Issue №1-20, 2021

Writing Errors in Broca’s and Wernicke’s Aphasias as a Manifestation of Functional Strategies for Writing

^1,2 Elena G. Ivanova, ³ Anatoly А. Skvortsov, ^1,2,4 Yuri V. Mikadze

¹ Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
² Federal Center for Brain and Neurotechnology, Moscow, Russian Federation
³ National Research University «Higher School of Economics», Moscow, Russian Federation
⁴ Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, Moscow, Russian Federation

ABSTRACT

The research is devoted to the study of functional rearrangements in the structure of agraphia syndrome, depending on the content of the written task.

AIM. To identify the variability of writing disorders in sensory and motor efferent agraphia in the conditions of performing different types of writing in terms of functional orientation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS. The study involved 51 participants with post stroke aphasia and agraphia (29 people with with Wernicke aphasia). The severity of speech syndromes ranged from mild to moderate. All patients were right-handed. The native language for all participants was Russian. The study was carried out on the basis of inpatient departments of the Center for Speech Pathology and Neurorehabilitation in Moscow. Experimental methods included specially designed tasks that actualize the communicative, mnestic and regulatory functions of written speech. The productivity of writing when performing these tasks was compared with the assessment of the performance of diagnostic tasks traditionally used in clinical practice. Written errors were assessed at the level of individual graphemes, words and sentences. Statistical error analysis was carried out by intraindividual comparison of errors using nonparametric Chi-square tests and Wilcoxon’s test with subsequent correction for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni method.

RESULTS. It was shown that in the group of patients with sensory agraphia, changes in the error structure were leading due to the increased load on the operation of auditory-speech analysis. In the group of patients with efferent motor dissociation agraphia identified when comparing different kinds of syntax errors. A common pattern for both groups was the use of compensatory strategies that optimize the writing process. Patients of both groups resorted to elliptical (incomplete, abbreviated) writing, used phrases of simple syntactic constructions, trying to reduce the number of written errors. The patients also resorted to a high variability of the communicative task, choosing the vocabulary that was most solidified in the past experience, which made it possible to avoid writing errors.

CONCLUSION. Writing errors due to aphatic syndromes can be not only a manifestation of structural disorders of the component structure of speech function, but also a manifestation of the action of functional strategies of written communication.

KEYWORDS: agraphia, aphasia, functional communication, writing strategies, syntax errors

Acknowledgments: The study had no sponsorship

Conflict of interest:: The authors declare no apparent or potential conflicts of interest related to the publication of this article

For citation: Ivanova E.G., Skvortsov А.А., Mikadze Yu.V. Efferent Motor or Sensory Agraphia Errors as a Manifestation of Functional Strategies for Writing Activities. Bulletin of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2021; 20(1): 51-59. https://doi.org/10.38025/2078-1962-2021-20-1-51-59

For correspondence: Elena G. Ivanova, e-mail: ekozintseva@gmail.com

References:

1. Leont’ev A.N., Zaporozhec A.V. Vosstanovlenie dvizheniya. Psihofiziologicheskoe issledovanie vosstanovleniya funkcii ruki posle raneniya [Psychophysiological study of the restoration of hand function after injury]. Moscow. Sovetskaya nauka. 1945: 231 p. (In Russ.).
2. Zinchenko P.I. Neproizvol’noe zapominanie [Involuntary memorization]. Moscow. Progress. 1961: 564 p. (In Russ.).
3. Gippenrejter Yu.B. O dvizhenii chelovecheskogo glaza [About the movement of the human eye]. Moscow. MGU. 1978: 256 p. (In Russ.).
4. Zaporozhec A.V. Psihologiya dejstviya [The psychology of action]. Moscow. NPO MODEK. 2000: 736 p. (In Russ.).
5. Gusev A.N., Utochkin I.S. Rol’ aktivacii sub”ekta v reshenii sensornyh zadach razlichnoj slozhnosti: resursnyj i funkcional’nyj podhody [The role of subject activation in solving sensory tasks of varying complexity: resource and functional approaches]. The Moscow University Herald. Series 14. Psychology. 2006; (4): 21-31 (In Russ.).
6. Utochkin I.S. Teoreticheskie i empiricheskie osnovaniya urovnevogo podhoda k vnimaniyu [The role of subject activation in solving sensory tasks of varying complexity: resource and functional approaches]. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. 2008; 5(3): 31-66 (In Russ.).
7. Ivanova E.G., Skvorcov A.A., Mikadze Yu.V. Variativnost’ klinicheskoj kartiny efferentnoj motornoj agrafii pri realizacii razlichnyh kul’turnyh funkcij pis’mennoj rechi [Variability of the clinical picture of efferent motor agraphia in the implementation of various cultural functions of written speech]. Clinical Psychology and Special Education. 2020; 9(1): 121-141. https://doi.org/10.17759/cpse.2020090107 (In Russ.).
8. Cvetkova L.S., Ahutina T.V., Pylaeva N.M. Metodika ocenki rechi pri afazii [Methodology for assessing speech in aphasia]. Moscow. MGU. 1981: 67 p. (In Russ.).
9. Kolk H.H., Van Grunsven M.M. Agrammatism as a variable phenomenon. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 1985; 2(4): 347-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643298508252666
10. Roeltgen D. Agraphia., In Heilman K.M., Valenstein E. Clinical Neuropsychology. New York: Oxford University Press. 1985: 75-95.
11. Luzzatti C. Acquired Reading and Writing Disorders. Handbook of the Neuroscience of Language. 2008: 209-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-045352-1.00020-3
12. Heeschen C. Strategies of decoding actor-object-relations by aphasic patients. Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior. 1980; 16(1): 5-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(80)80018-9
13. Heeschen C. Agrammatism versus paragrammatism: a fictitious opposition. Agrammatism. New York. Academic Press. 1985.
14. Butterworth H. Hesitation and the production of verbal paraphasias and neologisms in jargon aphasia. Brain and Language. 1979; 8(2): 133-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934x(79)90046-4
15. Margolin D.I., Marcel A.J., Carlson N.R. Common mechanisms in dysnomia and post-semantic surface dyslexia: processing deficits and selective attention. Surface Dyslexia: Neuropsychologicul and Cognitive Studies of Phonological Reading. London. Laurence Erlbaum. 1985.
16. Kolk H., Heeschen C. Agrammatism, paragrammatism and the management of language. Language and Cognitive Processes. 1992; 7(2): 89-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969208409381
17. Miceli G., Silveri M.C., Romani C., Caramazza A. Variation in the pattern of omissions and substitutions of grammatical morphemes in the spontaneous speech of so-called agrammatic patients. Brain and Language. 1989; 36(3): 447-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(89)90079-5
18. Linebarger M.C., Schwartz M.F., Saffran E.M. Sensitivity to grammatical structure in so-called agrammatic aphasics. Cognition. 1983; 13(3): 361-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90015-X
19. Vygotskij L.S. Psihologiya razvitiya cheloveka [Human developmental psychology]. Moscow. Eksmo, Smysl. 2004: 1136 p. (In Russ.).
20. Lukatela G., Gligorijevic B., Kostic A., Turvey M. Representation of inflected nouns in the internal lexicon. Memory and Cognition. 1980; 8(5): 415-423. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211138

©

Эта статья открытого доступа по лицензии CC BY 4.0. Издательство: ФГБУ «НМИЦ РК» Минздрава России.
This is an open article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by the National Medical Research Center for Rehabilitation and Balneology.