL OOL Buffer Buffer PGC Speech Writing

  7. Semantic lexical route Speech Pictures/Objects Writing Auditory Analysis Picture Analysis Visual Analysis Picture Recognition VIL AIL GPC Semantics POL OOL Buffer Buffer PGC Speech Writing

  8. An Impairment at the level of OOL Surface Dysgraphia

  9. Speech Pictures/Objects Writing Auditory Analysis Picture Analysis Visual Analysis Picture Recognition VIL AIL GPC Semantics POL OOL Buffer Buffer PGC Speech Writing

  10. RG (Beauvois and Derousne 1981) Spelling to dictation • Non words 100% • Regular words 93% • Irregular words 36% • High frequency 44% • Low frequency 19% Regularisation errors

  11. An Impairment in Phoneme to Grapheme Conversion Phonological Dysgraphia

  12. Speech Pictures/Objects Writing Auditory Analysis Picture Analysis Visual Analysis Picture Recognition VIL AIL GPC Semantics POL OOL Buffer Buffer PGC Speech Writing

  13. PR (Shallice 1981) Mild aphasia Good naming and comprehension Some phonological errors Writing real words to dictation: High frequency 100% Low frequency 92% No effect of regularity. Able to use POL-OOL or semantic route.

  14. PR: Repeating and Writing NONSENSE words

  15. Interim Conclusion • Very marked lexical effect in writing to dictation (Words > Non Words) • Lexical routes (via OOL) are intact • Non lexical route (via PGC) is impaired • Good repetition suggests PGC is site of difficulty

  16. Writing and defining abstract words Highlighted spelling via semantic route.

  17. Multiple Impairments? Deep Dysgraphia

  18. Deep Dysgraphia (Nolan and Caramazza 1982) • Poor non word spelling (PGC impairment) • Semantic errors in spelling • Content words>function words • Nouns>verbs • Imageability effect • Writing via an impaired semantic route

  19. Speech Pictures/Objects Writing Auditory Analysis Picture Analysis Visual Analysis Picture Recognition VIL AIL GPC Semantics POL OOL Buffer Buffer PGC Speech Writing

  20. An impairment in semantics and Phoneme to Grapheme Conversion i.e. Spelling via the non-semantic lexical route

  21. Non-semantic lexical route • People able to spell a word without understanding the meaning • AIL -> POL -> OOL

  22. Poor performance in Repetition Auditory comprehension (words and sentences) Reading aloud Spoken naming Written naming Good performance in: Minimal pairs Auditory lexical decision Some skills in writing to dictation GE (Patterson 1986)

  23. GE (Patterson 1986) Writing to Dictation: Non words 34% High imag words 57% Low imag words 54% Regular words 79% Irregular words 79% Therefore not spelling via GPC Therefore not spelling via semantics Therefore not spelling via GPC

  24. GE (Patterson 1986) GE can write words that he cannot understand: • Writing words to dictation >90% • Matching same spoken words to pictures 66%

  25. The Story • Central semantic impairment (poor comprehension and naming) • Impaired PGC (poor non word writing) • Writing uses POL to OOL

  26. Speech Pictures/Objects Writing Auditory Analysis Picture Analysis Visual Analysis Picture Recognition VIL AIL GPC Semantics POL OOL Buffer Buffer PGC Speech Writing

  27. Peripheral Dysgraphias Grapheme Level (Graphemic Buffer) Temporary Store Assigning letter shapes Allograph Level Graphic Motor Patterns Retrieving motor patterns Writing NB Can co-occur with central dysgraphias

  28. Buffer Deficits (eg Caramazza et al 1987) • Letter deletions, substitutions, additions, transpositions • No effect of frequency, lexical status, imageability or word class (although see Sage and Ellis 2004) • Powerful effect of length • May be position effects • Similar performance across different tasks • Interesting errors with double letters, eg sorella written as SORRELA (Italian for sister)

  29. Allograph Impairments • Oral spelling > written spelling • Keyboard > writing • Dissociations between upper and lower case are seen (eg Destreri et al 2000)

  30. Motor Impairment • Oral > written spelling • Key board > written spelling • Inability to write letter shapes (although may be able to describe them) • Probably no effects of case • Stroke errors, eg failure to dot i, cross t, additional strokes in letters • Errors are similar to those made by normal writers when carrying out dual motor task and deprived of visual feedback (Ellis et al 1987)

  31. Testing Writing • Ask about writing pre stroke – literacy levels? • Ask about writing since stroke • Start with familiar items (name, address) • Screening words (eg controlled for regularity, imageability, class, length) • Attempt different tasks (copying, naming, writing to dictation). Difference? • Attempt different modes of writing (pen, keyboard, anagram tiles)

  32. Semantic problem? Written naming with cues Correction of semantic errors Word to picture matching Categorisation ‘Semantic brainstorming’ Different Writing Approaches

  33. Impaired access to OOL? Naming with cues Anagram sorting Delayed copying Improving sound/letter correspondences, so person can self cue Different Writing Approaches

  34. Buffer impairment? Copying then delayed copying Segmentation of words Hierarchical naming tasks from short to long words Error detection/ correction strategies Different Writing Approaches

  35. Allographic/ Motor Impairment? Exploit alternative methods of writing (keyboard, oral spelling) Practice in tracing letter shapes Prosthesis to assist with motor aspects Different Writing Approaches

  36. Functional and Strategic Approaches • Writing may be an alternative method of communication (e.g. where speech is more impaired than writing, see Robson et al 2001) • Integrating impairment work with functional strategies • May be specific writing activities that the person wants to resume • Working on written messages (Robson et al 1998, 2001) • Using computers with spell checkers! (Mortley et al 2001)

More Related