Verb and noun deficits in stroke-induced and primary progressive aphasia: The Northwestern Naming Battery

Thompson, Cynthia K.; Lukic, Sladjana; King, Monique C.; Mesulam, Marek-Marsel; Weıntraub, Sandra

doi:10.1080/02687038.2012.676852

Cited by 134 publications

(114 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(82 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Five participants (P02, P04, P06, P08, and P09) had agrammatism ratios consistent with Thompson and colleagues' agrammatic participants, and two (P03 and P11) had ratios consistent with Thompson and colleagues' anomic participants (Cho-Reyes & Thompson et al, 2012). Inspection of the data in Figures 2 and 3 did not reveal distinct reading patterns for participants with agrammatic and anomic profiles.…”

Section: Individual Differences Associated With Agrammatismmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…These subtests were used to calculate the ratio of noncanonical (e.g., passives, object relatives) to canonical (e.g., actives, subject relatives) sentences that were correctly understood and produced. The Northwestern Naming Battery was used to calculate the ratio of verbs to nouns produced in confrontation naming (Thompson, Lukic, King, Mesulam & Weintraub, 2012). Results for these three measures are presented in Table 2.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 The criteria were based on data reported by Thompson and colleagues for individuals with agrammatic and anomic aphasia on these three measures (Cho-Reyes & Thompson et al, 2012). The participants who fit the agrammatic profile were P02, P04, P06, P08, and P09.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Online Sentence Reading in People With Aphasia: Evidence From Eye Tracking

Knilans

DeDe

2015

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: There is a lot of evidence that people with aphasia have more difficulty understanding structurally complex sentences (e.g., object clefts) than simpler sentences (subject clefts). However, subject clefts also occur more frequently in English than object clefts. Thus, it is possible that both structural complexity and frequency affect how people with aphasia understand these structures. Method: Nine people with aphasia and 8 age-matched controls participated in the study. The stimuli consisted of 24 object cleft and 24 subject cleft sentences. The task was eye tracking during reading, which permits a more fine-grained analysis of reading performance than measures such as self-paced reading.Results: As expected, controls had longer reading times for critical regions in object cleft sentences compared with subject cleft sentences. People with aphasia showed the predicted effects of structural frequency. Effects of structural complexity in people with aphasia did not emerge on their first pass through the sentence but were observed when they were rereading critical regions of complex sentences. Conclusions: People with aphasia are sensitive to both structural complexity and structural frequency when reading. However, people with aphasia may use different reading strategies than controls when confronted with relatively infrequent and complex sentence structures. P eople with aphasia often have difficulty understanding complex sentences, especially sentences that do not follow the canonical, or typical, word order for their language (e.g., Dick et al., 2001). In English, sentences typically follow subject-verb-object word order. Sentences with noncanonical word order are both more syntactically complex and less common than sentences with canonical word order (e.g., Roland, Dick, & Elman, 2007). Studies of sentence comprehension impairments in people with aphasia have focused on the contributions of structural complexity (e.g., Caplan, Waters, DeDe, Michaud, & Reddy, 2007;Dick et al., 2001;Grodzinsky, 2000;Thompson & Choy, 2009). However, research from adults without brain damage suggests that the relative frequency of syntactic structures also influences processing difficulty (e.g., Levy, 2008;Staub, 2010). Thus, it is possible that people with aphasia have trouble understanding sentences with noncanonical word order at least in part because such sentences occur relatively infrequently compared with sentences with canonical word order. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether sentence comprehension impairments in people with aphasia reflect sensitivity to the frequency of the structure as well as structural complexity.A lot of evidence regarding effects of structural complexity comes from studies investigating how people with aphasia process sentences with object and subject relative clauses, such as the object and subject clefts in examples 1 and 2: Sentences 1 and 2 both convey the idea "the boy hugged the girl," but object clefts such as in sentence 1 are more difficult to process than su...

show abstract

Section: Individual Differences Associated With Agrammatismmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Online Sentence Reading in People With Aphasia: Evidence From Eye Tracking

Knilans

DeDe

2015

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Thompson et al [60] examined production and comprehension of nouns and verbs in PPA and StrAph individuals, using the Northwestern Naming Battery [63] and found similar behavioral patterns for PPA-G and StrAg participants. Both groups had greater difficulty naming verbs compared to nouns, and showed effects of argument structure complexity on verb production.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Syntactic and Morphosyntactic Processing in Stroke-Induced and Primary Progressive Aphasia

Thompson

Meltzer‐Asscher

Cho

et al. 2013

Behavioural Neurology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The paper reports findings derived from three experiments examining syntactic and morphosyntactic processing in individuals with agrammatic and logopenic variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA-G and PPA-L, respectively) and strokeinduced agrammatic and anomic aphasia (StrAg and StrAn, respectively). We examined comprehension and production of canonical and noncanonical sentence structures and production of tensed and nontensed verb forms using constrained tasks in experiments 1 and 2, using the Northwestern Assessment of Verbs and Sentences (NAVS [57]) and the Northwestern Assessment of Verb Inflection (NAVI, Thompson and Lee, experimental version) test batteries, respectively. Experiment 3 examined free narrative samples, focusing on syntactic and morphosyntactic measures, i.e. production of grammatical sentences, noun to verb ratio, open-class to closed-class word production ratio, and the production of correctly inflected verbs. Results indicate that the two agrammatic groups (i.e., PPA-G and StrAg) pattern alike on syntactic and morphosyntactic measures, showing more impaired noncanonical compared to canonical sentence comprehension and production and greater difficulties producing tensed compared to nontensed verb forms. Their spontaneous speech also contained significantly fewer grammatical sentences and correctly inflected verbs, and they produced a greater proportion of nouns compared to verbs, than healthy speakers. In contrast, PPA-L and StrAn individuals did not display these deficits, and performed significantly better than the agrammatic groups on these measures. The findings suggest that agrammatism, whether induced by degenerative disease or stroke, is associated with characteristic deficits in syntactic and morphosyntactic processing. We therefore recommend that linguistically sophisticated tests and narrative analysis procedures be used to systematically evaluate the linguistic ability of individuals with PPA, contributing to our understanding of the language impairments of different PPA variants.

show abstract

“…The higher percentage of verbs was observed in descriptive speech of patients with lvPPA relative to controls [35] and patients with nfvPPA [36]. While patients with nfvPPA present with more impaired verb naming than noun naming, this effect is not present in lvPPA [37].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Is descriptive writing useful in the differential diagnosis of logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia, Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment?

Sitek

Barczak

Kluj-Kozłowska

et al. 2015

Neurologia i Neurochirurgia Polska

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current classification of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) encompasses three variants: non-fluent (nfvPPA), semantic (svPPA) and logopenic (lvPPA). Previously lvPPA was regarded as aphasic form of Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, not all patients with lvPPA phenotype present with AD pathology. Despite abundant literature on differentiation of lvPPA from svPPA and nfvPPA, studies comparing lvPPA with AD and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are scarce. This study aimed at analyzing written descriptive output in lvPPA, AD and MCI. Thirty-five patients participated in the study: 9 with lvPPA, 13 with AD and 13 with MCI. Most aspects of writing performance were comparable in three groups. However, letter insertion errors appeared in 44% patients with lvPPA, while they were absent in AD and MCI. Patients with lvPPA used more verbs than patients with AD. Writing profile may complement other neuropsychological assessment results in the differential diagnosis of lvPPA. Letter insertion errors and frequent verb use may raise a query of lvPPA.

show abstract

Verb and noun deficits in stroke-induced and primary progressive aphasia: The Northwestern Naming Battery

Cited by 134 publications

References 52 publications

Online Sentence Reading in People With Aphasia: Evidence From Eye Tracking

Online Sentence Reading in People With Aphasia: Evidence From Eye Tracking

Syntactic and Morphosyntactic Processing in Stroke-Induced and Primary Progressive Aphasia

Is descriptive writing useful in the differential diagnosis of logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia, Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About