3.8 Article

Characteristics of Cognitive Impairment in Patients With Post-stroke Aphasia

期刊

ANNALS OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE-ARM
卷 38, 期 6, 页码 759-765

出版社

KOREAN ACAD REHABILITATION MEDICINE
DOI: 10.5535/arm.2014.38.6.759

关键词

Stroke; Aphasia; Cognition

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea - Korean Government [NRF-2013S1A3A2043454]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2013S1A3A2043454] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To analyze cognitive functions of post-stroke aphasia patients compared to patients having right hemispheric stroke and left hemispheric lesions without aphasia, and to look for a relationship between cognitive deficits and aphasia severity. Methods Thirty-six patients with right hemispheric stroke (group 1), 32 with left hemispheric lesion without aphasia (group 2), and 26 left hemispheric stroke patients with aphasia (group 3) completed a set of tests in the computerized neurocognitive function batteries for attention, executive function and intelligence and Korean version of Western Aphasia Battery. Data analyses explored cognitive characteristics among the three groups and the correlation between cognitive deficits and aphasia severity. Results Right hemispheric and left hemispheric stroke patients without aphasia showed similar findings except for digit span forward test. Cognitive tests for working memory and sustained attention were significantly impaired in the aphasic patients, but intelligence was shown to be similar in the three groups. Significant correlation between cognitive deficit and aphasia severity was only shown in some attention tests. Conclusion Cognitive deficits may be accompanied with post-stroke aphasia and there are possible associations between language and cognitive measures. Therefore, detection and treatment towards coexisting cognitive impairment may be necessary for efficient aphasia treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据