Written Language Production Disorders: Historical and Recent Perspectives

Lorch, Marjorie Perlman

doi:10.1007/s11910-013-0369-9

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the case of reading, a “visual word form area” has been identified in left posterior ventral temporo-occipital cortex that appears to be critical for single-word reading (Dehaene, 2009). Writing, on the other hand, has been alternately associated with left parietal cortex as well as left ventral temporal cortex (Lorch, 2013). Reading and writing impairments are often observed in individuals with aphasia but can also occur in isolation (alexia and agraphia, respectively).…”

Section: Language Research In the Late 20th Century And Beyondmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do Language Disorders Reveal about Brain–Language Relationships? From Classic Models to Network Approaches

Dronkers

Ivanova

Baldo

2017

J Int Neuropsychol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of language disorders have shaped our understanding of brain-language relationships over the last two centuries. This article provides a review of this research and how our thinking has changed over the years regarding how the brain processes language. In the 19th century, a series of famous case studies linked distinct speech and language functions to specific portions of the left hemisphere of the brain, regions that later came to be known as Broca's and Wernicke's areas. One hundred years later, the emergence of new brain imaging tools allowed for the visualization of brain injuries in vivo that ushered in a new era of brain-behavior research and greatly expanded our understanding of the neural processes of language. Toward the end of the 20th century, sophisticated neuroimaging approaches allowed for the visualization of both structural and functional brain activity associated with language processing in both healthy individuals and in those with language disturbance. More recently, language is thought to be mediated by a much broader expanse of neural networks that covers a large number of cortical and subcortical regions and their interconnecting fiber pathways. Injury to both grey and white matter has been seen to affect the complexities of language in unique ways that have altered how we think about brain-language relationships. The findings that support this paradigm shift are described here along with the methodologies that helped to discover them, with some final thoughts on future directions, techniques, and treatment interventions for those with communication impairments. (JINS, 2017, 23, 741-754)

show abstract

Section: Language Research In the Late 20th Century And Beyondmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do Language Disorders Reveal about Brain–Language Relationships? From Classic Models to Network Approaches

Dronkers

Ivanova

Baldo

2017

J Int Neuropsychol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both are complex communicative skills involving the precise coordination of numerous componential processes. Intuitively, one would expect that some core aspects of these skills would overlap, given their heavily intertwined content, development, and usage (Lorch, 2013). Early case studies around the turn of the 20th century by Dejerine and others highlighted the importance of left posterior cortex in both reading and writing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consistent with this case, lesions associated with pure alexia are commonly localized to left posterior inferior temporal cortex (Dehaene, 2009). In contrast, lesion sites associated with agraphia reported in the literature have been quite varied (Assal et al, 1970; see Lorch, 2013 for a review) and include left inferior parieto-occipital cortex (Gerstmann, 1930; Levine et al, 1988), left posterior parietal cortex (Auerbach and Alexander, 1981), left posterior parietotemporal cortex (Kinsbourne and Rosenfield, 1974; Roux et al, 2014), left posterior middle frontal cortex (Exner, 1881; Roux et al, 2009), as well as subcortical regions (Laine and Marttila, 1981; Tanridag and Kirshner, 1985).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the modern era, much less attention has been dedicated to identifying the brain networks associated with writing (also referred to as spelling in the literature, depending on the task; Kemmerer, 2014; Lorch, 2013; Rapp and Dufor, 2011; Rapp et al, 2015; Starrfelt and Shallice, 2014). A recent meta-analysis of 11 functional imaging studies reported that the most consistent regions associated with writing were the left inferior temporal cortex, fusiform gyrus, inferior frontal cortex, and the posterior intraparietal sulcus (though not the angular gyrus, which has been frequently implicated in lesion studies; Purcell et al, 2011a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Voxel-based lesion analysis of brain regions underlying reading and writing

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The neural basis of reading and writing has been a source of inquiry as well as controversy in the neuroscience literature. Reading has been associated with both left posterior ventral temporal zones (termed the "visual word form area") as well as more dorsal zones, primarily in left parietal cortex. Writing has also been associated with left parietal cortex, as well as left sensorimotor cortex and prefrontal regions. Typically, the neural basis of reading and writing are examined in separate studies and/or rely on single case studies exhibiting specific deficits. Functional neuroimaging studies of reading and writing typically identify a large number of activated regions but do not necessarily identify the core, critical hubs. Last, due to constraints on the functional imaging environment, many previous studies have been limited to measuring the brain activity associated with single-word reading and writing, rather than sentence-level processing. In the current study, the brain correlates of reading and writing at both the single- and sentence-level were studied in a large sample of 111 individuals with a history of chronic stroke using voxel-based lesion symptom mapping (VLSM). VLSM provides a whole-brain, voxel-by-voxel statistical analysis of the role of distinct regions in a particular behavior by comparing performance of individuals with and without a lesion at every voxel. Rather than comparing individual cases or small groups with particular behavioral dissociations in reading and writing, VLSM allowed us to analyze data from a large, well-characterized sample of stroke patients exhibiting a wide range of reading and writing impairments. The VLSM analyses revealed that reading was associated with a critical left inferior temporo-occipital focus, while writing was primarily associated with the left supramarginal gyrus. Separate VLSM analyses of single-word versus sentence-level reading showed that sentence-level reading was uniquely associated with anterior to mid-portions of the middle and superior temporal gyri. Both single-word and sentence-level writing overlapped to a great extent in the left supramarginal gyrus, but sentence-level writing was associated with additional underlying white matter pathways such as the internal capsule. These findings suggest that critical aspects of reading and writing processes diverge, with reading relying critically on the ventral visual recognition stream and writing relying on a dorsal visuo-spatial-motor stream.

show abstract

“…"Central agraphia" [4][5][6][7] occurs when there is a deficit of spoken language and a deficit of the various motor and visualization skills involved in writing, distinguished in fluent and not fluent. In the "agraphia with fluent aphasia" (for example receptive aphasia) they normally write well-formed letters, but are unable to write significant words; those who have "agraphia with non-fluent aphasia", do not have an impairment of the spoken language and can write short sentences, but their writing is difficult to read, requires great physical effort, lacks correct syntax and often characterized by poor spelling (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%