Kuptsova Svetlana V, Dragoy Olga V, Ivanova Maria V
Center for Speech Pathology and Neurorehabilitation, Moscow, Russia.
HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Aphasiology. 2023;37(2):260-287. doi: 10.1080/02687038.2021.2002804. Epub 2021 Nov 29.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that individuals with aphasia have impairments in switching attention compared to healthy controls. However, there is insufficient information about the characteristics of switching attention within one task and whether attention deficits vary depending on aphasia type and lesion location. We aimed to address these knowledge gaps by investigating characteristics of switching attention within one type of task in participants with different types of aphasia and distinct lesion sites. METHOD: Forty individuals with post-stroke aphasia (20 with non-fluent aphasia and frontal lobe damage, and 20 with fluent aphasia and temporal lobe damage) and 20 neurologically healthy age-matched individuals performed an attention switching task. They listened to sequences of high-pitched and low-pitched tones that were presented to them one by one, tallied them separately, and, at the end of each sequence, had to say how many high- and low-pitched tones they had heard. RESULTS: Participants with aphasia performed significantly worse on the task compared to healthy controls, and the performance of two aphasia groups also differed. Specifically, individuals with both aphasia types made more errors than healthy individuals, and the participants with non-fluent aphasia responded more slowly than controls, while reaction times of the participants with fluent aphasia did not differ significantly from those of controls. Also, the two groups of participants with aphasia differed significantly in accuracy, with individuals in the non-fluent group making more errors. CONCLUSIONS: The data demonstrated that people with different types of aphasia have distinct impairments in switching attention. Since cognitive deficits impact language performance, this information is important for differentially addressing their language problems and selecting more specific and optimal rehabilitation programs that target different underlying mechanisms.
背景:先前的研究表明,与健康对照组相比,失语症患者在注意力转换方面存在障碍。然而,关于在一项任务中注意力转换的特征以及注意力缺陷是否因失语症类型和病变位置而异的信息不足。我们旨在通过研究不同类型失语症和不同病变部位的参与者在一种任务类型中的注意力转换特征来填补这些知识空白。 方法:40名中风后失语症患者(20名非流利性失语症且额叶受损,20名流利性失语症且颞叶受损)和20名年龄匹配的神经功能正常个体进行了一项注意力转换任务。他们听取逐一呈现给他们的高音和低音序列,分别对其进行计数,并且在每个序列结束时,必须说出他们听到的高音和低音的数量。 结果:与健康对照组相比,失语症患者在该任务上的表现明显更差,并且两个失语症组的表现也有所不同。具体而言,两种失语症类型的个体比健康个体犯的错误更多,非流利性失语症患者的反应比对照组更慢,而流利性失语症患者的反应时间与对照组没有显著差异。此外,两组失语症患者在准确性方面存在显著差异,非流利性组的个体犯的错误更多。 结论:数据表明,不同类型的失语症患者在注意力转换方面存在明显的障碍。由于认知缺陷会影响语言表现,因此该信息对于差异化解决他们的语言问题以及选择针对不同潜在机制的更具体和最佳的康复方案非常重要。
Front Neurol. 2020-9-30
Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2018-4-18
Brain. 2013-10-24
J Commun Disord. 2008
Neuropsychologia. 2022-12-15
Front Neurol. 2020-9-30
Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2019-10-10
Neuropsychologia. 2018-3-8
Neuropsychologia. 2017-12-6
Zh Vyssh Nerv Deiat Im I P Pavlova. 2015