A systematic review: Idiom comprehension in aphasia: The effects of stimuli and task type

IF 1.2 3区 心理学 Q2 LINGUISTICS
Anastasia Lada , Philippe Paquier , Christina Manouilidou , Stefanie Keulen
{"title":"A systematic review: Idiom comprehension in aphasia: The effects of stimuli and task type","authors":"Anastasia Lada ,&nbsp;Philippe Paquier ,&nbsp;Christina Manouilidou ,&nbsp;Stefanie Keulen","doi":"10.1016/j.jneuroling.2022.101115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p><span>Idioms differ from other forms of figurative language because of their semantic dimensions of familiarity (frequency of encounter), ambiguity (possibility to have a literal interpretation), decomposability (possibility of the idiom's words to assist in its figurative interpretation) and transparency (possibility to deduce the original metaphorical motivation of an idiomatic phrase from its literal analysis). A variety of approaches have been used to investigate the way idioms are processed in the brain. Studying clinical populations is one of them. Supporting evidence has been drawn from studies examining subjects suffering from aphasia, typically caused by lesions to a complex language network involving the main language areas in the Left Hemisphere (</span><span>LH</span>) of the brain. Patients with aphasia sometimes show selective impairment in idiom comprehension, implying that there are types of idioms, less impaired in comprehension, which do not depend solely on the LH of the brain. However, recent literature does not seem to agree in terms of when such preference exists and if the types of idioms and tasks employed play a crucial role.</p></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><p>This study investigates idiom comprehension in aphasia and seeks to explore (1) the effect of idiomatic stimuli in terms of their semantic dimensions on the patients' language performance (2) a potential effect of the tasks employed on the patients' language performance.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic review<span> was done following the PRISMA approach. Starting from an initial find of n = 457, after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 15 articles were retained for further analysis. Relevant information that was extracted included differences and similarities across studies, especially focusing on patient characteristics (age, type of aphasia, severity of aphasia, post onset period, handedness, type of lesion (i.e., single focal vs. multiple), lesion location, etiology and test used for diagnosis), stimuli (types of stimuli, stimuli's assessment, consistent use of terminology) and task employed (type of task, task options, modality of presentation and response, and types of measurements) and language comprehension patterns.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Results indicated that studies in idiom comprehension in aphasia are characterized by great heterogeneity regarding the experimental task and the type of idiomatic stimuli employed. Heterogeneity in these key aspects, results in unclear interpretation of idiom comprehension patterns in aphasia across studies. In addition, the nature of idiomatic stimuli and more specifically their semantic dimensions were insufficiently described, and their descriptions were sometimes accompanied by terminological inconsistencies. Moreover, patient profiles were occasionally incomplete and more importantly, language comprehension patterns were reported after considering patients with aphasia as one homogenous group irrespective of their aphasic syndrome. Last, this review proposes recommendations for future research, focusing on patient profiles, experimental tasks and stimuli as well as the interpretation of language comprehension patterns.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurolinguistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neurolinguistics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0911604422000598","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction

Idioms differ from other forms of figurative language because of their semantic dimensions of familiarity (frequency of encounter), ambiguity (possibility to have a literal interpretation), decomposability (possibility of the idiom's words to assist in its figurative interpretation) and transparency (possibility to deduce the original metaphorical motivation of an idiomatic phrase from its literal analysis). A variety of approaches have been used to investigate the way idioms are processed in the brain. Studying clinical populations is one of them. Supporting evidence has been drawn from studies examining subjects suffering from aphasia, typically caused by lesions to a complex language network involving the main language areas in the Left Hemisphere (LH) of the brain. Patients with aphasia sometimes show selective impairment in idiom comprehension, implying that there are types of idioms, less impaired in comprehension, which do not depend solely on the LH of the brain. However, recent literature does not seem to agree in terms of when such preference exists and if the types of idioms and tasks employed play a crucial role.

Aims

This study investigates idiom comprehension in aphasia and seeks to explore (1) the effect of idiomatic stimuli in terms of their semantic dimensions on the patients' language performance (2) a potential effect of the tasks employed on the patients' language performance.

Methods

A systematic review was done following the PRISMA approach. Starting from an initial find of n = 457, after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 15 articles were retained for further analysis. Relevant information that was extracted included differences and similarities across studies, especially focusing on patient characteristics (age, type of aphasia, severity of aphasia, post onset period, handedness, type of lesion (i.e., single focal vs. multiple), lesion location, etiology and test used for diagnosis), stimuli (types of stimuli, stimuli's assessment, consistent use of terminology) and task employed (type of task, task options, modality of presentation and response, and types of measurements) and language comprehension patterns.

Results

Results indicated that studies in idiom comprehension in aphasia are characterized by great heterogeneity regarding the experimental task and the type of idiomatic stimuli employed. Heterogeneity in these key aspects, results in unclear interpretation of idiom comprehension patterns in aphasia across studies. In addition, the nature of idiomatic stimuli and more specifically their semantic dimensions were insufficiently described, and their descriptions were sometimes accompanied by terminological inconsistencies. Moreover, patient profiles were occasionally incomplete and more importantly, language comprehension patterns were reported after considering patients with aphasia as one homogenous group irrespective of their aphasic syndrome. Last, this review proposes recommendations for future research, focusing on patient profiles, experimental tasks and stimuli as well as the interpretation of language comprehension patterns.

失语症中的习语理解:刺激和任务类型的影响
习语不同于其他形式的比喻语言,因为它们的语义维度是熟悉度(遇到的频率)、模糊性(字面解释的可能性)、可分解性(习语单词有助于其比喻解释的可能性)和透明度(从字面分析推断出习语短语的原始隐喻动机的可能性)。人们使用了多种方法来研究习语在大脑中的处理方式。研究临床人群就是其中之一。从对失语症患者的研究中得到了支持证据,失语症通常是由涉及大脑左半球主要语言区域的复杂语言网络受损引起的。失语症患者有时在习语理解上表现出选择性障碍,这意味着有一些类型的习语在理解上受损较小,它们并不仅仅依赖于大脑的LH。然而,最近的文献似乎并不同意这种偏好何时存在,以及习语和任务的类型是否起关键作用。目的研究失语症患者的习语理解,并探讨:(1)习语刺激在语义维度上对患者语言表现的影响;(2)所采用的任务对患者语言表现的潜在影响。方法采用PRISMA方法进行系统评价。从最初的发现n = 457开始,在应用纳入和排除标准后,保留15篇文章进行进一步分析。提取的相关信息包括不同研究之间的差异和相似之处,特别是关注患者特征(年龄、失语症类型、失语症严重程度、发病后时期、惯用手性、病变类型(即单灶vs多灶)、病变位置、病因和用于诊断的测试)、刺激(刺激类型、刺激评估、术语的一致使用)和所采用的任务(任务类型、任务选项、呈现和反应方式)。测量的类型)和语言理解模式。结果研究结果表明,失语症成语理解研究在实验任务和习语刺激类型上具有很大的异质性。在这些关键方面的异质性,导致不同研究对失语症成语理解模式的解释不明确。此外,对习惯刺激的性质及其语义维度的描述不够充分,有时还伴随着术语的不一致。此外,患者概况有时不完整,更重要的是,将失语症患者视为一个同质组而不考虑其失语症综合征后报告的语言理解模式。最后,本文对未来的研究提出了建议,重点关注患者概况、实验任务和刺激以及语言理解模式的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Neurolinguistics
Journal of Neurolinguistics 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
5.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
17.2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurolinguistics is an international forum for the integration of the neurosciences and language sciences. JNL provides for rapid publication of novel, peer-reviewed research into the interaction between language, communication and brain processes. The focus is on rigorous studies of an empirical or theoretical nature and which make an original contribution to our knowledge about the involvement of the nervous system in communication and its breakdowns. Contributions from neurology, communication disorders, linguistics, neuropsychology and cognitive science in general are welcome. Published articles will typically address issues relating some aspect of language or speech function to its neurological substrates with clear theoretical import. Interdisciplinary work on any aspect of the biological foundations of language and its disorders resulting from brain damage is encouraged. Studies of normal subjects, with clear reference to brain functions, are appropriate. Group-studies on well defined samples and case studies with well documented lesion or nervous system dysfunction are acceptable. The journal is open to empirical reports and review articles. Special issues on aspects of the relation between language and the structure and function of the nervous system are also welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信