Pragmatic Language Disorders Resulting from Semantic Degradation in Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3, 523 - 528, 27.09.2021

Bertuğ Sakın

https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.840917

Cited By: 1

Öz

Objective: The aim of this study is to create an inventory of pragmatic language disorders specific to Alzheimer’s disease, to illustrate them by case examples, to determine the severity of disorders according to the stages of Alzheimer’s, and to specify the impact of patients’ demographic characteristics on the pragmatic disorders experienced by them.
Method: The study adopted a descriptive research design. The sample was selected using the stratified sampling method. Interviews were conducted with the patients using the free association technique. The feedbacks from the participants were collected as audio recordings and transcribed using the SALT program. The findings were analysed and compared with the control group data, and the conclusion was drawn from the results obtained.
Results: In the course of study 19 types of pragmatic language disorders of AD patients were identified. The differences between the pragmatic disorders detected at various stages of the disease were illustrated in detail using case examples, and the effect of the demographic variables on the disorders was determined.
Conclusion: As a result of the research, pragmatic language disorders resulting from semantic degradation experienced by AD patients were identified. It was found out that the early stage of AD is characterised by mild pragmatic disorders, which tend to get more distinct at the middle stage and even more severe at the late stage. In addition, it was determined that the demographic characteristics of patients have an impact on the severity of pragmatic language disorders.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, semantic degradation, pragmatic language disorders

Kaynakça

• Gürvit Hİ. Demans Sendromu, Alzheimer Hastalığı ve Alzheimer Dışı Demanslar. Bahar SZ, Öge EA, editors. Nöroloji. İstanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri; 2004. p.367-415.
• Bayles K, Tomoeda C. Cognitive-Communication Disorders of Dementia. 1st ed. Oxford: Plural Publishing; 2007.
• McKhann GM, Knopman DS, Chertkow H, Hyman BT, Kawas CH, Klunk WE, et al. The diagnosis of dementia due to AD disease: Recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-AD Association Workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for AD disease. Alzheimers Dement 2011;7(3): 263-269.
• Koçer B. Demans Epidemiyolojisi. Türk Psikiyatri Dizini: Demans Dizisi 1999; 1(2): 41- 44.
• Ferri CP, Prince M, Brayne C, et al. Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study. Lancet 2005; 366: 2112-2117.
• Maviş İ, Özbabalık D. Yaşlılıkta Nörolojik Temelli İletişim Sorunları ve Dil ve Konuşma Terapisi. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 2006; 6(1): 1-18.
• Weintraub S, Mesulam M. With or without FUS, it is the anatomy that dictates the dementia phenotype. Brain 2009; 132: 2906-2908.
• Wilcock GK, Esiri MM. Plaques, tangles and dementia. A quantitative study. J Neurol Sci 1982; 56 (2-3): 343-356.
• Ringman JM, Vinters HV. AD and the Frontotemporal Dementia Syndromes. Coffey CE, Cummings JL, editors. The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Geriatric Neuropsychiatry. Arlington: The American Psychiatric Publishing; 2011. p. 407-425.
• Braak H, Alafuzoff I, Arzberger T, Kretzschmar H, Del Tredici K. Staging of Alzheimer disease-associated neurofibrillary pathology using paraffin sections and immunocytochemistry. Acta Neuropathologica 2006; 112: 389–404.
• Yıldırım E. Alzheimer Hastalığında Sosyal Kognitif Becerilerin Dinlenim Durumu Bağlantısallığı ile İlişkisinin İncelenmesi. İstanbul Üniversitesi. Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi. 2018.
• Miller E. Language Impairment in Alzheimer Type Dementia. Clinical Psychology Review 1989; 9: 181-195.
• Locassio JJ, Growdon JH, Corkin S. Cognitive test performance in detecting, staging and tracking Alzheimer's disease. Arch Neurol 1995; 52 (1): 1087-1099.
• Grossman M, White-Devine T. Sentence Comprehension in AD Disease. Brain and Languge 1998; 62: 186-201.
• Helmes E, Ostbye T. Beyond memory impairment cognitive changes in Alzheimer's disease. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2002; 17: 179-193.
• Mesulam MM. Principles of Behavioral and Cognitive Neurology. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University; 2000.
• Öktem Ö. Alzheimer hastalığının erken, orta ve ileri dönemlerinde genel kognitif profil. Karakaş S, Irkeç C, Yüksel N, editors. Beyin ve Nöropsikoloji. Ankara: Çizgi Tıp Yayınevi; 2003. p. 101-111.
• Can H, Karakaş S. Bilişsel süreçlerde Alzheimer Tipi Demansa bağlı değişiklikler. Klinik Psikiyatri 2005; 8(1): 39-41.
• Tonkovich J. Managing Long-Term Communication and Memory Consequences of Dementia. Neurophsiology and Neurogenic Speech and Language Disorders 1995; 9 (5): 9-14.
• Martin A. Semantic knowledge in patients with Alzheimer's disease: evidence for degraded representation. Backman L, editor. Memory functioning in dementia. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishers; 1992: p. 119-134.
• Fleischman DA, Gabrieli JD. Long term memory in Alzheimer's disease. Curr Opin Neurobiol 1999; 9: 240-244.
• March E, Wales R, Pattison P. Language use in normal ageing and dementia of the AD type. Clinical Psychologist 2003; 7: 300-328.
• Williams VG, Bruce JM, Westervelt HJ, Davis JD, Grace J, Malloy PF, Tremont G. Boston naming performance distinguishes between Lewy body and AD dementias. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 2007; 22: 925-931.
• Visch-Brink EG, Hagelstein M, Middelkoop HAM, van der Cammen TMJ. Naming and semantic processing in Alzheimer dementia: A coherent picture. Brain and Language 2004; 91: 11-12.
• Chapman SB, Highley AP, Thopmson JL. Discourse in fluent aphasia and Alzheimer's disease: Linguistic and pragmatic considerations. Journal of Neurolinguistics 1998; 11: 55-78.
• March EG, Wales R, Pattison P. The uses of nouns and deixis in discourse production in AD disease. Journal of Neurolinguistics 2006; 19: 311-340.
• Eker E. Alzheimer Hastalığı. Uğur M, Balcıoğlu İ, Kocabaşoğlu N, editors. Türkiye’de Sık Karşılaşılan Psikiyatrik Hastalıklar Sempozyum Dizisi; 2008 March 6-7; Istanbul, Turkey. Istanbul; 2008. pp. 85-110.
• Cuerva AG, Sabe L, Kuzis G, Tiberti C, Dorrego F, Starkstein SE. Theory of mind and pragmatic abilities in dementia. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology and Behavioural Neurology 2001; 14(3): 153-158.
• Amanzio M, Geminiani G, Leotta D, Cappa S. Metaphor comprehension in Alzheimer’s disease: Novelty matters. Brain and Language 2008; 107: 1-10.
• Papagno C. Comprehension of metaphors and idioms in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: A longitudinal study. Brain 2001; 124: 1450-1460.
• Rassiga C, Lucchelli F, Crippa F, Papago C. Ambiguous idiom comprehension in Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 2009; 31: 402-411.
• Papagno C, Lucchelli F, Muggia S, Rizzo S. Idiom comprehension in Alzheimer’s disease: The role of the central executive. Brain 2003; 126: 2419-2430.
• Leyhe T, Saur R, Eschweiler GW, Milian M. Impairment in proverb interpretation as an executive function deficit in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment and early Alzheimer’s disease. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra 2011; 1: 51-61.
• Chapman SB, Highley AP, Thompson JL. Discourse in fluent aphasia and Alzheimer’s disease: Linguistic and pragmatic considerations. Journal of Neurolinguistics 1998; 11: 55-78.
• Mentis M, Briggs-Whittaker J, Gramigna GD. Discourse topic management in senile dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1995; 38: 1054-1066.
• Carlomagno S, Santoro A, Menditti A, Pandolfi M, Marini A. Referential communication in Alzheimer’s type dementia. Cortex 2005; 41(4): 520-534.
• Welland RJ, Lubinski R, Higginbotham DJ. Discourse comprehension test performance of elders with dementia of the Alzheimer type. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2002; 45: 1175-1187.