Event Abstract

Back to Event

Influence of Lexical versus Procedural Knowledge in Sentence Production in Response to Thematic Role Assignment Treatment

Katsiaryna Kazhuro1*, Tatiana T. Schnur2, Anny Castilla-Earls1 and Lynn M. Maher1
  • 1 University of Houston, Communication Sciences and Disorders, United States
  • 2 Baylor College of Medicine, United States

We tested whether one source of variability in treatment response and generalization for sentence production (Mitchum, Greenwald, & Berndt, 2000; Rochon, Laird, & Scofield, 2000) in individuals with non-fluent agrammatic aphasia is a deficit in the ability to assign thematic roles (procedural mapping). We propose that agrammatic individuals with better lexical verb retrieval abilities have a procedural mapping deficit (Schwartz, Saffran, Fink, Myers, & Martin, 1994; Marshall, 1995), and, therefore, demonstrate better response and generalization to treatment which focuses on the procedural assignment of thematic roles. In contrast, we hypothesized agrammatic individuals with poorer lexical verb retrieval abilities have a lexical mapping deficit and exhibit worse treatment outcomes and generalization of treatment. Fifteen right-handed, monolingual English-speaking adult males and females who had unilateral left hemisphere CVAs with subsequent chronic non-fluent aphasia and no co-morbid neurologic impairments participated in this study. All participants had agrammatism as confirmed by their poor performance during production of passive reversible verb sentences at baseline (≤30% accuracy). Verb retrieval, as measured by the Action Naming Test (Obler & Albert, 1986), and active sentence comprehension, as measured by the active sentences on the Circles and Squares Syntactic Comprehension Test, (adopted from Schwartz, Saffran, & Martin, 1980) served as indicators of lexical and procedural mapping abilities, respectively. The dependent variables were treatment response, as determined by sentence production to picture stimuli using correct thematic role assignment, and treatment generalization, as measured by the non-treated sentence production using correct thematic role assignment. In order to examine the relationship between verb retrieval and active sentence comprehension correlation analysis was used. Linear regression was used to determine the strength of the relationship between the independent variables (severity of the type of mapping deficit) and dependent variables (treatment outcomes), while considering the potential impacts of overall aphasia severity and age. The analyses revealed no significant correlation between verb retrieval and active reversible sentence comprehension (r=0.417, p =.122) suggesting these two measures test separate stages of sentence processing. We found overall aphasia severity as indicated by the Western Aphasia Battery A.Q. (Kertesz, 1982) correlated with verb retrieval (r=0.781, p=.001) and active sentence comprehension (r=0.653, p=.008), suggesting that overall aphasia severity considers linguistic impairments captured by both verb retrieval and active sentence comprehension measures. Overall aphasia severity was the main predictor of treatment response (R²=.382), whereas age was not correlated with either treatment response (r=-0.18, p=.53) or generalization (r=-0.15, p=.60), which is consistent with the literature (Pederson, Vinter, & Olsen, 2004; Plowman, Hentz, & Ellis, 2011). Verb retrieval, however, was the only statistically significant predictor of treatment generalization (R²=.351). Our results demonstrate that better mapping treatment outcomes are predicted by relatively preserved verb retrieval, where individuals with poor verb retrieval demonstrate treatment specific gains but no treatment generalization. However, individuals who can access the lexical representation of the verb for further processing demonstrate not only a positive treatment response, but also a generalized response suggesting procedural re-learning of the process of thematic role assignment.

References

Kertesz, A. (1982). The Western Aphasia Battery. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Marshall, J. (1995). The mapping hypothesis and aphasia therapy. Aphasiology, 9(6), 517-539.
Mitchum, C., Greenwald, M., & Berndt, R. (2000). Cognitive treatments of sentence processing disorders: What have we learned? Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 10(3), 311-336.
Obler, L., & Albert, M. (1986). Action Naming Test. Unpublished Test: Author.
Pedersen, P., Vinter, K., & Olsen, T. (2004). Aphasia after stroke: type, severity, and prognosis. Cerebrovascular Diseases, 17, 35-43.
Plowman, E., Hentz, B., & Ellis, C. (2011). Post-stroke aphasia prognosis: A review of patient-related and stroke-related factors. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 19, 689-694.
Rochon, E., Laird, L., & Scofield, J. (2000). Mapping therapy for sentence production impairments in aphasia. Paper presented at the Tri-Joint Congress, Annual meeting of the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, Canadian Physiotherapy Association, and the Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists, Toronto.
Schwartz, M., Saffran, E., & Martin, O. (1980). The word order problem in agrammatism: Comprehension. Brain and Language, 10, 249-262.
Schwartz, M., Saffran, E., Fink, R., Myers, J., & Martin, N. (1994). Mapping therapy: A treatment program for agrammatism. Aphasiology, 8, 19-54.

Keywords: non-fluent aphasia, agrammatism, Thematic role assignment, procedural mapping deficit, lexical mapping deficit, verb retrieval, active sentence comprehension, mapping treatment, Treatment generalization

Conference: Academy of Aphasia 55th Annual Meeting , Baltimore, United States, 5 Nov - 7 Nov, 2017.

Presentation Type: poster presentation

Topic: Consider for student award

Citation: Kazhuro K, Schnur TT, Castilla-Earls A and Maher LM (2019). Influence of Lexical versus Procedural Knowledge in Sentence Production in Response to Thematic Role Assignment Treatment. Conference Abstract: Academy of Aphasia 55th Annual Meeting . doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2017.223.00119

Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.

The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.

Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.

For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.

Received: 02 May 2017; Published Online: 25 Jan 2019.

* Correspondence: Ms. Katsiaryna Kazhuro, University of Houston, Communication Sciences and Disorders, Houston, TX, 77204, United States, kate.kazhuro@gmail.com