Grammatical Parallelism in Aphasia: A Lesion-Symptom Mapping Study.

IF 3.6 Q1 LINGUISTICS
Neurobiology of Language Pub Date : 2023-10-31 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1162/nol_a_00117
William Matchin, Dirk-Bart den Ouden, Alexandra Basilakos, Brielle Caserta Stark, Julius Fridriksson, Gregory Hickok
{"title":"Grammatical Parallelism in Aphasia: A Lesion-Symptom Mapping Study.","authors":"William Matchin, Dirk-Bart den Ouden, Alexandra Basilakos, Brielle Caserta Stark, Julius Fridriksson, Gregory Hickok","doi":"10.1162/nol_a_00117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sentence structure, or syntax, is potentially a uniquely creative aspect of the human mind. Neuropsychological experiments in the 1970s suggested parallel syntactic production and comprehension deficits in agrammatic Broca's aphasia, thought to result from damage to syntactic mechanisms in Broca's area in the left frontal lobe. This hypothesis was sometimes termed <i>overarching agrammatism</i>, converging with developments in linguistic theory concerning central syntactic mechanisms supporting language production and comprehension. However, the evidence supporting an association among receptive syntactic deficits, expressive agrammatism, and damage to frontal cortex is equivocal. In addition, the relationship among a distinct grammatical production deficit in aphasia, paragrammatism, and receptive syntax has not been assessed. We used lesion-symptom mapping in three partially overlapping groups of left-hemisphere stroke patients to investigate these issues: grammatical production deficits in a primary group of 53 subjects and syntactic comprehension in larger sample sizes (<i>N</i> = 130, 218) that overlapped with the primary group. Paragrammatic production deficits were significantly associated with multiple analyses of syntactic comprehension, particularly when incorporating lesion volume as a covariate, but agrammatic production deficits were not. The lesion correlates of impaired performance of syntactic comprehension were significantly associated with damage to temporal lobe regions, which were also implicated in paragrammatism, but not with the inferior and middle frontal regions implicated in expressive agrammatism. Our results provide strong evidence against the overarching agrammatism hypothesis. By contrast, our results suggest the possibility of an alternative grammatical parallelism hypothesis rooted in paragrammatism and a central syntactic system in the posterior temporal lobe.</p>","PeriodicalId":34845,"journal":{"name":"Neurobiology of Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10631800/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurobiology of Language","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00117","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Sentence structure, or syntax, is potentially a uniquely creative aspect of the human mind. Neuropsychological experiments in the 1970s suggested parallel syntactic production and comprehension deficits in agrammatic Broca's aphasia, thought to result from damage to syntactic mechanisms in Broca's area in the left frontal lobe. This hypothesis was sometimes termed overarching agrammatism, converging with developments in linguistic theory concerning central syntactic mechanisms supporting language production and comprehension. However, the evidence supporting an association among receptive syntactic deficits, expressive agrammatism, and damage to frontal cortex is equivocal. In addition, the relationship among a distinct grammatical production deficit in aphasia, paragrammatism, and receptive syntax has not been assessed. We used lesion-symptom mapping in three partially overlapping groups of left-hemisphere stroke patients to investigate these issues: grammatical production deficits in a primary group of 53 subjects and syntactic comprehension in larger sample sizes (N = 130, 218) that overlapped with the primary group. Paragrammatic production deficits were significantly associated with multiple analyses of syntactic comprehension, particularly when incorporating lesion volume as a covariate, but agrammatic production deficits were not. The lesion correlates of impaired performance of syntactic comprehension were significantly associated with damage to temporal lobe regions, which were also implicated in paragrammatism, but not with the inferior and middle frontal regions implicated in expressive agrammatism. Our results provide strong evidence against the overarching agrammatism hypothesis. By contrast, our results suggest the possibility of an alternative grammatical parallelism hypothesis rooted in paragrammatism and a central syntactic system in the posterior temporal lobe.

失语症的语法平行性:一项病变症状映射研究
句子结构或句法可能是人类思维的一个独特的创造性方面。20世纪70年代的神经心理学实验表明,失语症性Broca失语症存在平行的句法产生和理解缺陷,这被认为是左额叶Broca区句法机制受损的结果。这一假设有时被称为“总体语法缺失”,与语言学理论中关于支持语言产生和理解的中心句法机制的发展相融合。然而,支持接受句法缺陷、表达语法缺失和额叶皮层损伤之间联系的证据是模棱两可的。此外,失语症、副构音症和接受性句法中明显的语法产生缺陷之间的关系尚未得到评估。我们在三组部分重叠的左半球中风患者中使用病变症状图来研究这些问题:53名受试者的初级组中的语法产生缺陷,以及与初级组重叠的较大样本量(N=130218)中的句法理解。副语法产生缺陷与句法理解的多重分析显著相关,特别是当将损伤体积作为协变量时,但语法缺失产生缺陷则不然。句法理解能力受损的损伤相关因素与颞叶区域的损伤显著相关,颞叶区域也与副语法障碍有关,但与表达性语法缺失有关的额下和额中区域无关。我们的研究结果提供了强有力的证据来反对总体语法缺失假说。相反,我们的研究结果表明,另一种语法平行性假说的可能性植根于副语法主义和后颞叶的中心句法系统。
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
Neurobiology of Language
Neurobiology of Language Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
32
审稿时长
17 weeks
×
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