Aphasia classifications

Question 1

Boston

Answer 1

• Geschwind, Goodglass, Kaplan, etc.
• Two basic distinctions
o Aphasia can be fluent or nonfluent
o Aphasias can be cortical, subcortical, or transcortical
• Broca, Wernicke, Conduction, TransMotor, TransSensory, Anomic, Global

Question 2

Luria

Answer 2

• Aphasia subtypes refer to the specific level of language that is impaired
• Motor efferent/kinesthetic, motor afferent/kinesthetic, acoustic-agnostic, acoustic-amnestic, semantic, dynamic, amnesic
• Equal importance of psycholinguistic and anatomical factors
• Motor aphasia: afferent, efferent
• Receptive: sensory acoustic, sensory amnestic
• Dynamic aphasia
• Semantic aphasia

Question 3

Can classify based on anatomic centers and interconnections

Answer 3

• Broca, Wernicke, Wernicke-Lichthiem, Geschwind

Question 4

Can classify based on impairment of underlying intellectual capacity

Answer 4

• Marie, Head, Goldstein, Jackson

Question 5

Can classify based on psycholinguistic functions

Answer 5

• Wepman, Grodzinsky, Thompson

Question 6

Hughlings Jackson

Answer 6

•• Distinction between automatic and volitional behavior
Language impairment in which speech is damaged/absent
• Language impairment in which there is copious errored output
• More along a continuum
• From Hallowell & Chapey (2008) – impairment in the use of propositional language

Question 7

Wernicke-Lichtheim model (1884)

Answer 7

elaborated Wernicke, bases for classical anatomical-connectionist model of aphasia syndromes
• Conduction aphasia
• Model includes nodes for motor articulatory center, auditory word images, & conceptual center, with pathways and various places for lesions
• First diagram makers

Question 8

Marie (1906)

Answer 8

• Only one basic type of aphasia: Wernicke’s
• Importance of underlying intellect
• Broca’s patients = Wernicke’s + motor speech

Question 9

Head (1926)

Answer 9

• Disorder of symbolic formulation and expression, important in any type of behavior that involves symbols (not just language)
• Verbal aphasia, syntactic aphasia, nominal aphasia, semantic aphasia

Question 10

Weisenburg & McBride (1935)

Answer 10

• Predominantly expressive, predominantly receptive, and amnestic
• After extensive intelligence and language testing, empirical and pragmatic approach

Question 11

Goldstein (1948)

Answer 11

• Important in both anatomic and noetic movement

* Loss of capacity for abstract behavior reduces the capacity to deal with words

Question 12

Schuell

Answer 12

• MTDDA
• Single general language factor accounts for all deficits
• Types based on severity and interactions with sensorimotor impairments

Question 13

Jakobson

Answer 13

• Paradigmatic vs. syntagmatic aspects of language
• Paradigmatic: relationships between symbol and referent; selecting
o If on this axis: similarity disorder
o Similar to Wernicke’s
• Syntagmatic: relationship between elements in a string of linguistic elements; sequencing
o In on this axis: contiguity disorder, similar to Broca’s

Question 14

Wepman

Answer 14

• Psycholinguistic view
• Semantic, syntactic, pragmatic
• Jargon, global aphasia

Question 15

Geschwind

Answer 15

• Symptoms accounted for by transmission of information between motor/sensory processing centers
• Conduction aphasia = disconnection
• Introduced fluent, nonfluent, replacing terms expressive and receptive

Question 16

Geschwind and the Boston system (updating of Wernicke-Lichtheim typologies)

Answer 16

• Classified on the basis of spontaneous speech, auditory comprehension, repetition, naming
• Broca’s aphasia
• Transcortical motor aphasia
• Conduction aphasia
• Global aphasia
• Wernicke’s aphasia
• Transcortical sensory aphasia
• Anomic aphasia

Question 17

Schwartz, 1984

Answer 17

• Grouping based on taxonomies may obscure the similarities in specific linguistic behaviors
• The classical aphasia typologies of the Wernicke-Lichtheim model are not relevant to current neurolinguistics understandings because they are polytypic – features of each typology overlap category boundaries. Thus, the typology Broca’s aphasia, one cannot predict specifc behaviors or a pattern of behaviors

Question 18

Darley (1982)

Answer 18

independent of classification system employed, all classifications failed to show expected differences. Given the potential for likeness across types, classification not useful

Question 19

McNeil & Kimelman (2001)

Answer 19

with the advancement of neuroimaging, behaviorally-based lesion location is not very useful

Question 20

McNeil & Pratt (2001)

Answer 20

The classification of aphasia types do not specify the necessary and sufficient behavior to reveal group membership, nor the assumed mechanisms that produce such behaviors

Question 21

Buckingham, 2010

Answer 21

• Recent neuroimaging evidence does not support a division of labor of neurolinguistic functioning into anterior and posterior cerebral systems

Question 22

Marshall (2010)

Answer 22

scores for subtests of the PALPA varied widely for 4 individuals all judged to have fluent aphasia with similar lesion sites