Frontal and temporal language areas involved in syntactic processing are connected by several dorsal and ventral tracts, but the functional roles of the different tracts are not well understood. To identify which white matter tract(s) are important for syntactic processing, we examined the relationship between white matter damage and syntactic deficits in patients with primary progressive aphasia, using multimodal neuroimaging and neurolinguistic assessment. Diffusion tensor imaging showed that microstructural damage to left hemisphere dorsal tracts—the superior longitudinal fasciculus including its arcuate component—was strongly associated with deficits in comprehension and production of syntax. Damage to these dorsal tracts predicted syntactic deficits after gray matter atrophy was taken into account, and fMRI confirmed that these tracts connect regions modulated by syntactic processing. In contrast, damage to ventral tracts—the extreme capsule fiber system or the uncinate fasciculus—was not associated with syntactic deficits. Our findings show that syntactic processing depends primarily on dorsal language tracts.

To examine the validity of different theoretical assumptions about the neuropsychological mechanisms and lesion correlates of phonological dyslexia and dysgraphia, we studied written and spoken language performance in a large cohort of patients with focal damage to perisylvian cortical regions implicated in phonological processing. Despite considerable variation in accuracy for both words and non-words, the majority of participants demonstrated the increased lexicality effects in reading and spelling that are considered the hallmark features of phonological dyslexia and dysgraphia. Increased lexicality effects were also documented in spoken language tasks such as oral repetition, and patients performed poorly on a battery of phonological tests that did not involve an orthographic component. Furthermore, a composite measure of general phonological ability was strongly predictive of both reading and spelling accuracy, and we obtained evidence that the continuum of severity that characterized the written language disorder of our patients was attributable to an underlying continuum of phonological impairment. Although patients demonstrated qualitatively similar deficits across measures of written and spoken language processing, there were quantitative differences in levels of performance reflecting task difficulty effects. Spelling was more severely affected than reading by the reduction in phonological capacity and this differential vulnerability accounted for occasional disparities between patterns of impairment on the two written language tasks. Our findings suggest that phonological dyslexia and dysgraphia in patients with perisylvian lesions are manifestations of a central or modality-independent phonological deficit rather than the result of damage to cognitive components dedicated to reading or spelling. Our results also provide empirical support for shared-components models of written language processing, according to which the same central cognitive systems support both reading and spelling. Lesiondeficit correlations indicated that phonological dyslexia and dysgraphia may be produced by damage to a variety of perisylvian cortical regions, consistent with distributed network models of phonological processing.

Individuals with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) suffer a gradual decline in communication ability as a result of neurodegenerative disease. Language treatment shows promise as a means of addressing these difficulties but much remains to be learned with regard to the potential value of treatment across variants and stages of the disorder. We present two cases, one with semantic variant of PPA and the other with logopenic PPA, each of whom underwent treatment that was unique in its focus on training self-cueing strategies to engage residual language skills. Despite differing language profiles and levels of aphasia severity, each individual benefited from treatment and showed maintenance of gains as well as generalization to untrained lexical items. These cases highlight the potential for treatment to capitalize on spared cognitive and neural systems in individuals with PPA, improving current language function as well as potentially preserving targeted skills in the face of disease progression.

Purpose Damage to left perisylvian cortex often results in impaired phonological processing abilities with written language profiles consistent with phonological alexia and phonological agraphia. The purpose of this article was to examine a behavioral treatment sequence for such individuals intended to strengthen phonological processing and links between phonology and orthography, as well as train a means to maximize use of residual orthographic and phonological knowledge for spelling. Method Two women with persistent impairments of written language and phonological processing following damage to left perisylvian cortical regions participated in this study. Both exhibited characteristic features of phonological alexia and agraphia in that reading and spelling performance for real words was better preserved than nonwords (lexicality effect). A 2-stage treatment protocol was administered to strengthen sublexical skills (phonological treatment) and to train interactive use of lexical and sublexical information to maximize spelling performance (interactive treatment). Results Both participants improved phonological processing abilities and reading/spelling via the sublexical route. They also improved spelling of real words and were able to detect and correct most residual errors using an electronic spelling aid. Conclusions: Behavioral treatment served to strengthen phonological skills supporting reading and spelling, and provided a functional compensatory strategy to overcome residual weaknesses.

Writing treatment that involved repeated copying and recall of target words was implemented with 8 individuals with severe aphasia in order to discern the best candidates for the treatment. Four of the 8 participants had strong positive responses to the copy and recall treatment (CART), relearning spellings for 15 targeted words during 10 to 12 weeks of treatment and up to 5 additional words during a month-long homework-based program. Of the 4 other participants, 3 learned the spellings of some target words but failed to reach criterion, and 1 had a poor treatment outcome. Insights regarding possible factors that limited success were gained by examination of individual responses to treatment as well as performance on the pretreatment assessments of semantic, phonological, and orthographic processes. Among the factors associated with success were (a) consistent, accurate completion of daily homework, (b) a relatively preserved semantic system, (c) the ability to discern words from nonwords, and (d) adequately preserved nonverbal visual problem-solving skills. Aphasia severity and minimal pretreatment spelling abilities did not necessarily limit the response to treatment. Participants with positive treatment outcomes demonstrated improved spelling of target words following repeated copying within a single treatment session, and accurately completed daily writing homework. Thus, pretreatment assessment and stimulability within initial treatment sessions provided indications of likely outcome.