Executive control in frontal lesion aphasia: Does verbal load matter?

Assessing executive functions in post-stroke aphasia-utility of verbally based tests

It is increasingly acknowledged that, often, patients with post-stroke aphasia not only have language impairments but also deficits in other cognitive domains (e.g. executive functions) that influence recovery and response to therapy. Many assessments of executive functions are verbally based and therefore usually not administered in this patient group. However, the performance of patients with aphasia in such tests might provide valuable insights both from a theoretical and clinical perspective. We aimed to elucidate (i) if verbal executive tests measure anything beyond the language impairment in patients with chronic post-stroke aphasia, (ii) how performance in such tests relates to performance in language tests and nonverbal cognitive functions, and (iii) the neural correlates associated with performance in verbal executive tests. In this observational study, three commonly used verbal executive tests were administered to a sample of patients with varying aphasia severity. Their performance in these tests was explored by means of principal component analyses, and the relationships with a broad range of background tests regarding their language and nonverbal cognitive functions were elucidated with correlation analyses. Furthermore, lesion analyses were performed to explore brain-behaviour relationships. In a sample of 32 participants, we found that: (i) a substantial number of patients with aphasia were able to perform the verbal executive tests; (ii) variance in performance was not explained by the severity of an individual's overall language impairment alone but was related to two independent behavioural principal components per test; (iii) not all aspects of performance were related to the patient's language abilities; and (iv) all components were associated with separate neural correlates, some overlapping partly in frontal and parietal regions. Our findings extend our clinical and theoretical understanding of dysfunctions beyond language in patients with aphasia.

What is Functional Communication? A Theoretical Framework for Real-World Communication Applied to Aphasia Rehabilitation

Aphasia is an impairment of language caused by acquired brain damage such as stroke or traumatic brain injury, that affects a person’s ability to communicate effectively. The aim of rehabilitation in aphasia is to improve everyday communication, improving an individual’s ability to function in their day-to-day life. For that reason, a thorough understanding of naturalistic communication and its underlying mechanisms is imperative. The field of aphasiology currently lacks an agreed, comprehensive, theoretically founded definition of communication. Instead, multiple disparate interpretations of functional communication are used. We argue that this makes it nearly impossible to validly and reliably assess a person’s communicative performance, to target this behaviour through therapy, and to measure improvements post-therapy. In this article we propose a structured, theoretical approach to defining the concept of functional communication. We argue for a view of communication as “situated language use”, borrowed from empirical psycholinguistic studies with non-brain damaged adults. This framework defines language use as: (1) interactive, (2) multimodal, and (3) contextual. Existing research on each component of the framework from non-brain damaged adults and people with aphasia is reviewed. The consequences of adopting this approach to assessment and therapy for aphasia rehabilitation are discussed. The aim of this article is to encourage a more systematic, comprehensive approach to the study and treatment of situated language use in aphasia.

Motivated semantic control: Exploring the effects of extrinsic reward and self-reference on semantic retrieval in semantic aphasia

Recent insights show that increased motivation can benefit executive control, but this effect has not been explored in relation to semantic cognition. Patients with deficits of controlled semantic retrieval in the context of semantic aphasia (SA) after stroke may benefit from this approach since ‘semantic control’ is considered an executive process. Deficits in this domain are partially distinct from the domain‐general deficits of cognitive control. We assessed the effect of both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation in healthy controls and SA patients. Experiment 1 manipulated extrinsic reward using high or low levels of points for correct responses during a semantic association task. Experiment 2 manipulated the intrinsic value of items using self‐reference, allocating pictures of items to the participant (‘self’) or researcher (‘other’) in a shopping game before participants retrieved their semantic associations. These experiments revealed that patients, but not controls, showed better performance when given an extrinsic reward, consistent with the view that increased external motivation may help ameliorate patients’ semantic control deficits. However, while self‐reference was associated with better episodic memory, there was no effect on semantic retrieval. We conclude that semantic control deficits can be reduced when extrinsic rewards are anticipated; this enhanced motivational state is expected to support proactive control, for example, through the maintenance of task representations. It may be possible to harness this modulatory impact of reward to combat the control demands of semantic tasks in SA patients.

Decision Making by People With Aphasia: A Comparison of Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Measures

Purpose Decision making involves multiple cognitive and linguistic processes. The extent to which these processes are involved depends, in part, on the conditions under which decision making is assessed. Because people with aphasia (PWA) have impaired language abilities and may also present with cognitive deficits, they may have difficulty during decision-making tasks. Yet little research exists on the decision-making abilities of PWA. Thus, the purposes of this study were to investigate the performance of PWA on linguistic and nonlinguistic decision-making measures and to explore the relationship between decision making and cognitive test performance. Method A quasi-experimental design was used to compare the performance of PWA (n = 16) and age- and education-matched control participants (n = 16) on three decision-making tasks: Making a Decision subtest from the Functional Assessment of Verbal Reasoning and Executive Strategies (linguistic decision-making task), Iowa Gambling Task (nonlinguistic decision-making task with ambiguity), and Game of Dice Task (nonlinguistic decision-making task without ambiguity). Participants also completed assessments of language, working memory, and executive functions. Scores on the three decision-making tasks were compared between groups, and cognitive influences on decision-making performance were examined using correlation analyses. Results PWA differed significantly from control participants on linguistic decision making, particularly when required to verbalize their rationale for making their decision. PWA and control participants did not differ significantly on measures of nonlinguistic decision making. Performance on multiple cognitive measures was correlated with performance on the linguistic reasoning task, as well as one of the nonlinguistic tasks (Game of Dice Task). Conclusions Decision-making tasks that are heavily dependent on language, such as those used in capacity assessments, may disadvantage PWA. Assessments of decision-making capacity should include communication supports for people with acquired communication disorders; further investigation in the areas of decision making and aphasia is needed.