Picture Naming Properties of Turkish People with Fluent and Non-Fluent Aphasia

Abstract

Objectives: People with aphasia (PWA) have naming problems. During naming activities, they produce paraphasias. However, there is no significant association between paraphasia and aphasia types. This study aimed to identify the relationship between paraphasia and aphasia type, as well as the effect of cueing on naming performance. Materials and Methods: The study comprised 37 Turkish PWA who were divided into two groups: fluent and non-fluent aphasia. Participants were presented with 40 pictures and asked to name them. Cues were given in case they did not answer correctly. The participants' answers, the types of paraphasias, and how they responded to the cues were all recorded. Results: Participants in both groups significantly increased their naming performance for all words when cues were given. A total of 181 paraphasias were observed in the fluent aphasia group: Phonemic paraphasias were the most common (41.4%), followed by semantic paraphasias with 32.1%. There were 270 paraphasias in the non-fluent aphasia group, with phonemic paraphasia being the most common (60.7%). Conclusion: Phonemic and neologistic paraphasias were significantly higher in the non-fluent group. Phonemic and neologistic paraphasia is more common in those with non-fluent aphasia. This study found that the cueing method had a favourable influence on PWAs' naming performance, which is consistent with prior research.

Keywords

• aphasia
• naming
• picture naming
• paraphasia
• cueing

Akıcı ve Akıcı Olmayan Afazisi Olan Türk Bireylerin Resim Adlandırma Özellikleri

Abstract

Amaç: Afazisi olan bireylerde adlandırma problemi mevcuttur. Adlandırma sırasında parafaziler görülür ancak parafaziler ile afazi türleri arasında anlamlı bir ilişki yoktur. Bu çalışma, parafazi ile afazi türü arasındaki ilişkinin yanı sıra, ipucu vermenin adlandırma performansı üzerindeki etkisini belirlemeyi amaçlamıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya akıcı ve akıcı olmayan afazi olarak iki gruba ayrılan afazisi olan 37 Türk birey katılmıştır. Katılımcılara 40 adet resim sunulmuş ve adlandırmaları istenmiştir. Doğru yanıt vermemeleri durumunda ipuçları verilmiştir. Katılımcıların cevapları, parafazi türleri ve ipuçlarına nasıl tepki verdikleri kaydedilmiştir. Bulgular: Her iki gruptaki katılımcıların tüm kelimeleri adlandırma performansları, ipuçları verildiğinde önemli ölçüde artmıştır. Akıcı afazi grubunda toplam 181 parafazi gözlenmiştir: Fonemik parafaziler en sık (%41,4) görülürken, onu %32,1 ile semantik parafaziler takip etmiştir. Akıcı olmayan afazi grubunda ise 270 parafazi gözlenmiştir ve fonemik parafaziler en sık (%60,7) gözlenen parafazi çeşidi olmuştur. Sonuç: Akıcı olmayan grupta fonemik ve neolojik parafaziler akıcı afazi grubuna kıyasla anlamlı derecede yüksek olarak gözlenmiştir. Akıcı olmayan afazisi olan bireylerde fonemik ve neolojik parafazi daha sık görülmüştür. Bu çalışma, ipucu yönteminin afazisi olan bireylerin adlandırma performansı üzerinde olumlu bir etkiye sahip olduğunu ortaya koymuştur ve bu sonuç önceki araştırmalarla tutarlıdır.

Keywords

• Afazi
• adlandırma
• resim adlandırma
• parafazi
• ipucu verme

References

1. Bandur, D., & Shewan, C. (2001). Language oriented treatment: A psycholinguistic approach to aphasia. Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders, 4, 629-662.
2. Berg, T. (2006). A structural account of phonological paraphasias. Brain and language, 96(3), 331-356.
3. Chapey, R. (2020). Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
4. Conroy, P., Sage, K., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2009). The effects of decreasing and increasing cue therapy on improving naming speed and accuracy for verbs and nouns in aphasia. Aphasiology, 23(6), 707-730.
5. Goodglass, H., & Wingfield, A. (1997). Word-finding deficits in aphasia: Brain—behavior relations and clinical symptomatology. In Anomia (pp. 3-27). Elsevier. Helm-Estabrooks, N., Albert, M. L., & Nicholas, M. (2014). Manual of aphasia and aphasia therapy. Pro-ed.
6. Hillis, A. E. (1989). Efficacy and generalization of treatment for aphasic naming errors. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 70(8), 632-636.
7. Jescheniak, J. D., & Levelt, W. J. (1994). Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 824.
8. Kohn, S. E., & Goodglass, H. (1985). Picture-naming in aphasia. Brain and language, 24(2), 266-283.

9. Le Dorze, G., & Nespoulous, J.-L. (1989). Anomia in moderate aphasia: Problems in accessing the lexical representation. Brain and language, 37(3), 381-400. Maas, M. B., Lev, M. H., Ay, H., Singhal, A. B., Greer, D. M., Smith, W. S., Harris, G. J., Halpern, E. F., Koroshetz, W. J., & Furie, K. L. (2012). The prognosis for aphasia in stroke. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, 21(5), 350-357. Maher, L. M., & Raymer, A. M. (2004). Management of anomia. Topics in stroke rehabilitation, 11(1), 10-21.
10. Martin, N. (2013). Disorders of word production. Aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders, 131-155. Miceli, G., Amitrano, A., Capasso, R., & Caramazza, A. (1996). The treatment of anomia resulting from output lexical damage: Analysis of two cases. Brain and language, 52(1), 150-174.
11. Morrison, C. M., Chappell, T. D., & Ellis, A. W. (1997). Age of acquisition norms for a large set of object names and their relation to adult estimates and other variables. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 50(3), 528-559.
12. Nettleton, J., & Lesser, R. (1991). Therapy for naming difficulties in aphasia: Application of a cognitive neuropsychological model. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 6(2), 139-157.
13. Nickels, L. (2002). Therapy for naming disorders: Revisiting, revising, and reviewing. Aphasiology, 16(10-11), 935-979. Papathanasiou, I., & Coppens, P. (2013). Aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders: basic concepts and operational definitions. Aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders, xix-xxiii.
14. Patterson J.P., Chapey R. (2008). Assessment of Language Disorders in Adults. In R. Chapey (Ed.), Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders (pp. 64-160). Lippincott Williams & Wilkings.
15. Reineck, L. A., Agarwal, S., & Hillis, A. E. (2005). “Diffusion-clinical mismatch” is associated with potential for early recovery of aphasia. Neurology, 64(5), 828-833.
16. Shao, Z., & Stiegert, J. (2016). Predictors of photo naming: Dutch norms for 327 photos. Behavior research methods, 48(2), 577-584.
17. Stark, B. C., Basilakos, A., Hickok, G., Rorden, C., Bonilha, L., & Fridriksson, J. (2019). Neural organization of speech production: A lesion-based study of error patterns in connected speech. Cortex, 117, 228-246.
18. Thompson, C. K., Kearns, K. P., & Edmonds, L. A. (2006). An experimental analysis of acquisition, generalisation, and maintenance of naming behaviour in a patient with anomia. Aphasiology, 20(12), 1226-1244.
19. Wambaugh, J. L., Linebaugh, C. W., Doyle, P. J., Martinez, A. L., Kalinyak-Fliszar, M., & Spencer, K. A. (2001). Effects of two cueing treatments on lexical retrieval in aphasic speakers with different levels of deficit. Aphasiology, 15(10-11), 933-950.
20. Tekcan, A. İ., Göz, İ., Yalçın, S., Akırmak, Ü., Serbest, S., Fırat, C., & Rodoplu, S. (2002). Yazılı Türkçenin Kelime Sıklığı Sözlüğü’nün geçerliği üzerine bir çalışma. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 17(50), 27-42.