Abstract

The current study was aimed to assess auditory comprehension by using the Revised Token Test (RTT) in Telugu. A total of 20 Telugu-speaking aphasics with an age range of 17 to 80 years participated. Qualitative analysis was done to get the details of the errors made by each type of aphasia while performing the test. Results revealed that the performance of all aphasics was observed to be 76% to 93% on all the subtests. Females participated better than the male aphasics. The anomic aphasia group performed well when compared to other types. Error analysis reveals that the incorrect responses were mostly observed in G3 and G4. While performing the test, various errors such as ‘confusions’, ‘multiple attempts’, ‘visual interceptions’, ‘I don’t know’ and ‘No response’ were observed. As the complexity of the sentence occurred, 25% of participants mostly responded by saying "don’t know" and “no response” was given by 15% due to the comprehension deficits. All the aphasics performed poorly on various linguistic elements such as adverb clauses, along with place prepositions, object I nouns, implied common verbs, left-right prepositions, and size II adjective sections, except for anomic, where they showed errors only in adverb clauses. Poor performance might be due to an increase in linguistic and cognitive complexity. Finally, the author found that the auditory comprehension was poor for all the types of aphasias with the increase in complexity of sentences. Anomic aphasics performed better than all the aphasics. Authors stated that detailed auditory comprehension assessments are essential in assessing aphasics and are crucial before starting management.

Keywords: Aphasics; Revised Token Test; Telugu; Auditory Comprehension; Linguistic Complexity

References

1. Aram DM and Ekelman BL. “Unilateral brain lesions in childhood: Performance on the Revised Token Test”. Brain and Language 1 (1987): 137-158.
2. Amunts K., et al. “Broca's region revisited: cytoarchitecture and intersubject variability”. The Journal of Comparative Neurology2 (1999): 319-341.
3. Bakhtiar M., et al. “Development of the English Listening and Reading Computerized Revised Token Test into Cantonese: Validity, Reliability, and Sensitivity/Specificity in People with Aphasia and Healthy Controls”. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 11 (2020): 3743-3759.
4. De Renzi A and Vignolo LA. “Token test: A sensitive disturbances in aphasics”. Brain: A Journal of Neurology (1962).
5. Fridriksson J., et al. “Anatomy of Aphasia Revisited”. Brain 3 (2018): 848-862.
6. Fischl B., et al. “Cortical folding patterns and predicting cytoarchitecture”. Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y.: 1991)8 (2008): 1973-1980.
7. Fedorenko E., et al. “New method for fMRI investigations of language: Defining ROIs functionally in individual subjects”. Journal of Neurophysiology 104 (2010): 1177-1194.
8. Hallowell B., et al. “Using eye movement responses to index auditory comprehension: An adaptation of the Revised Token Test”. Aphasiology 4-6 (2002): 587-594.
9. Helm-Estabrooks N., et al. “Treating attention to improve auditory comprehension in aphasia”. Brain and Language 74 (2000): 469-472.
10. Hickok G and Poeppel D. “Dorsal and ventral streams: A framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language”. Cognition 92 (2004): 67-99.
11. Kavya R and Lakshmi Prasanna P. “Revised Token Test in Telugu. Unpublished dissertation. Osmania University (2020).
12. Kamei T and Tsukuda I. “Revised Token Test and Linguistic Errors Made by Aphasic Subjects”. Sound Voice Word Medicine 24 (1983): 235-247.
13. Murray LL., et al. “Auditory Processing in Individuals with Mild Aphasia”. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research4 (1997): 792.
14. Noll JD and Randolph SR. “Auditory semantic, syntactic, and retention errors made by aphasic subjects on the token test”. Journal of Communication Disorders 6 (1978): 543-553.
15. Ojemann G and Whitaker HA. “The Bilingual Brain”. Archives of Neurology 35 (1978): 409-412.
16. Odekar A and Hallowell B. “Exploring inter-rater agreement in scoring of the Revised Token Test”. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology 14 (2005): 123-131.
17. Parisi D and Pizzamiglio L. “Syntactic Comprehension in Aphasia”. Cortex 2 (1970): 204-215.
18. Park GH., et al. “Reliability of the Five-Item Revised Token Test for individuals with aphasia”. Aphasiology 5-6 (2000): 577-585.
19. Quintana M., et al. “An Item Response Theory analysis of the Revised Token Test in normally developing native Spanish speaking children”. Anuario de Psicologia 2 (2015): 147-160.
20. Schuell H and Jenkins J. “Relationship between auditory comprehension and word frequency in aphasia”. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1 (1961): 30-36.
21. Smith A. “Objective indices of severity of chronic aphasia in stroke patients”. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 2 (1971): 167-207.
22. Wiener D., et al. “Inhibition and auditory comprehension in Wernicke’s aphasia”. Aphasiology 5-7 (2004): 599-609.
23. Whitaker HA and Noll JD. “Some linguistic parameters Token Test”. Neuropsychologia 4 (1972): 395404.
24. Yourganov G., et al. “Predicting aphasia type from brain damage measured with structural MRI”. Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior 73 (2015): 203-215.

Citation

Citation: Lakshmi Prasanna P and Dheeraja D. “Correlation of Auditory Comprehension Between Fluent and Non-Fluent Types of Aphasia". Acta Scientific Neurology 5.5 (2022): 36-42.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2022 Lakshmi Prasanna P and Dheeraja D. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.