THE ANATOMICAL BASIS OF CONDUCTION APHASIA
THE ANATOMICAL BASIS OF CONDUCTION APHASIA
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/brain/103.2.337
复制
发表时间：
1980-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
14.5
通讯作者：
DAMASIO, AR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
DAMASIO, H;DAMASIO, AR
传导性失语的概念自WerNicke(1874)的早期著作以来一直是语言障碍理解的核心，关于它的定义、解剖学基础和病理生理机制的争论一直延续到我们这个时代。但是，尽管波士顿失语症学派(Geschind，1965；GoodGlass和Kaplan，1972)提出的失语症定义似乎澄清了失语症的存在和临床本质的问题，但Geschind(1965)对失语症的解释(见Warrington and Shallice，1969；Brown 1972)尚未被普遍接受(见Warrington and Shallice，1969；Brown 1972)。这样的争论常常掩盖这样一个事实，即断链假说所基于的病理基础从未受到挑战，而且无论你在解释其功能意义的问题上采取何种立场，似乎都是根本正确的。本文报告了6例传导性失语的解剖学表现，这些病例是用计算机断层扫描定位病变的方法(Damasio和Damasio，1979；Damasio，Damasio，Hamsher和Varney，1979)。我们重新考虑传导性失语的解剖学相关性，并讨论它们与综合征的产生的关系。
THE concept of conduction aphasia has been central to the understanding of language disorders since the early writings of Wernicke (1874) and the controversy regarding its definition, anatomical basis and pathophysiological mechanism has continued to our times. But while the current definition provided by the Boston school of aphasia (Geschwind, 1965; Goodglass and Kaplan, 1972), seems to have clarified the question of the existence and clinical essence of the syndrome, Geschwind's interpretation of the disturbance as a disconnection syndrome (1965) has not been universally accepted (see Warrington and Shallice, 1969; Brown 1972). Such controversy often obscures the fact that the pathological substrate on which the disconnection hypothesis is based never has been challenged and appears fundamentally correct whatever stand you take on the issue of interpreting its functional significance. In this article we present anatomical findings in six cases of conduction aphasia, obtained with a method for localization of lesions in computerized tomography scans (Damasio and Damasio, 1979; Damasio, Damasio, Hamsher and Varney, 1979). We reconsider the anatomical correlates of conduction aphasia and discuss their bearing on the production of the syndrome.