Lehmkuhl G, Poeck K, Willmes K
Neuropsychologia. 1983;21(3):199-212. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(83)90038-6.
Eighty-eight aphasic patients with the four standard syndromes as well as two control groups, 10 right-sided brain damaged patients and 10 patients without brain damage were examined for ideomotor apraxia by means of 200 tasks. The tasks required oral, arm, leg and bimanual movements, both on verbal command and on imitation. The limb movements were half meaningful, half meaningless. Performances were evaluated according to five response categories: correct, fragmentary, augmentative, perseveratory, other errors. The aim of the investigation was to ascertain whether there are apractic syndromes which are either related to the aphasic syndromes or are characterized by certain types of errors or by manifestation on certain parts of the body. The findings were negative in all three respects. The meaning of these findings for the organization of praxis and language is discussed. The performances of the control groups were consistently higher than those of the aphasic patients.
88名患有四种标准综合征的失语症患者以及两个对照组,即10名右侧脑损伤患者和10名无脑损伤患者,通过200项任务接受了观念运动性失用症检查。这些任务要求患者根据言语指令和模仿进行口腔、手臂、腿部和双手运动。肢体运动有一半是有意义的,一半是无意义的。根据五种反应类别对表现进行评估:正确、不完整、增加、持续、其他错误。该研究的目的是确定是否存在与失语症综合征相关的失用症综合征,或者是否以某些类型的错误或身体某些部位的表现为特征。在所有三个方面的研究结果均为阴性。讨论了这些发现对实践和语言组织的意义。对照组的表现始终高于失语症患者。