摘要
目的:通过分析2例汉语患者的语义范畴特异性损伤现象,为这种现象的心理现实性提供新证据,及为临床诊断和康复治疗提供更丰富的客观依据。方法:以2例来自华北地区的男性汉语语义障碍病例为观察对象病例1和病例2),入选时间分别为1999-10和2005-01,年龄分别为75岁和35岁。病前语言功能都正常,后因脑血管病变使得语言的理解和产生均存在一定困难。采用两组典型的认知测验(语义测验和语义范畴测验),分别考察患者的语义系统正常与否,以及是否存在语义范畴特异性损伤。语义测验共设计需要语义系统参与完成的5个任务:①听觉词/图匹配;②听觉句/图匹配;③视觉词/图匹配;④视觉句/图匹配;⑤口语图形命名。前2个任务用于考察患者的听觉理解能力,随后2个考察视觉理解能力,最后1个考察口语产生能力。语义范畴测验仍沿用口语图形命名任务,但项目数扩增了许多(232个),便于深入分析患者在不同语义范畴间的命名能力。为比较患者是否对有、无生命类图形间存在命名差异,共进行3组分析:①所有项目的比较:在所有的232个项目中,有、无生命类项目分别为72个、160个,比较每例患者在命名这两类图形的正确率间是否存在显著差异。②剔除部分类别后的比较:剔除人体器官和乐器项目两个类别后,再进行比较。有、无生命类分别为70个、130个项目。③匹配后的比较:从中选出有、无生命类各45个项目,两个类别间严格匹配了词频、熟悉性、获得年龄、命名一致性、表象一致性等混淆因素。结果:两患者均完成各项测验。①在各语义任务中正确率均偏低。病例1的听觉词/图匹配、听觉句/图匹配、视觉词/图匹配、视觉句/图匹配、口语图形命名正确率分别为88%(44/50)、50%(10/20)、72%(36/50)、55%(11/20)、44%(36/82)、而病例2则分别为84%(42/50)、45%(9/20)、94%(47/50)、55%(11/20)�
AIM： To explore the category-specific semantic deficits in two Chinesespeaking patients, so as to provide new evidence for the psychological reality of the deficits, which is also helpful for clinical diagnose and rehabilitation.
METHODS： Two Chinese-speaking male patients aged 75 and 35 years, respectively, with semantic impairment were selected between October 1999 and January 2005. They kept normal language abilities before the onset of cerebrovascular disease, which caused deficits in comprehension and production of language. Two groups of typical cognitive tests （semantic test and category-specific semantic deficits test） were usedto investigate their semantic system and identify whether the deficits existed or not. The semantic tests involved five tasks： ①auditory word/picture matching; ②auditory sentence/picture matching; ③visual word/picture matching; ④visual sentence/picture matching; ⑤oral picture naming. The first two tasks were used to examine the patients＇ability of auditory lexical comprehension, the following two tasks to examine their visual lexical comprehension, and the last one to inspect their oral lexical production. The oral picturenaming task was still used for the semantic category test, which increased to 232 items, to deeply analyze the patients＇ naming ability in different semantic categories. To examine whether there were disparities in the naming of living and nonliving items of the patients, three analyses were carried out： ①Comparison among all items; There were 72 living things and 160 nonliving things of the 232 items, to compare whether there were significant differences in the correct rates of naming of the two groups items. ② Comparison after removed some items： Body parts and musical instrument were excluded, and left 70 living things and 130 nonliving things. ③Comparison after matching： 45 living items and 45 nonliving items were selected to conduct critically matching of confounding factors including word frequency, familiarity, age of a
出处
《中国临床康复》
CSCD
北大核心
2006年第18期7-9,共3页
Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation
基金
北京市自然科学基金(7052035)~~
