Phonologically Related Lexical Repetition Disorder: A Case Study

Repeating with the right hemisphere: reduced interactions between phonological and lexical-semantic systems in crossed aphasia?

“…Word pair repetition was moderately impaired and a marginal effect of frequency/imageability was only found in AFL. Moreover, patients produced more omissions and phonological errors than formal errors or word pair repetition and there were no semantic paraphasias, a pattern of performance that differs from the “lexical bias” (formal and semantic errors > phonological errors) reported in patients with typical CA and left hemisphere damage (Gold and Kertesz, 2001). Since word triplet repetition was extremely poor in both patients, we analyzed the accuracy of individual words on triplets.…”

“…In support, lesion analysis in both patients and DTI findings in JAM showed massive involvement of the long direct segment of the AF normally engaged in auditory/phonological transcoding (word and non-word repetition) (Catani et al, 2005; Saur et al, 2008; Catani and Thiebaut de Schotten, 2012; Cloutman, 2012; Friederici and Gierhan, 2013). It should be noted, however, that their performance in other repetition tasks differed in a number of important respects from typical CA associated with left hemisphere lesions (Saffran and Marin, 1975; McCarthy and Warrington, 1984, 1987; Martin, 1996; Martin and Saffran, 1997; Gold and Kertesz, 2001; Bartha and Benke, 2003). Repetition in phonologically-impaired patients with left hemisphere involvement (e.g., CA) is generally reliant on lexical-semantic processing (McCarthy and Warrington, 1984, 1987; Martin and Saffran, 1997; Jefferies et al, 2007).…”

“…Moreover, they accurately repeated more individual words in triplets containing meaningful semantic information than in other conditions, thus implying that accurate repetition required semantic support. However, reliance on lexical-semantic processes could be deemed incomplete because both patients did not produce meaning-based paraphrases (e.g., “eat-delicious-apple” → eat-juicy-fruit ) which is at variance to that frequently reported in patients with typical CA during repetition of two- and three-word lists (Gold and Kertesz, 2001; Berthier et al, 2012). Repetition of sentences from PALPA 12 was severely impaired in both patients and again paraphrases of target sentences were absent in AFL and JAM rarely produced ill-formed paraphrases in this task, novel sentences and clichés.…”

“…Repetition in phonologically-impaired patients with left hemisphere involvement (e.g., CA) is generally reliant on lexical-semantic processing (McCarthy and Warrington, 1984, 1987; Martin and Saffran, 1997; Jefferies et al, 2007). The use of this alternative strategy increases the likelihood of producing word errors (formal paraphasias) and semantic errors particularly in highly demanding tasks such as immediate serial repetition of word lists and sentences and delayed repetition (Martin et al, 1994; Martin, 1996; Gold and Kertesz, 2001; Jefferies et al, 2006). Additionally, reliance on lexical-semantic processing in some conduction aphasic patients with severely abnormal phonological processing is manifested by “part of speech” effects (e.g., nouns are repeated better than verbs) and production of semantic paraphasias (“necklace” → gold ) during single word repetition (deep dysphasia) (Michel and Andreewsky, 1983; Katz and Goodglass, 1990; Butterworth and Warrington, 1995; Martin, 1996; Martin et al, 1996; Ablinger et al, 2007; Jefferies et al, 2007).…”

“…Patients were asked to repeat immediately after auditory presentation in a no-delay direct condition (Martin et al, 1996; Gold and Kertesz, 2001) a total of 112 high-frequency words. The total list was composed of high-frequency/high imageability ( n = 28), high-frequency/low-imageability ( n = 28); low-frequency/high-imageability ( n = 28) and low-frequency/low-imageability ( n = 28) words.…”