Anatomy of aphasia revisited

Abstract

In most cases, aphasia is caused by strokes involving the left hemisphere, with more extensive damage typically being associated with more severe aphasia. The classical model of aphasia commonly adhered to in the Western world is the Wernicke-Lichtheim model. The model has been in existence for over a century, and classification of aphasic symptomatology continues to rely on it. However, far more detailed models of speech and language localization in the brain have been formulated. In this regard, the dual stream model of cortical brain organization proposed by Hickok and Poeppel is particularly influential. Their model describes two processing routes, a dorsal stream and a ventral stream, that roughly support speech production and speech comprehension, respectively, in normal subjects. Despite the strong influence of the dual stream model in current neuropsychological research, there has been relatively limited focus on explaining aphasic symptoms in the context of this model. Given that the dual stream model represents a more nuanced picture of cortical speech and language organization, cortical damage that causes aphasic impairment should map clearly onto the dual processing streams. Here, we present a follow-up study to our previous work that used lesion data to reveal the anatomical boundaries of the dorsal and ventral streams supporting speech and language processing. Specifically, by emphasizing clinical measures, we examine the effect of cortical damage and disconnection involving the dorsal and ventral streams on aphasic impairment. The results reveal that measures of motor speech impairment mostly involve damage to the dorsal stream, whereas measures of impaired speech comprehension are more strongly associated with ventral stream involvement. Equally important, many clinical tests that target behaviours such as naming, speech repetition, or grammatical processing rely on interactions between the two streams. This latter finding explains why patients with seemingly disparate lesion locations often experience similar impairments on given subtests. Namely, these individuals' cortical damage, although dissimilar, affects a broad cortical network that plays a role in carrying out a given speech or language task. The current data suggest this is a more accurate characterization than ascribing specific lesion locations as responsible for specific language deficits.awx363media15705668782001.

An empirical comparison of univariate versus multivariate methods for the analysis of brain-behavior mapping

“…With respect to LSM performance on the real behavioral data, moderately conservative ULSM (T-nu=125 and T-0.001) and specific MLSM methods (ICA, SVD) identified largely similar regions. This is again in line with previous empirical studies that employed both ULSM and MLSM methods to investigate brain-behavior relationships and yielded highly coherent results between the two approaches (e.g., Fridriksson et al, 2018;Thye & Mirman, 2018). However, some MLSM methods also identified brain regions that are not typically associated with the behavior under examination.…”

Agrammatism and paragrammatism: a cortical double dissociation revealed by lesion-symptom mapping

“…Previous lesion-deficit mapping studies of basic sentence and syntactic comprehension in the absence of working memory confounds have also primarily identified similar left posterior temporal-parietal areas (Wilson and Saygin, 2004;Thothathiri et al, 2012;Pillay et al, 2017;Fridriksson et al, 2018;Rogalsky et al, 2018;den Ouden et al, 2019). This suggests a role for left posterior temporal-parietal cortex in grammatical processes that underlie both comprehension and production.…”

“…We acquired anatomical MRIs and performed lesion mapping using the same parameters and procedures as described in Fridriksson et al (2018). Neuroimaging data were collected at the…”

Dissociation between Frontal and Temporal-Parietal Contributions to Connected Speech in Acute Stroke

“…However, deficits related to syntactic processing in sentence comprehension are also associated with left temporal-parietal regions (Rogalski et al, 2011;Thothathiri et al, 2012;Magnusdottir et al, 2013;Caplan et al, 2016;Fridriksson et al, 2018;cf. Tyler et al, 2010;Rogalsky et al, 2018) raising the question of the role of anterior regions in syntactic processing (e.g.…”