Validity and features of spontaneous speech in acute aphasia as evaluated with the Brief Aphasia Evaluation: is fluent aphasia more severe than nonfluent aphasia?

Abstract

Purpose To explore the relationship between the two components of spontaneous speech in the Brief Aphasia Evaluation (BAE) and the rest of the scale represented by its three main factors: The Expression, Comprehension, and Complementary factors. Methods BAE has proven validity and reliability. The evaluation of spontaneous speech in this scale comprises two components: Performance Rank (score: 0-3) and Type of Disorder (Fluency [F], Content [C], or Mixed [FC]) when rank < 3. Sixty-seven patients with left brain damage and 30 demographically matched healthy participants (HP) were studied. It was analyzed the correlation between Performance Rank and the three BAE factors and, recoding 3 as 0 and < 3 as 1, the sensitivity/specificity of this component for each factor. The effect of Type of Disorder on the three factors was analyzed. Results 1) Performance Rank: Correlations of 0.84 (Expression), 0.81 (Comprehension), and 0.76 (Complementary) were observed, with a sensitivity and specificity ≥ 78% for any factor; 2) Type of Disorder: The performance significantly decreased from FC to C and from C to F in Expression (FC < C < F), from FC to C and from FC to F also in Comprehension and Complementary, from patients with any type of disorder to HP. Conclusion Performance Rank was a relevant indicator of aphasia by its consistency with valid and comprehensive dimensions of acute language impairments. A degree difference between F and C was observed, being F a milder disorder; i.e., fluency problems were less severe than retrieval or anomia ones.

Remembering a name: Neuropsychological validity studies and a computer proposal for detection of anomia

“…disruptions in single-word association and comprehension 26 or in visual-perception) we administered the optional card from the Brief Aphasia Evaluation. 3,30,31,37,38 In this card, not only can real objects be matched with pictures of the same objects (picturepicture recognition), but also interviewers can say the words of the pictures on the card while interviewees point at the corresponding picture (word-picture recognition). Interestingly, this card includes pictures of the same family of objects (e.g.…”

“…Hamberger 9 has suggested that the auditory presentation of the stimulus is more sensitive than the visual one for detecting anomia. Additionally, in the process of naming, which implicitly includes the process of language evolution, 3 the phonemic/phonological information is considered to be the second step after picture recognition or semantic retrieval. 11,31,36 Therefore, in the CACNE, after verifying and scoring with the maximum value spontaneous recall, using just visual stimuli, we successively used the semantic and phonemic cues, with decreasing scores, as complementary auditory presentations.…”

“…1 [Note: in this study we will only refer to the inability to name objects, not people]. 1 Although anomia is considered a common early sign in primary progressive aphasia (PPA) 2 and the most relevant symptom of acute aphasia, 3 it is also considered a common symptom in most types of dementia and non-focal brain disease. 2,[4][5][6] Milder forms of anomia are among the most common complaints in normal aging 5 and, when memory is affected, anomia is one of the most frequent symptoms associated with the underlying syndrome.…”

“…Naming tests can be considered language indicators of semantic memory: in visual CNT, the interviewee is usually assessed through pictures, in which he/she must recognize their function or meaning, involving visual knowledge, and retrieve their names, involving verbal knowledge. 17 Although a correlation between naming and cognitive impairment has been observed, [2][3][4][5][6]17 questions remains regarding the validity of the CNT total score for the detection of anomia in some disorders which supposedly have this symptom (see papers). 9,12,18 Considering brain laterality and naming, some new perspectives have emerged (focused mainly on specific brain areas or pathologies), and there is now a substantial body of work about this issue.…”

Story reading with incidental comprehension and memory: left hemisphere dominance

“…Patients were excluded if they were unable to understand the test instructions, or if they had illiteracy, aphasia, alexia, hemineglect, visual field defects or sensory or motor difficulties that might prevent them from reading the story, or from giving an answer in RC, UC or CC. It should be noted, regarding language expression, that the following patients were excluded: those with RE = 0 (see below); and those with a slight impairment of spontaneous speech 32 . Hence, apart from alexia, cases of impairment of understanding of the current instructions or slight impairment of the spontaneous speech involved in the present reading and memory tasks were taken as indicative of aphasia, because these types of measurements have been validated for this purpose 32 .…”