Comparison of right hemisphere damage patients and normal adults in some linguistic performances

How to Cite:mohammadzamani mohammadzamaniNahid JalilevandHassan AshayeriA. li GhorbaniComparison of right hemisphere damage patients and normal adults in some linguistic performances.koomesh.24(1):e154089.

Abstract

Introduction: According to some evidence, damage to the right hemisphere leads to impaired linguistic and cognitive functions. Patients with right hemisphere damage (RHD) experience difficulties at different levels of language. Assessing and diagnosing language disorders in RHD patients help to plan treatment programs. Therefore, the present study investigated some of the language functions in the semantic, syntactic, and figurative language of Persian-speaking adults with right hemisphere damage using tests available in Persian. Materials and Methods: The subjects included 12 Persian-speaking adults with ischemic stroke referred to hospitals and rehabilitation centers of Tehran. Their language performances compared to that of their peers. In this study, we conducted and analyzed the homophone meaning generation and verbal fluency tests to measure semantic performance, comprehension test of proverbs and irony to evaluate figurative language functions, and syntactic comprehension test to evaluate syntax. Results: Findings showed that RHD patients performed significantly worse than healthy individuals in semantic, syntactic, and figurative language (P

Keywords

Language Tests

Right Hemisphere Damage

References

1.
Myers PS, Blake ML. Communication disorders associated with right hemisphere brain damage. In: Chapey R, editor. Language intervention strategies in adult aphasia.5nd ed. Brooklyn, New York: Williams & Wilkins; 2008; P: 963-987.
2.
Tompkins CA, Klepousniotou E, Scott AG. Nature and assessment of right hemisphere disorders. In: Papathanasiou I, Coppens P, editors. Aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders. 2nd ed. Burlington, Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2017; p: 353-389.
3.
LaPontine L, Editor. Aphasia and related neurogenic language disorders. New York: Thieme Medica; 2011.
4.
Zhuang J, Madden DJ, Duong-Fernandez X, Chen NK, Cousins SW, Potter GG, et al. Language processing in age-related macular degeneration associated with unique functional connectivity signatures in the right hemisphere. Neurobiol Aging 2018; 63: 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2017.11.003 PMid:29223681 PMCid:PMC5801145.
5.
Minga J. Discourse production and right hemisphere disorder. Perspect ASHA SIG 2016; 1: 96-105. https://doi.org/10.1044/persp1.SIG2.96.
6.
Obler LK, Gjerlow K, Editors. Language and the Brain: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
7.
Gajardo-Vidal AE. Investigating the contribution of the right hemisphere to language processing in the damaged and healthy brain [dissertation]. UCL (University College London) 2019.
8.
Blake ML. Inferencing processes after right hemisphere brain damage: Maintenance of inferences. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2009; 52: 359-372. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/07-0172) https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/07-0012).
9.
Joanette Y, Goulet P. Criterion-specific reduction of verbal fluency in right brain-damaged right-handers. Neuropsychologia 1986; 24: 875-879. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(86)90087-4.
10.
De Renzi E, Vitali A, Faglioni P, Cavalli M. The impairment of right brain-damaged patients on a sentence anagram test. J Neurolinguistics 1991; 6: 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0911-6044(05)80002-8.
11.
Reivang I. Aphasia and Brain Organization. New York: Plenum Press.1985. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9214-0.
12.
Cheang HS, Pell MD. A study of humour and communicative intention following right hemisphere stroke. Clin Linguist Phon 2006; 20: 447-462. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200500135684 PMid:16815790.
13.
Ghoreishi ZS. Comparison of understanding proverb, multiple meaning words and figurative meaning in patient with left and right hemisphere lesion and normal adults. Univ Soc Welfare Rehab Sci 2002. (Persian).
14.
Khatoonabadi AR, Hovsepian A, Harley T, Kahlaoui K, Marsolais Y, Joanette Y. The impact of left-and right-hemisphere lesions on the processing of concrete and abstract words in Farsi. Brain Cogn 2008; 67: 25-26. (Persian).##https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2008.02.048.
15.
Mansouri B, Raqibdoost Sh. Linguistic and cognitive functions of Persian-speaking patients with right and left hemisphere damage. J Cogn Sci 2008; 10: 37-50. (Persian).
16.
Ghoreishi ZS, Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari B, Shiani A, Younesian S. A case report of a Persian patient with crossed aphasia: agrammatism after right hemisphere lesion. Jrehab 2012; 13: 18-24. (Persian).
17.
Borjian Borujeni N. Semantic comparison in adult patients with temporal injury- parietal right and left hemispheres caused by stroke [dissertation]. Univ Soc Welfare Rehab Sci 2014. (Persian).
18.
Shokramiz M, Raqibdoost Sh. Idiom comprehension in persian aphasic patients. J Lang Relat Res 2015; 185-200. (Persian).
19.
Jamalinia S. Designing a proverbial perception test in Persian-speaking adults and examining its psychometric properties [dissertation]. Univ Soc Welfare Rehab Sci 2016. (Persian).
20.
Benton E, Bryan K. Right cerebral hemisphere damage: incidence of language problems. Int J Rehabil Res 1996; 19: 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004356-199603000-00005 PMid:8730543.
21.
Lehman Blake M, Duffy J, Tompkins C, Myers P. Right hemisphere syndrome is in the eye of the beholder. Aphasiology 2003; 17: 423-432. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030344000120.
22.
Ferr P, Fonseca R, Abusamra V, Tavano A, Joanette Y. Communication profiles and executive impairments following right-hemisphere stroke: A cross cultural perspective. Proceeding of 41st Annual Meeting of the International Neuropsychological Society; 2013; 6-9. Waikoloa, Hawaii (USA).
23.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2016). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from www.asha.org/policy.
24.
Torabi M. Evaluation of linguistic skills of right-brain-damaged Persian-speaking patients based on the montreal protocol for the evaluation of communication (MEC Protocol) [dissertation]. Human Res Instit Tehran 2019. (Persian).
25.
Coren S. The lateral preference inventory for measurement of handedness, footedness, eyedness, and earedness: Norms for young adults. Bull Psychon Soc 1993; 31: 1-3. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334122.
26.
Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bdirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53: 695-699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x PMid:15817019.
27.
Nilipour R, Pourshahbaz A, Ghoreyshi ZS. Reliability and validity of bedside version of Persian WAB (P-WAB-1). Basic Clin Neurosci 2014; 5: 253.
28.
Yadegari F. Oral and verbal apraxia tasks for adults. Tehran, Iran: Univ Soc Welfare Rehab Sci Publisher 2011. (Persian).
29.
Ebrahimipour M, Motamed MR, Ashayeri H, Modarresi Y, Kamali M. Developing the Persian version of the homophone meaning generation test. Med J Islam Repub Iran 2016; 30: 335.
30.
Ebrahimipour M. Verbal fluency test. Tehran: Paygahe Farhang. 2013. (Persian).
31.
Paradis M, Paribakht T, Nilipour R. The bilingual aphasia test (Farsi version). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 1987. [Internet].
32.
Hadavi Sh. Comparative study of allusion perception in Persian men with Parkinson's disease and normal ones [dissertation]. School Rehabil Sci Iran Univ Med Sci 2016. (Persian).
33.
Moca version [database on the Internet]. http://mocatest.org/pdf_files/instructions/Moca-Instruction-Persian.pdf. 2004. [Internet].

comments