Language control and parallel recovery of language in individuals with aphasia
Language control and parallel recovery of language in individuals with aphasia
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/02687030902958316
复制
发表时间：
2010-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Price, Cathy J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Green, David W.;Grogan, Alice;Price, Cathy J.
背景：双语使用者中风后语言恢复不同模式的因果基础尚不清楚。我们的方法将语言的表示与其控制所涉及的机制区分开来。先前的研究表明，语言控制的困难可以解释一种语言的选择性失语以及语言之间的病理性转换。在这里，我们检验了这样一个假设：即使没有病理性转换，那些两种语言同样受损的人也会在管理和解决竞争方面遇到困难。目的：检查失语症平行恢复的双语个体的语言控制困难，并比较他们在不同类型的冲突任务中的表现。方法程序：两名右利手、非英语母语参与者在中风后表现出两种语言的并行恢复，而一组非英语母语、双语对照则用英语和母语描述一个场景，并完成三项明确的冲突任务。其中两个是言语冲突任务：一项是英语词汇决策任务，个人将英语单词与非单词区分开来；另一项是斯特鲁普任务，用英语和他们的母语进行。第三个冲突任务是非语言侧翼任务。结果：两名失语症参与者在英语和母语图片描述任务中均受到损害，但在冲突任务中表现出不同的损害模式。对于左侧皮质下损伤的参与者，在言语任务（词汇决策和斯特鲁普）期间冲突异常高，但在非言语侧翼任务期间则不然。相比之下，对于左顶叶广泛损伤的参与者来说，斯特鲁普任务期间的冲突比侧翼任务或词汇决策任务中的异常要少。结论：我们的数据揭示了与并行恢复相关的两种不同的控制障碍。我们强调需要探索控制问题的精确性质以及如何实施控制，以便对双语失语症的语言恢复模式进行更全面的因果解释。
Background: The causal basis of the different patterns of language recovery following stroke in bilingual speakers is not well understood. Our approach distinguishes the representation of language from the mechanisms involved in its control. Previous studies have suggested that difficulties in language control can explain selective aphasia in one language as well as pathological switching between languages. Here we test the hypothesis that difficulties in managing and resolving competition will also be observed in those who are equally impaired in both their languages even in the absence of pathological switching. Aims: To examine difficulties in language control in bilingual individuals with parallel recovery in aphasia and to compare their performance on different types of conflict task. Methods Procedures: Two right-handed, non-native English-speaking participants who showed parallel recovery of two languages after stroke and a group of non-native English-speaking, bilingual controls described a scene in English and in their first language and completed three explicit conflict tasks. Two of these were verbal conflict tasks: a lexical decision task in English, in which individuals distinguished English words from non-words, and a Stroop task, in English and in their first language. The third conflict task was a non-verbal flanker task. Outcomes Results: Both participants with aphasia were impaired in the picture description task in English and in their first language but showed different patterns of impairment on the conflict tasks. For the participant with left subcortical damage, conflict was abnormally high during the verbal tasks (lexical decision and Stroop) but not during the non-verbal flanker task. In contrast, for the participant with extensive left parietal damage, conflict was less abnormal during the Stroop task than the flanker or lexical decision task. Conclusions: Our data reveal two distinct control impairments associated with parallel recovery. We stress the need to explore the precise nature of control problems and how control is implemented in order to develop fuller causal accounts of language recovery patterns in bilingual aphasia.