PET activation studies comparing two speech tasks widely used in surgical mapping

Vanlancker–Sidtis, Diana; McIntosh, Anthony R.; Grafton, Scott T.

doi:10.1016/s0093-934x(02)00596-5

Cited by 42 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A study of spontaneous speech obtained from case studies in our clinic supported the previous findings: Proportions of formulaic expressions were elevated following left-hemisphere focal lesions and significantly impoverished in right-hemisphere focal lesions, and, as a new discovery, diminished proportions of formulaic expressions were associated with focal subcortical damage (Sidtis, Canterucci, & Katsnelson, 2009;. Other clinical studies lend indirect support to a role of subcortical structures in the production of formulaic expressions (Van Lancker, Bogen, & Canter, 1983;Van Lancker Sidtis, McIntosh, & Grafton, 2003). These converging findings led to a brain model describing formulaic language as modulated by a right hemisphere and a subcortical system.…”

supporting

confidence: 77%

Formulaic Language in Parkinson's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease: Complementary Effects of Subcortical and Cortical Dysfunction

Sidtis

Choi

Alken

et al. 2015

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The production of formulaic expressions (conversational speech formulas, pause fillers, idioms, and other fixed expressions) is excessive in the left hemisphere and deficient in the right hemisphere and in subcortical stroke. Speakers with Alzheimer's disease (AD), having functional basal ganglia, reveal abnormally high proportions of formulaic language. Persons with Parkinson's disease (PD), having dysfunctional basal ganglia, were predicted to show impoverished formulaic expressions in contrast to speakers with AD. This study compared participants with PD, participants with AD, and healthy control (HC) participants on protocols probing production and comprehension of formulaic expressions. Method: Spontaneous speech samples were recorded from 16 individuals with PD, 12 individuals with AD, and 18 HC speakers. Structured tests were then administered as probes of comprehension. Results: The PD group had lower proportions of formulaic expressions compared with the AD and HC groups. Comprehension testing yielded opposite contrasts: participants with PD showed significantly higher performance compared with participants with AD and did not differ from HC participants. Conclusions: The finding that PD produced lower proportions of formulaic expressions compared with AD and HC supports the view that subcortical nuclei modulate the production of formulaic expressions. Contrasting results on formal testing of comprehension, whereby participants with AD performed significantly worse than participants with PD and HC participants, indicate differential effects on procedural and declarative knowledge associated with these neurological conditions. C linical descriptions of formulaic language in aphasic speech have flourished for more than 150 years under a wide variety of terms. Formulaic language, in its modern conception, consists of fixed, unitary expressions known to a language community with their characteristic form, meaning, and usage conditions. Typical examples are conversational speech formulas ("You betcha," "You've got to be kidding," and "Say what?"), expletives ("heck"), idioms ("as the crow flies," "That's the way the cookie crumbles"), proverbs ("When it rains, it pours"), and other conventionalized expressions ("all things being equal," "in the meantime," and "the long and the short of it is"; Altenberg, 1998;Biber, 2009;Kuiper, 2004;Wray, 2002). These expressions share the features of fixed or canonical form; conventionalized, often nonliteral meaning; and specific relations to discourse context.As reviewed in Van Lancker (1973, 1975, 1994, formulaic language has its venerable beginnings in observations by J. Hughlings Jackson (1874aJackson ( /1932Jackson ( , 1874bJackson ( /1932, who labeled the preserved expressions seen in adults with language disability following left-brain damage automatic or nonpropositional speech. Examples cited by Hughlings Jackson include phrases belonging classically to the conception of formulaic expressions: "Take care," "That's a lie," "Good bye," "Oh dear," and "Bles...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 77%

Formulaic Language in Parkinson's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease: Complementary Effects of Subcortical and Cortical Dysfunction

Sidtis

Choi

Alken

et al. 2015

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The phrases are stereotyped in form, tied to social context and, therefore, fall into the category of formulaic language (Van Lancker Sidtis, 2004). This fact is critical: according to present knowledge, the production of formulaic language engages bilateral neural networks including right frontotemporal areas, the right basal ganglia and, possibly, the right cerebellum (Hughlings-Jackson, 1878; Speedie et al, 1993; Ackermann et al, 1998; Van Lancker Sidtis et al, 2003; Sidtis et al, 2009). The degree of right-hemisphere lateralization seems to be strongest for pragmatically oriented formulaic language: pause fillers, discourse elements, and conversational speech formulas (Van Lancker Sidtis and Postman, 2006).…”

Section: Issue 3: Formulaic Language Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facing the music: three issues in current research on singing and aphasia

Stahl

Kotz

2014

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Murphy et al 1997, Kuriki et al 1999, Wise et al 1999, Bookheimer et al 2000, Scott et al 2000, Benson et al 2001, Huang et al 2001, Blank et al 2002, Vanlancker-Sidtis et al 2003, Ackerman and Riecker 2003, Hillis et al 2004, Shuster and Lemieux 2005, Kemeny et al 2005, Riecker et al 2006, Sörös et al 2006 as well as for speech perception (e.g. Binder et al 2000, Hickok and Poeppel 2000, Fadiga et al 2002, Wilson et al 2004, Boatman 2004, Rimol et al 2005, Liebenthal et al 2005, Uppenkamp et al 2006, Zekveld et al 2006, Obleser et al 2006.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%