Narrative Discourse Cohesion in Early Stage Parkinson’s Disease

Abstract

Abstract.Background: Models of basal ganglia (BG) function suggest that expressive language deficits will likely and consistently present in BG disease. Disparities currently exist between the predictions of models of BG function in expressive language and data from studies of BG disease. Traditional expressive language assessment methodologies that emphasize measures of language form (word and sentence productivity) while not carefully considering how language is used, may only partially account for these disparities. Objective: To use measures of cohesion to examine the use of cohesive markers in narrative discourse. Methods: Twelve individuals with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD) were compared to 12 matched neurologically intact controls on measures of discourse performance. Three discourse samples (typical day, memorable vacation and family) were analyzed for measures of narrative productivity, number of cohesive ties and cohesive adequacy. Mixed model analyses were completed for group comparisons. Results: Group differences were not observed on measures of language form as measured by narrative productivity, communication units, and number of cohesive ties produced. In contrast, group differences were observed in cohesive adequacy as individuals with PD produced a higher percentage of incomplete and erroneous cohesive ties relative the control subjects across narratives. Conclusions: These results support the conclusion that the BG in PD may have an executive role in expressive language use that can be disrupted without impacting language form.

Evaluation of Linguistic Markers of Word-Finding Difficulty and Cognition in Parkinson's Disease

“…Previous research in spontaneous speech for PD without dementia has also shown decreased grammatical correctness and complexity (Murray, 2000) and difficulty processing complex syntax (Colman et al, 2011;Grossman et al, 2003Grossman et al, , 2012Hochstadt, 2009;Hochstadt et al, 2006;Kemmerer, 1999;Lee et al, 2003). In terms of macrostructure of discourse, impairments in cohesiveness and organization have been identified in PD (Ellis et al, 2015). The link between these language deficits in PD is their reliance on the frontal lobe and associated areas, involving planning, set-shifting, and other aspects of executive function, as well as working memory, which are often impaired from early stages in PD (Williams-Gray et al, 2013).…”

“…Specifically, deficits in complex grammar and syntax processing and production have been consistently reported and have been linked to executive function and working memory (Colman, Koerts, Stowe, Leenders, & Bastiaanse, 2011;Grossman et al, 2003Grossman et al, , 2012Hochstadt, 2009;Hochstadt, Nakano, Lieberman, & Friedman, 2006;Kemmerer, 1999;Lee, Grossman, Morris, Stern, & Hurtig, 2003). Additional expressive language deficits have been observed in organization and cohesiveness of narrative discourse (Ellis, Crosson, Gonzalez Rothi, Okun, & Rosenbek, 2015). The underlying mechanism of these language deficits is unknown but may be related to striatal dopaminergic deficiency leading to impaired function of frontostriatal circuits.…”

The language profile of progressive supranuclear palsy

“…All transcriptions were analyzed according to 26 features belonging to four linguistic levels (phonetic-phonological, lexico-semantic, morpho-syntactic and discourse-pragmatic), and selected on the basis of a review of the relevant literature (Rusz et al, 2011;Ash et al, 2012b;Ash and Grossman, 2015;Ash et al, 2011;Murray, 2000;Ellis et al, 2015;Robinson et al, 2015;Santos et al, 2016;Rohrer et al, 2010). The 26 features and their transcription modality are described in Table 2.…”

Narrative Discourse in Broca's and Anomic Aphasia

“…Nástroj na hodnotenie diskurzu, ktorý sme vytvorili, bol inšpirovaný zahraničnými štúdiami, mapujúcimi jazykové deficity na úrovni diskurzu v populácii pacientov s neurogénnymi poruchami komunikácie (napr. Ellis et al, 2015, Andreetta, Marini, 2014, Lima et al, 2014, Ash et al, 2011, Kavé, Levy, 2003. Kritériá na hodnotenie diskurzu sme však prispôsobovali podmienkam slovenského jazyka (Oravec, Bajzíková, 1982;Mistrík, 1989), vzhľadom na jeho flektívny charakter.…”