{"title":"Vigilant Attention During Cognitive and Language Processing in Aphasia.","authors":"Dannielle Hibshman, Ellyn A Riley","doi":"10.1044/2024_JSLHR-23-00168","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Persons with aphasia (PWA) experience differences in attention after stroke, potentially impacting cognitive/language performance. This secondary analysis investigated physiologically measured vigilant attention during linguistic and nonlinguistic processing in PWA and control participants.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>To evaluate performance and attention in a language task, seven PWA read sentences aloud (linguistic task) and were compared to a previous data set of 10 controls and 10 PWA. To evaluate performance and attention in a language-independent task, 11 controls and nine PWA completed the Bivalent Shape Task (nonlinguistic task). Continuous electroencephalogram (EEG) data were collected during each session. A previously validated EEG algorithm classified vigilant-attention state for each experiment trial into high, moderate, distracted, or no attention. Dependent measures were task accuracy and amount of time spent in each attention state (measured by the number of trials).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PWA produced significantly more errors than controls on the linguistic task, but groups performed similarly on the nonlinguistic task. During the linguistic task, controls spent significantly more time than PWA in a moderate-attention state, but no statistically significant differences were found between groups for other attention states. For the nonlinguistic task, amount of time controls and PWA spent in each attention state was more evenly distributed. When directly comparing attention patterns between linguistic and nonlinguistic tasks, PWA showed significantly more time in a high-attention state during the linguistic task as compared to the nonlinguistic task; however, controls showed no significant differences between linguistic and nonlinguistic tasks.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study provides new evidence that PWA experience a heightened state of vigilant attention when language processing demands are higher (during a linguistic task) than when language demands are lower (during a nonlinguistic task). Collectively, results of this study suggest that when processing language, PWA may allocate more attentional resources than when completing other kinds of cognitive tasks.</p>","PeriodicalId":51254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11427425/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_JSLHR-23-00168","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Persons with aphasia (PWA) experience differences in attention after stroke, potentially impacting cognitive/language performance. This secondary analysis investigated physiologically measured vigilant attention during linguistic and nonlinguistic processing in PWA and control participants.
Method: To evaluate performance and attention in a language task, seven PWA read sentences aloud (linguistic task) and were compared to a previous data set of 10 controls and 10 PWA. To evaluate performance and attention in a language-independent task, 11 controls and nine PWA completed the Bivalent Shape Task (nonlinguistic task). Continuous electroencephalogram (EEG) data were collected during each session. A previously validated EEG algorithm classified vigilant-attention state for each experiment trial into high, moderate, distracted, or no attention. Dependent measures were task accuracy and amount of time spent in each attention state (measured by the number of trials).
Results: PWA produced significantly more errors than controls on the linguistic task, but groups performed similarly on the nonlinguistic task. During the linguistic task, controls spent significantly more time than PWA in a moderate-attention state, but no statistically significant differences were found between groups for other attention states. For the nonlinguistic task, amount of time controls and PWA spent in each attention state was more evenly distributed. When directly comparing attention patterns between linguistic and nonlinguistic tasks, PWA showed significantly more time in a high-attention state during the linguistic task as compared to the nonlinguistic task; however, controls showed no significant differences between linguistic and nonlinguistic tasks.
Conclusions: This study provides new evidence that PWA experience a heightened state of vigilant attention when language processing demands are higher (during a linguistic task) than when language demands are lower (during a nonlinguistic task). Collectively, results of this study suggest that when processing language, PWA may allocate more attentional resources than when completing other kinds of cognitive tasks.
期刊介绍:
Mission: JSLHR publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles on the normal and disordered processes in speech, language, hearing, and related areas such as cognition, oral-motor function, and swallowing. The journal is an international outlet for both basic research on communication processes and clinical research pertaining to screening, diagnosis, and management of communication disorders as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. JSLHR seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work.
Scope: The broad field of communication sciences and disorders, including speech production and perception; anatomy and physiology of speech and voice; genetics, biomechanics, and other basic sciences pertaining to human communication; mastication and swallowing; speech disorders; voice disorders; development of speech, language, or hearing in children; normal language processes; language disorders; disorders of hearing and balance; psychoacoustics; and anatomy and physiology of hearing.