4.4 Article

Written Language Impairments in Primary Progressive Aphasia: A Reflection of Damage to Central Semantic and Phonological Processes

期刊

JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 261-275

出版社

MIT PRESS
DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00153

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health NIDCD [F31DC009145, F32DC010945, R01DC008286, R01DC007646]
  2. NIA [P30AG19610, P01AG019724, P50AG023501, R01AG025526]
  3. NINDS [R01NS050915]
  4. State of Arizona and Arizona Department of Health Services, Arizona Advanced Research Institute for Biomedical Imaging
  5. Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Connectionist theories of language propose that written language deficits arise as a result of damage to semantic and phonological systems that also support spoken language production and comprehension, a view referred to as the primary systems hypothesis. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the primary systems account in a mixed group of individuals with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) by investigating the relation between measures of nonorthographic semantic and phonological processing and written language performance and by examining whether common patterns of cortical atrophy underlie impairments in spoken versus written language domains. Individuals with PPA and healthy controls were administered a language battery, including assessments of semantics, phonology, reading, and spelling. Voxel-based morphometry was used to examine the relation between gray matter volumes and language measures within brain regions previously implicated in semantic and phonological processing. In accordance with the primary systems account, our findings indicate that spoken language performance is strongly predictive of reading/spelling profile in individuals with PPA and suggest that common networks of critical left hemisphere regions support central semantic and phonological processes recruited for spoken and written language.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据