Event Abstract

Back to Event

Cognitive deficits revealed with the Rus-BCoS and their relationships with language comprehension in fluent and nonfluent aphasia

Ekaterina Kuzmina1* and Brendan S. Weekes2, 3
  • 1 University of Oslo, Center for Multilingualism in Society across the Lifespan, Norway
  • 2 University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Education, Hong Kong, SAR China
  • 3 University of Melbourne, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, Australia

We know that fluent and nonfluent PWA present with different language profiles. However, the question of whether fluent and nonfluent PWA present with similar cognitive deficits and whether such deficits contribute to language comprehension, is open. Although we know that all PWA have diminished verbal cognitive control, nonfluent PWA display greater vulnerability in domain-general cognitive control compared to fluent PWA and nonfluent PWA rely on domain-general relational reasoning during language comprehension (Kuzmina & Weekes, 2016). Study aims and hypotheses Our first objective was to examine cognitive deficits using the Russian version of the Birmingham Cognitive Screen (Rus-BCoS; Kuzmina et al., 2017) in fluent and nonfluent aphasia groups. Given heterogeneous patterns of cognitive deficits in PWA (Murray, 2012; Seniów et al., 2009), we did not make predictions about differences between groups. The second objective was to correlate relationships between cognitive processing and language comprehension in both fluent and nonfluent PWA. Assuming that PWA compensate linguistic disturbances via intact cognitive mechanisms (Luria, 1980) and that fluent and nonfluent PWA differ in their primary linguistic disturbances (Ardila 2010; Jakobson, 1964; Luria, 1973), we expected, firstly, that all PWA would recruit extra-linguistic cognitive processes to compensate for impaired language comprehension and, secondly, that fluent and nonfluent PWA would display different patterns of compensation. Method 17 participants with sensory or acoustic‑amnestic aphasia defined according to the Lurian nosology comprised the fluent group and 17 participants diagnosed with efferent-motor aphasia or complex motor aphasia with a prevalence of efferent-motor aphasic symptoms comprised the nonfluent group. All participants were tested with subtests from the Rus-BCoS and the Quantitative Assessment of Speech in Aphasia (QASA; Tsvetkova, Akhutina, & Pylaeva, 1981). To compare cognitive deficits, participants’ averaged rank scores from Rus‑BCoS subtests were entered into a principal component analysis with varimax rotation. To compare scores for the extracted cognitive factors, Student’s t-test was used. Next, scores on each factor were correlated with language comprehension ability. Results The loadings of rotated factors on each Rus-BCoS subtest enabled interpretation of cognitive processes underlying each factor (see Table 1). The nonfluent group had significantly lower scores for Factor 2 “Domain-general cognitive control”, t(32) = -2.52, p = .02. There were no significant differences between the groups on other factors. Domain-general memory was significantly correlated to language comprehension for fluent PWA, r(16) = .78, p < .001, but not nonfluent PWA, r(16) = .33, p = .20. Domain-general cognitive control was significantly correlated with language comprehension for nonfluent PWA, r(16) = .50, p = .04, but not for fluent PWA, r(16) = -.18, p = .50. There were no significant correlations between other factors and language comprehension scores for either group. Conclusions The nonfluent group seemed to show more impairment on average on tasks requiring cognitive control. The results suggest that better attention allocation allows nonfluent PWA compensate for their impaired linguistic sequencing and, consequently, achieve better comprehension. On the other hand, better memory allows fluent PWA compensate for their specific impairment in the selection of linguistic elements during language comprehension.

References

Ardila, A. (2010). A proposed reinterpretation and reclassification of aphasic syndromes. Aphasiology, 24, 363–394. doi:10.1080/02687030802553704
Jakobson, R. (1964). Towards a linguistic typology of aphasic impairments. In A. V. S. De Reuck & M. O’Connor (Eds.), Ciba Foundation Symposium. Disorders of Language (pp. 21–46). London: John Wiley.
Kuzmina, E., & Weekes, B.S. (2016). Role of cognitive control in language deficits in different types of aphasia. Aphasiology. doi:10.1080/02687038.2016.1263383
Kuzmina, E., Humphreys, G.W., Riddoch, M.J., Skvortsov, A.A., & Weekes, B.S. (2017). Preliminary validation study of the Russian Birmingham Cognitive Screen. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, DOI: 10.1080/13803395.2017.1301884
Luria, A. R. (1964). Factors and forms of aphasia. In A. V. S. De Reuck & M. O’Connor (Eds.), Ciba Foundation Symposium. Disorders of Language (pp. 143–167). London: John Wiley & Sons.
Luria, A. R. (1973). Two basic kinds of aphasic disorders. Linguistics, 115, 57–66.
Luria, A. R. (1980). Higher Cortical Functions in Man (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Murray, L. L. (2012a). Attention and other cognitive deficits in aphasia: Presence and relation to language and communication measures. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21, 51–64. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0067)
Seniów, J., Litwin, M., & Leśniak, M. (2009a). Nonverbal reasoning and working memory in patients with post-stroke aphasia. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 285, 281–282. doi:10.1016/S0022-510X(09)71071-8
Thompson, H. E., Robson, H. Matthew, & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2015). Varieties of semantic ‘access’ deficit in Wernicke’s aphasia and semantic aphasia. Brain, 138, 3776–3792.
Tsvetkova, L. S., Akhutina, T. V., & Pylaeva, N. M. (1981). Kolichestvennaya otsenka rechi u bol’nykh s aphasiej. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Moskovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta.

Keywords: Aphasia, Language comprehension, cognitive deficits, fluent aphasia, Nonfluent aphasia

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

Presentation Type: poster presentation

Topic: Aphasia

Citation: Kuzmina E and Weekes BS (2019). Cognitive deficits revealed with the Rus-BCoS and their relationships with language comprehension in fluent and nonfluent aphasia. Conference Abstract: Academy of Aphasia 55th Annual Meeting . doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2017.223.00078

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: 17 Apr 2017; Published Online: 25 Jan 2019.

* Correspondence: Dr. Ekaterina Kuzmina, University of Oslo, Center for Multilingualism in Society across the Lifespan, Oslo, Norway, ekaterina.kuzmina@iln.uio.no