Anosognosia and self-correction of naming errors in aphasia

Dean, Michael; Sala, Sergio Della; Beschin, Nicoletta; Cocchini, Gianna

doi:10.1080/02687038.2016.1239014

Cited by 23 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, for all VATA subtests, the severity of functional deficits was associated with an increased overestimation of ones’ own abilities therein. This is in line with previous studies which showed that aphasic patients with anosognosia showed lower performance scores in language tests (Cocchini et al, 2010b ) and less self-correction behavior (Dean et al, 2016 ) than patients without anosognosia. Similarly, patients with anosognosia of dementia showed worse performance in autobiographic memory tasks (Berlingeri et al, 2015 ) and daily life activities (Gambina et al, 2015 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Assessing Anosognosia in Apraxia of Common Tool-Use With the VATA-NAT

Buchmann

Jung

Liepert

et al. 2018

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In neurological patients, a lack of insight into their impairments can lead to possibly dangerous situations and non-compliance in rehabilitation therapy with worse rehabilitation outcomes as a result. This so called anosognosia is a multifaceted syndrome that can occur after brain damage affecting different neurological or cognitive functions. To our knowledge no study has investigated anosognosia for apraxia of common tool-use (CTU) so far. CTU-apraxia is a disorder frequently occurring after stroke that affects the use of familiar objects. Here, we introduce a new questionnaire to diagnose anosognosia for CTU-apraxia, the Visual Analogue Test assessing Anosognosia for Naturalistic Action Tasks (VATA-NAT). This assessment is adapted from a series of VATA-questionnaires that evaluate insight into motor (VATA-M) or language (VATA-L) impairment and take known challenges such as aphasia into account. Fifty one subacute stroke patients with left (LBD) or right (RBD) brain damage were investigated including patients with and without CTU-apraxia. Patients were assessed with the VATA-L, -M and -NAT before and after applying a diagnostics session for each function. Interrater reliability, composite reliability as well as convergent and divergent validity were evaluated for the VATA-NAT. Seven percent of the LBD patients with CTU-apraxia demonstrated anosognosia. After tool-use diagnostics this number increased to 20 percent. For the VATA-NAT, psychometric data revealed high interrater-reliability (τ ≥ 0.828), composite reliability (CR ≥ 0.809) and convergent validity (τ = −0.626). When assessing patients with severe aphasia, the possible influence of language comprehension difficulties needs to be taken into account for interpretation. Overall, close monitoring of anosognosia over the course of rehabilitation is recommended. With the VATA-NAT we hereby provide a novel assessment for anosognosia in patients with CTU-apraxia. For diagnosing anosognosia we recommend to combine this new tool with the existing VATA-M and -L subtests, particularly in patients who demonstrate severe functional deficits.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Assessing Anosognosia in Apraxia of Common Tool-Use With the VATA-NAT

Buchmann

Jung

Liepert

et al. 2018

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the production-based conflict monitoring model of Nozari et al (2011) is about internal monitoring, but it is unclear whether the patient data reflect internal or external monitoring. Furthermore, whereas the patient data of Nozari et al show no correlation between self-monitoring and comprehension performance, the data of Dean et al (2017) do show a correlation. Given this empirical state of affairs, strong conclusions cannot be drawn.…”

Section: Response Rejection By Patientsmentioning

confidence: 82%

Self-Monitoring in Speaking: In Defense of a Comprehension-Based Account

Roelofs

2020

Journal of Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speakers occasionally make speech errors, which may be detected and corrected. According to the comprehension-based account proposed by Levelt, Roelofs, and Meyer (1999) and Roelofs (2004), speakers detect errors by using their speech comprehension system for the monitoring of overt as well as inner speech. According to the production-based account of Nozari, Dell, and Schwartz (2011), speakers may use their comprehension system for external monitoring but error detection in internal monitoring is based on the amount of conflict within the speech production system, assessed by the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Here, I address three main arguments of Nozari et al. and Nozari and Novick (2017) against a comprehension-based account of internal monitoring, which concern cross-talk interference between inner and overt speech, a double dissociation between comprehension and self-monitoring ability in patients with aphasia, and a domain-general error-related negativity in the ACC that is allegedly independent of conscious awareness. I argue that none of the arguments are conclusive, and conclude that comprehension-based monitoring remains a viable account of self-monitoring in speaking.

show abstract

“…Over the last 25 years or so, there has been a steady accrual of evidence within the aphasia literature establishing the influential relationship between extra-linguistic, cognitive processes and aphasia symptoms and outcomes (Baldo, Paulraj, Curran & Dronkers, 2015; Brownsett et al, 2014; Dignam et al, 2017; Marinelli, Spaccavento, Craca, Marangolo & Angelelli, 2017; Martin & Saffran, 1999; Murray, 2012, 2017a; Murray, Holland, & Beeson, 1997a, 1997b, 1997c; Paek & Murray, 2015; Petroi, Koul & Corwin, 2014; Tompkins, Bloise, Timko & Baumgaertner, 1994; Ziegler, Kerkhoff, Cate, Artinger & Zierdt, 2001). That is, regardless of aphasia profile, difficulties across the cognitive domains of attention (e.g., Lee & Pyun, 2014; Murray, 2012; Villard & Kiran, 2015), memory (e.g., Mayer & Murray, 2012; Valilla-Rohter & Kiran, 2013; Vukovic, Vuksanovic, & Vukovic, 2008), and executive functioning (e.g., Baldo et al, 2015; Dean, Della Sala, Beschin, & Cocchini, 2017; Murray, 2017a) have been identified among individuals with aphasia, which can negatively affect their language abilities at the phonological, morphosyntactic, lexical-semantic, pragmatic, and discourse levels (Caplan, Michaud & Hufford, 2013; Dean et al, 2017; Friedman & Gvion, 2007; Meteyard, Bruce, Edmundson & Oakhill, 2015; Murray, 2000, 2012; Murray et al, 1997a, 1997c; Penn, Frankel, Watermeyer & Russell, 2010; Tompkins et al, 1994; Ziegler et al, 2001). Importantly, this line of research has afforded support to contemporary conceptualizations of not only aphasia, in which deficits in cognitive functions other than language are accredited with generating or intensifying linguistic symptoms (Hula & McNeil, 2008; Kurland, 2011; Murray & Kean, 2004), but also more broadly, the neurobiology of language, in which diffuse cortical and subcortical structures and distributed connectivity support language in concert with other functional processes and control mechanisms (Cahana-Amitay & Albert, 2015; Meyer, Cunitz, Obleser & Friederici, 2014; Tremblay & Dick, 2016; Xing, Lacey, Skipper-Kallal, Zeng, & Turkeltaub, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sentence processing in aphasia: An examination of material-specific and general cognitive factors

Murray¹

2018

Journal of Neurolinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to characterize further the nature of sentence processing deficits in acquired aphasia. Adults with aphasia and age-and education-matched adults with no brain damage completed a battery of formal cognitive-linguistic tests and an experimental sentence judgment task, which was performed alone and during focused attention and divided attention or dual-task conditions. The specific aims were to determine whether (a) increased extra-linguistic cognitive demands (i.e., focused and divided conditions) differentially affected the sentence judgement performances of the aphasic and control groups, (b) increased extra- linguistic cognitive demands interact with stimulus parameters (i.e., syntactic complexity, number of propositions) known to influence sentence processing, and (c) syntactic- or material specific resource limitations (e.g., sentence judgment in isolation), general cognitive abilities (e.g., short-term and working memory test scores), or both share a significant relationship with dual-task outcomes. Accuracy, grammatical sensitivity, and reaction time findings were consistent with resource models of aphasia and processing accounts of aphasic syntactic limitations, underscoring the theoretical and clinical importance of acknowledging and specifying the strength and nature of interactions between linguistic and extra-linguistic cognitive processes in not only individuals with aphasia, but also other patient and typical aging populations.

show abstract

Anosognosia and self-correction of naming errors in aphasia

Abstract: Background: There has been comparatively little research into anosognosia for aphasia (a

Cited by 23 publications

References 54 publications

Assessing Anosognosia in Apraxia of Common Tool-Use With the VATA-NAT

Assessing Anosognosia in Apraxia of Common Tool-Use With the VATA-NAT

Self-Monitoring in Speaking: In Defense of a Comprehension-Based Account

Sentence processing in aphasia: An examination of material-specific and general cognitive factors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About