Dissociations of Language Functions in Aphasics with Speech Automatisms (Recurring Utterances)

Blanken, Gerhard; Wallesch, C. W.; Papagno, Costanza

doi:10.1016/s0010-9452(13)80074-3

Cited by 40 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, the second hypothesis suggests that the dysfunction is not a central language disorder, but a modality-specific and post-phonological speech disorder (Blanken, 1991;Blanken et al, 1988;Blanken, Wallesch, & Papagno, 1990;Code, 1994Code, , 1997Code, Tree, & Dawe, 2009;Sato, Ibayashi, & Takizawa, 2008;Takizawa, Asano, Hadano, Hamanaka, & Morimune, 1992;Wallesch, 1990;Wallesch, Hass, & Blanken, 1989). Blanken (1991), Blanken et al (1988), and Blanken et al (1990) investigated many patients with speech automatisms, especially non-lexical forms, and found two groups of speech automatisms: patients with severe oral and written output disorders (global aphasia) and patients with relatively preserved written abilities (mild aphasia).…”

Section: Recurring Utterances (Speech Automatisms) Without Aphasia: Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Recurring utterances (speech automatisms) without aphasia: A single case study

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Regarding the generation of recurring utterances (RUs), there are two lines of research in the literature. The first is that RUs occur in severe aphasia; that is, global aphasia or severe Broca's aphasia. The second is that RUs are a modality-specific and post-phonological speech disorder. Aims: The aims of this paper are (1) to describe and follow up on the characteristics of non-meaningful RUs observed in a patient, AY, who had no definite aphasic symptoms, and (2) to investigate the mechanism underlying the generation of AY's RUs neurolinguistically and neuroanatomically. Methods & Procedures:We studied and followed the language functions of AY, including her non-meaningful RUs, using the Japanese Standard Language Test for Aphasia (SLTA; Japanese Society of Aphasiology, 1977) and her conversations with her speech therapists.Outcomes & Results: The patient was found to present non-meaningful RUs without definite aphasic symptoms. Her speech disorder evolved into pure apraxia of speech about a year after onset. Conclusions: The results show that AY's non-meaningful RUs are a modality-specific and post-phonological speech disorder, which supports the hypothesis that RUs result from deficits in post-lexical subphonemic processing in the psycholinguistic or neurolinguistic model of speech production.

show abstract

Section: Recurring Utterances (Speech Automatisms) Without Aphasia: Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Recurring utterances (speech automatisms) without aphasia: A single case study

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(See Code 1982, for more details). Table 2 presents the various automatism-forms produced by the 27 patients with non-lexical speech automatisms (from Blanken et al 1990). All automatisms were produced relatively fluently and without articulatory effort.…”

Section: Forms Of Speech Automatismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, these non-sterotyped utterances are usually also subject to various symptoms of language pathology. The vocabulary analysis in Blanken et al (1990) demonstrates that the number of real words in the spontaneous speech of almost all patients was extremely limited. Only 2 of the 27 patients investigated produced lexical units of a considerable amount.…”

Section: Spontaneous Speech Along With the Speech Automatismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The functional basis of speech automatisms (recurring utterances)

Blanken

1991

Aphasiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech automatisms (or recurring utterances) are stereotyped and repetitive productions especially seen in more severely handicapped aphasic patients. First this paper summarizes important observations on the occurrence and phenomenology of that symptom. It then addresses the issue of syndrome categorization of these patients. The main part of this review deals with attempts to account for this sterotyped output pattern. Theories assuming a non-propositional mode of automatism production can elucidate the very first occurrence of some lexical automatisms. However, this approach cannot explain their repetitive and stereotyped character. Other accounts are founded on detailed single case studies within the framework of language processing models. Based on these studies it is argued that speech automatisms are triggered by modality-specific and subphonemic mechanisms. It is proposed that a subphonemic buffer system is involved in automatism generation. This system can be dysfunctional by direct impairment or by lack of activation through higher levels of language control.

show abstract

“…Studies of brain-damaged subjects suggest that novel and formulaic language are processed by different neurological structures (Van Lancker, 1990 Van Lancker & Kempler, 1987). People with aphasia are sometimes better able to produce overlearned than novel expressions (Jackson, 1874;Van Lancker, 1988;Code, 1982;Blanken et al, 1990), possibly attributable to right hemisphere (Graves & Landis, 1985). This paper reports on a patient with fluent aphasic speech who was observed to speak almost exclusively in FNEs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Poster Session 1

2001

Brain and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe a patient with multiple brain lesions who presents with striking dissociations between verbal and manual responses in a variety of tasks, including visual extinction, recognition of digits and number words, and single-digit addition. Interpreted in light of other patient studies (e.g., Brion & Jedynak, 1972;Funnell et al., 2000;Baynes et al., 1997;Kamaki et al., 1993; Marchetti & Della Sala, 1998;Gazzaniga, 2000), these dissociations have implications for the understanding of righthemisphere language capacities, inter-hemispheric communication, and perhaps even consciousness. Case HistoryWS is a 63-year-old right-handed man with a master's degree in mathematics. He worked as a math instructor at a community college before suffering CVAs in 1998 and 2000. MRI following the more recent incident revealed a new left parietal infarct, older left occipital and anterior callosal lesions, and possible thinning of other callosal regions. A right homonymous hemianopia was present immediately after the earlier CVA, but cleared within six months. At the time of the present study WS had normal acuity and visual fields. Visual ExtinctionAsterisks were presented for 200 ms on a computer monitor. For Left stimuli, a single asterisk was presented to the left of fixation, and for Right stimuli an asterisk was presented to the right of fixation. For Both stimuli, an asterisk was presented both to the left and to the right of fixation.On each trial WS indicated where asterisks had appeared. In the Verbal Response condition he responded by saying ''left,'' ''right,'' or ''both.'' In the Manual Response condition he responded with his right hand, raising his index finger to indicate a Left stimulus, his middle finger for a Right stimulus, and both fingers for a Both stimulus.Results for the Verbal Response condition suggested left neglect with extinction. Whereas WS was 100% correct for Right stimuli (68/68), his accuracy was only 76% for Left stimuli (52/68), and 46% for Both stimuli (63/136). Virtually all of his errors involved failure to report asterisks presented on the left.In the Manual Response condition the results were quite different. Accuracy for Left stimuli (98% (51/52)-and Both stimuli-82% (85/104)) was much higher than in the Verbal Response condition (p Ͻ .001). Also, the majority of errors for Both stimuli (13/19) were failures to report the right stimulus, suggesting a mild right extinction. Accuracy for Right stimuli was 94% (49/52). Digit RecognitionOn each trial a single digit was presented for 200 ms to the left or right of fixation. On Left and Right trials only the digit was presented; on Left-with-X and Rightwith-X trials an X was also presented, on the opposite side of fixation from the digit (see Table 1).WS was instructed to report the digit, ignoring the X when it was present. In the Verbal condition he named the digit, whereas in the Manual condition he held up the appropriate number of fingers (using the left hand for the numbers 1-5, and both hands for 6-9).In the Verbal condition WS was ...

show abstract

Dissociations of Language Functions in Aphasics with Speech Automatisms (Recurring Utterances)

Cited by 40 publications

References 19 publications

Recurring utterances (speech automatisms) without aphasia: A single case study

Recurring utterances (speech automatisms) without aphasia: A single case study

The functional basis of speech automatisms (recurring utterances)

Poster Session 1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About