Sources of error in the reading of different types of aphasic patients.
Item
-
Title
-
Sources of error in the reading of different types of aphasic patients.
-
Identifier
-
AAI9820527
-
identifier
-
9820527
-
Creator
-
Economou, Alexandra.
-
Contributor
-
Adviser: Vivien C. Tartter
-
Date
-
1998
-
Language
-
English
-
Publisher
-
City University of New York.
-
Subject
-
Psychology, Cognitive | Health Sciences, Speech Pathology
-
Abstract
-
Twenty aphasic patients were administered 135 monosyllabic words to read. Multiple regression analyses of their reading performance addressed three questions: (1) Which word characteristics influence aphasic reading? (2) Do different word characteristics account for the performance of different types of aphasics (e.g., nonfluent vs. fluent)? (3) Does the performance of individual aphasics reflect the pattern of performance obtained from group data? The patients were grouped by fluency (Nonfluent, Fluent), agrammatism (Agrammatic, Non-Agrammatic) and Diagnostic Category (Broca's, Fluent-Poor Comprehension, Fluent-Good Comprehension) using the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination and other language measures. Thirteen patients with scans were also grouped by site of lesion (Mixed, Posterior) and lesion size (Large, Small). The dependent measure was word score, on a four-point scale designed to reflect phonological proximity to target. Word variables were frequency and related measures (e.g., written, spoken, Heritage frequency), grammatical category, semantic and associative measures (e.g., imageability, ease of association), phonological measures (e.g., word length) and orthographic measures (e.g., consistency of pronunciation). Subject variables were severity of aphasia, fluency, agrammatism and diagnostic category. With respect to the first question, subject variables, especially severity of aphasia, accounted for most of the variance in the reading performance of all the patients. Significant word variables were word being an adjective and Heritage frequency. With respect to the second question, different word variables accounted for the reading performance of the Nonfluent and Fluent groups: Nonfluent patients read more accurately words other than verbs, of high Heritage frequency, that were short; Fluent patients read adjectives more accurately. The results were replicated in the subset of words containing the semantic/associative variables. When those variables were added, Ease of Association suppressed all other variables for the Nonfluent group; Imageability was added for the Fluent group. Patients in the Large/Mixed groups read adjectives more accurately, whereas patients in the Small/Posterior groups read high Heritage frequency words that are pronounced consistent with their neighbors more accurately. With respect to the third question, individual patients were affected by a range of variables, primarily as a function of severity and fluency. Results are discussed in terms of two competing theories of lexical organization.
-
Type
-
dissertation
-
Source
-
PQT Legacy CUNY.xlsx
-
degree
-
Ph.D.
