| Literature DB >> 28443018 |
Aneta Szymaszek1,2, Tomasz Wolak1,3, Elzbieta Szelag1,2.
Abstract
Experimental studies have reported a close association between temporal information processing (TIP) and language comprehension. Brain-injured subjects with aphasia show disturbed TIP which was evidenced in elevated temporal order threshold (TOT) as compared to control subjects. The present study is aimed at improving auditory speech comprehension in aphasic subjects using a specific temporal treatment. Fourteen patients having deficits in both speech comprehension and TIP were tested. The Token Test, phoneme discrimination tests (PDT) and Voice-Onset-Time (VOT) Test were employed to assess speech comprehension. The TOT was measured using two 10 ms tones (400 Hz, 3000 Hz) presented binaurally. The patients participated in eight 45-min sessions of either the specific temporal treatment (n = 7) aimed at improving the perception of sequencing abilities, or in a non-temporal control treatment (n = 7) on volume discrimination. The temporal treatment yielded an improvement in TIP. Moreover, a transfer of improvement from the time domain to the language domain was observed. The control treatment did not improve either TIP or speech comprehension in any of the applied tests.Entities:
Keywords: aphasia; phoneme discrimination; speech comprehension; stroke; temporal information processing; temporal treatment
Year: 2017 PMID: 28443018 PMCID: PMC5387752 DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00098
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Aging Neurosci ISSN: 1663-4365 Impact factor: 5.750
Baseline characteristics of the study population.
| Experimental treatment group (EXP) | Control treatment group (CON) | |
|---|---|---|
| Patient age (mean ± SD, years) | 54.7 ± 13 | 59.3 ± 9 |
| Lesion age (mean ± SD, months) | 20 ± 15 | 16 ± 11 |
| Type of stroke (infarction/hemorrhage ratio) | 6/1 | 5/2 |
Detailed description of the patient sample assigned to group EXP and CON.
| No | Gender | Patient age (years) | Lesion age (weeks) | Type of stroke | Group |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M | 40.2 | 33 | I | EXP |
| 2 | M | 66.6 | 18 | I | |
| 3 | M | 57.8 | 12 | I | |
| 4 | M | 45.9 | 16 | H | |
| 5 | M | 76.6 | 7 | I | |
| 6 | M | 45.5 | 6 | I | |
| 7 | F | 50.5 | 47 | I | |
| 8 | M | 63.6 | 5 | I | CON |
| 9 | M | 61.4 | 7 | I | |
| 10 | M | 48.6 | 36 | I | |
| 11 | F | 76 | 17 | I | |
| 12 | F | 57.4 | 8 | I | |
| 13 | F | 54.8 | 15 | H | |
| 14 | F | 52.5 | 24 | H |
Abbreviations: M, male; F, female; I, infarction; H, hemeorrhage stroke.
Figure 1The summarized lesioned areas in patients included into EXP group (A) and CON group (B).
Figure 2The scheme of the experimental protocol.
Figure 3Percentage of differences in the level of a The 0 point reflects a stable performance (no difference between a baseline vs. post-treatment performance). Positive values (right side from the 0 point) correspond to improved performance. No worsened performance (left side from the 0 point) was observed. Significant differences (p < 0.05) are indicated by asterisks.