Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Verbal Fluency in Aphasia and Right-Hemisphere Damage: Qualitative Analysis Yields Relationship to General Cognitive Factors. Mayer, J. F., Murray, L. L., Ikatu, T., kean, J. A., & Rey, O. Adult Language and Cognition Lab Indiana University. Introduction.
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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Mayer, J. F., Murray, L. L., Ikatu, T.,
kean, J. A., & Rey, O.
Adult Language and Cognition Lab
It is well known that many adults with aphasia demonstrate concomitant, nonlinguistic cognitive deficits. This has led to resource or processing models of aphasia, by which language-specific deficits are generated or exacerbated by domain-general cognitive impairments (e.g., McNeil et al., 1991; Murray et al., 1997).
Despite increasing clinical and empirical attention to general cognitive factors of aphasia, the nature of these deficits and their interaction with language skills remains elusive.
Why a Dual-task Paradigm?
Why Verbal Fluency?
Delineate more finely a resource model of aphasia by using a dual task paradigm to examine both quantitative and qualitative verbal fluency performance by adults with aphasia (LBD), compared to non-brain damaged (NBD) and right-hemisphere brain damaged (RBD) adults.
Verbal fluency task completed under five attention conditions:
Significant main effects of: Group (p = .00), Condition (p = .002).
Significant interaction: Condition x Group (p = .048).
Post-hoc testing (Tukey HSD),
NBD << LBD = RBD
Significant main effects of: Group (p = .00) , Condition (p = .00), Epoch (p = .00), Condition x Group (p = .04), Group x Epoch (p = .01).
LBD: Most typical, and with the least variation across time & condition.
Coney, J. (2005). Word frequency and lateralization of lexical processes. Neuropsychologia, 43, 142-148.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2000). Working memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: Limits on long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 336-358.
Mcneil, M. R., Odell, K., & Tseng, C. H. (1991). Toward the integration of resource allocation into a general theory of aphasia. Clinical Aphasiology, 20, 21-39.
Murray, L. L., Holland, A. L., & Beeson, P. M. (1994). Audiotry processing in individuals with mild aphasia: A study of resource allocation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 792-808.
Rosen, V. M., & Engle, R. W. (1997). The role of working memory capacity in retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 211-227.
Sailor, K., Antoine, M., Diaz, M., Kuslansky, G., & Kluger, G. (2004). The effects of Alzheimer’s Disease on item output in verbal fluency tasks. Neuropsychology, 18, 306-314.
Sarno, M. T., Postman, W. A., Cho, Y. S., & Norman, R. G. (2005). Evolution of phonemic word fluency performance in post-stroke aphasia. Journal of Communication Disorders, 38, 83-107.
Schwartz, S., & Baldo, J. (2001). Distinct patterns of word retrieval in right and left frontal lobe patients: A multidimensional perspective. Neuropsychologia, 39, 1209-1217.