Talk:Receptive aphasia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clfergus, Msuvanto. Peer reviewers: Amandafoort, CRHeck.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kreinglass.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

There

There is a Star Trek Deep Space nine episode where the entire ship becomes infected with an aphasia-virus. Can anyone find an episode number and airing date for this?

It's "Babel", episode 5, season 1. Airing date is 15 Jun 2003.

Also, it should be noted that the House episode mentioned in the article doesn't really seem to represent receptive aphasia very well, since the patient had perfect comprehension (and in fact was able to communicate using "yes" and "no"). Might be more appropriate to move that reference into the general aphasia article.

Spoiler warning?

I don't see any spoiling here. I think it's better to remove this warning message. --Theguys 01:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Unintelligible sentence

"Patients who recover from Wernicke's aphasia report that while aphasic they found the speech of others to be unintelligible, and even though they knew they were speaking, they could neither stop themselves nor understand what they had just said.

• Who were speaking? Patients or others?
• Understand what WHO just said? Patients or others?

This sentence has 2 actors (patients and others) and 4 times "they". I cannot understand what does it mean. --Urod 05:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

duplicate wording

If Wernicke’s area is damaged in the non-dominant hemisphere, the syndrome resulting will be sensory dysprosody - the lack of ability to perceive the pitch, rhythm, and emotional tone of speech.

If Wernicke’s area is damaged in the non-dominant hemisphere, the syndrome resulting will be sensory dysprosody - the lack of ability to perceive the pitch, rhythm, and emotional tone of speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.246.208 (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wernicke's area?

Wernicke's area says 'it is now known that "Wernicke's aphasia" is not caused by damage to the Wernicke's area'. I don't have access to gated journal nor book cited there so I'm not sure how to resolve the contradiction. --Divide (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I just looked in my copy of Gazzaniga and glanced through the article (which is written in an unusually annoying highfalutin way). Wernicke's aphasia IS generally caused by damage to Wernicke's area. However, it is not NECESSARY (you can get receptive aphasia without damage to Wernicke's area) nor SUFFICIENT (you won't get full-blown severe receptive aphasia with isolated damage to Wernicke's area cortex, and not all people have word meaning tied to that specific area, especially because some people have somewhat bi-lateral or (rarely) right-lateralized language). The Gazzaniga textbook cites PET evidence of decreased metabolism in Wernicke's area in participants with receptive aphasia, which supports the general idea that Wernicke's aphasia is generally caused by brain damage that includes its namesake area. I think that is what the contributor who wrote the contradiction must have meant, or maybe they misunderstood the evidence that the aphasia can be caused without damage to that area. I edited the page, but please feel free to re-write my wording. -kslays (talk • contribs) 22:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Luria's theory: Dutch language illustration

Changed the Dutch language illustration. The vowels "a" and "e" are pronounced very differently from each other in all applications in Dutch. Originally the text claimed that Dutch language makes no difference between these vowels and therefore Dutch people cannot distinguish the difference between "bad" and "bed" in English. Reality is opposite: the difference in pronunciation between the Dutch words "bad" and "bed" is so distinct that many Dutch cannot hear the difference in pronunciation of the English "bad" and "bed". The vowel in Dutch "bad" sounds like the vowel in English "bath", thus very different from "bed". (The Dutch word "bad" actually means "bath" but that is besides the point here).

Unfortunately, correcting the inaccuracy about Dutch language makes the illustration much less clear, particularly as an illustration of a deficit in categorization of sounds. Would it be preferable to revert to the linguistic factual inaccuracy to maintain clarity of the argument?

Nonoisense (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Luria's theory part 3

I fear that part three of this section has been either greatly oversimplified. Deaf people write all the time when communicating with hearing people. You can make the argument that they are using an internal narrative in sign language, but this wouldn't account for people with late life deafness being able to continue writing, while people with a late life Wernicke's aphasia are unable to do so.

Also, under "presentation" it is indicated that individuals have no trouble reciting things they have memorized, and that their ability to utter profanity is unaffected and uncontrolled. In my experience with these patients, neither is true. They may be able to recite short phrases that represent a single thought instead of words ("oh my god!" or "no sir!") but not, for instance, the pledge of allegiance. I have also never seen a subject who tends to use profanity more than any other word in their "word salad". Does someone have a reference for this, or at least experience contrary to mine? If not, I think it should be removed. Stegbk (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Wernickes and receptive aphasia two different things?

As far as I know Wernicke's aphasia is one of several types of fluent aphasia, characterized by poor auditory processing, fluent but frequently unintelligible speech and inability to repeat what others say - whereas all forms of aphasia that are primarily characterized by lack of comprehension of language are called receptive. Is this wrong?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This[1] neuropsychology manual for example distinguishes between "Wernickes aphasia" (characterized by poor comprehension, disturbed production with paraphrasias and poor repetition), word deafness (characterized only by lack of comprehension), transcortical sensory aphasia (lacking single word comprehension) - all of which must be considered relaatively receptive aphasias, but among these Wernickes has an element of expressive aphasia as well because of the paraphrasia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, Wernickes aphasia is the older term for receptive aphasia that is less often used nowadays, plus that the term receptive is a bit misleading, because as you pointed out, there are also expressive difficulties. Lova Falk talk 14:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it the case that ealier all receptive aphasias were grouped together, but as more knowledge has come about transcortical sensory aphasia and word-deafness both of which are purely receptive have been separated out from the classical Wernicke's aphasia? That is the impression given by the neuropsychology manual I linked to above.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Citation Needed!

There are way too many of these tags on this article! I think it either needs a warning label on the top or some actual citations for all the unsubstantiated claims! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultan42 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Lack of citations

This article has very few citations and many unsubstantiated claims. I have added a cleanup template and await further action. Does anyone have any further knowledge of this subject to cite or dispute these claims? I have some knowledge of the topic, but it is not extensive. Reddon666 (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Intention to Edit

I (Msuvanto (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)) and Clfegus (talk) hope to add to this page by extending the treatment section as well as the causes section. Also we would like to add a section discussing the history of the disorder and we have more sources and citations to provide for the article. The symptoms and Presentation section also seem to be lacking so we intend to add to that as well. This is for a university project.

I am going to delete the portions of the Presentation section because they have no citations and after searching I cannot find anything to back up the claims. The parts talking about what people who have recovered say about the disease - people don't really recover from brain damage and plasticity isn't particularly helpful in this case-, understanding songs, and bits of the profanity paragraph are what I intend to delete. Msuvanto (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I am planning to add to the treatment section of this page. I will keep what is already there with the citations, while further fleshing out the already present ideas. Clfergus (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to an example conversation between a clinician and a patient with wrenches' aphasia? It would be good for illustrating the strangeness of the speech that they produce. Msuvanto (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed New Intro Section

Receptive aphasia, also known as Wernicke’s aphasia, fluent aphasia, or sensory aphasia, is a type of aphasia in which an individual is unable to understand language in its written or spoken form. Even though they can speak with normal grammar, syntax, rate, and intonation, they typically have difficulty expressing themselves meaningfully using language. Wernicke's aphasia was named after Carl Wernicke who recognized this condition.[1] People with Wernicke's aphasia are typically unaware of how they are speaking and do not realize it may lack meaning. [2] They typically remain unaware of even their most profound language deficits. When experienced with Broca's aphasia the patient displays global aphasia.

It should be noted that like many mental disorders Wernicke's aphasia can be experienced in many different ways and to many different degrees. The typical case shows severely disturbed language comprehension however many individuals are still able to maintain conversations. Many may only experience difficulties with things such as accents and fast speech with the occasional speech error and can often carry out simple commands. Not all individuals show a complete loss of language comprehension. What is described here is referred to as a "textbook" example with the typical, fully expressed symptoms.[1]

Patients who communicated using sign language before the onset of the aphasia experience analogous symptoms.

Receptive aphasia is not to be confused with Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome or Broca's aphasia.Msuvanto (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have sources for all of the claim and will add them in when changing the actual page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msuvanto (talk • contribs) 17:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Revisions to Presentation

Wernicke's aphasia results from damage to Wernicke's area located posterior to the lateral sulcus in the left hemisphere. This area is adjacent to the auditory cortex. The damage is most often the result of a stroke however damage to Wernicke's area is also possible through blunt force trauma from accidents.[1] The onset of the disorder is therefore very sudden. However it is possible for the symptoms to begin gradually with nonsensical utterances and word-finding issues appearing in the individual's speech.[1]

When beset with Wernicke's aphasia an individual primarily loses their ability to comprehend language. This typically takes the form of both an inability to understand speech as well as written text. They also lose the ability to understand their own spoken language. This inability to understand language is usually accompanied with symptoms of Anosognosia. This means that despite being unable to understand others speech and their own, they are unaware of the fact that they have the disorder. When attempting to communicate with others they often take situational cues in order to maintain the conversation. It should also be noted that despite being afflicted with Wernicke's aphasia individuals typically retain almost all of their cognitive abilities outside of those related to understanding language. Wernicke's aphasia, unlike Broca's aphasia often occurs without any motor deficits.

Because of their difficulty understanding their own speech individuals with Wernicke's aphasia often display symptoms of Anomia (word-finding issues) and Paraphasia. A person with Wernicke's aphasia speaks with normal prosody and intonation but uses random or invented nonwords, leaves out key words, substitutes words or verb tenses, pronouns, or prepositions, and utters sentences that do not make sense. Therefore, their expressive language is often devoid of any meaning. Other symptoms can include a loss of verbal pragmatic skills and conversational turn-taking. Also there will often be substitutions of words and unfinished sentences. However it should be noted that despite their difficulties in forming sentences that make sense they do speak fluently. Sentences are typically grammatically correct. This fluent, although nonsensical speech is often referred to as "word salad". This is part of what makes Wernicke's aphasia so strange, the juxtaposition between perfectly fluent speech and the lack of meaning (TIM TEXTBOOK AND 377 BOOK). Patients also display logorrhoea, a nonstop output of words during spontaneous speech. The rate of speech errors produced is variable, with some patients showing only 10% of productions being errors and others showing up to 80% of speech production being incorrect.[1]

This is an example of an interaction between an individual with severe Wernicke's aphasia and a clinician.

Q. "What is your speech problem?"

A. "Because no one gotta scotta gowan thwa, thirst, gell, gerst, derund, gystrol, that's all."

Q. "What does "swell-headed" mean?"

A. "She is selfice on purpiten."[1]

Spontaneous speech from the same individual showing logorrhea symptoms.

"Then he graf, so I'll graf, I'm giving ink, no gerfergen, in pane, I can't grasp, I haven't grob the grabben, I'm going to the glimmeril, let me go."

"What my fytisset for, whattim tim saying got dok arne gimmin my suit, suit ti Friday . . . I ayre here what takes zwei the cuppen seffer effer sepped . . . I spoke on she asked for clubbin hond here, you what, what kind of a siz sizzen . . . and she speaks all the friend and all is in my herring."[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msuvanto (talk • contribs) 18:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed New Assessment Section

Wernicke's Aphasia can be difficult to diagnose as the symptoms can be mistaken as a confused state due to stroke or blunt force trauma. In order for Wernicke's Aphasia to be diagnosed a complete language examination, especially of the auditory system, must be done. There are various diagnostic tests and measures done to determine whether a patient should be diagnosed with Wernicke's Aphasia.

Some examples of these assessments can be seen below:

• Formal screening and bedside tests of aphasia are shorter examinations that determine the presence or absence of Aphasia. Some examples of these tests are the: Bedside Evaluation Screening Test, Second Edition (BEST-2; Fitch-West & Sands, 1998), the Aphasia Screening Test (AST; Whurr, 1996), and the Quick Assessment for Aphasia (Tanner & Culbertson, 1999).

• Once a physician determines that aphasia is a possible diagnosis more comprehensive evaluations are done to determine the type of aphasia. These assessments are standardized Aphasia test batteries and include the: Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE-3; Goodglass et al., 2000), the Porch Index of Communicative Abilities (PICA; Porch, 1981), and the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB; Kertesz, 1982).

• In order to diagnose a patient with Wernicke's Aphasia auditory comprehension should be assessed thoroughly because it is one of the most effected areas. Auditory comprehension can be assessed using the Functional Auditory Comprehension Test (FACT; LaPointe & Horner, 1978), the Revised Token Test (McNeil & Prescott, 1978) and through real-life conversations with patients.

• In addition to the aforementioned tests reading comprehension and written language can be used to indicate the presence of Wernicke's Aphasia, although there are limited standardized assessment devices in this area.

During assessment clinicians evaluate the patient's initial functioning and performance on the above tasks to form a baseline for treatment. This baseline can help them decide what type of treatment they can use and compare client's future progress with their initial abilities.

References

Proposed New Treatment

Patients often don't seek treatment due to their Anosognosia and therefore lack of awareness that they could benefit from therapy [9]. This apparent lack of concern surrounding their symptoms needs to be addressed before treatment can be initiated. In order for the treatment to be helpful patients need to be cooperative and engaged in their therapy. Because each case of Wernicke's Aphasia presents itself differently the treatment options are varied and use multiple techniques. Speech-language pathologists work to create therapeutic programs that are functional and effective for Wernicke's Aphasia patients. The patient's likelihood and prognosis of recovery is dependent upon their severity of symptoms and whether they maintained any auditory comprehension abilities. Across Wernicke's patients auditory comprehension deficits and poor self-monitoring must be initially addressed so that the patient can participate in language-based activities.

Comprehension Training

Comprehension deficits as well as issues of pressure of speech can be improved through comprehension training. Comprehension training confronts the issues of Pressure of speech by redirecting patients attention to listening rather than speaking. In this training the clinician will stop the patient from speaking while listening to a stimulus through the use of gestures and reminders. The comprehension tasks used in this training involve the patient listening to short, context-dependent instructions given by a clinician and initially responding by pointing to an object or picture. These tasks become gradually more difficult as therapy continues.and using the clinicians contextual cues (facial expressions and gesture). The main goal of this therapy is to increase enhance patient's attention towards incoming information while simultaneously slowing and monitoring his or her own speech output.

Schuell's Stimulation

Schuell's stimulation is a well known treatment and most effective at the present time. This treatment involves introducing the patient to strong, controlled, and intensive auditory stimulation. This immersion into intensive auditory stimulation is believed to increase neuronal firing causing an increase in neural activation. This neural activation is used as a facilitator to increase brain reorganization and therefore recovery of language in the patient.

Redistribution of brain activation allows uninjured parts of the brain, such as the frontal and right hemisphere to compensate for the injuries found in Wernicke's area. Many studies have found that when doing comprehension tasks the average person shows activation in Broca and Wernicke's areas in the left hemisphere of the brain with little activation in the right hemisphere. In contrast a patient with Wernicke's Aphasia shows activation in the left hemisphere of their brain providing evidence that aphasia patient's neuroplasticity plays a role in the recovery.

Social Approach

The social approach involves clinician's and patient's collaboration to determine goals for therapy and functional outcomes that can improve everyday the patient's everyday life. This therapy takes a conversational approach where conversation is thought to provide patients with opportunities of growth and development for using strategies to overcome barriers to communication.The main goals of this treatment are to improve patient's conversational confidence and skills. In order to reach this goal many approaches are taken to improve including: conversational coaching, supported conversations, and partner training.

1. Conversational coaching involves aphasic patients and their SLPs, who serve as a "coach" discussing strategies to approach various communicative scenarios. The "coach" will help the patient develop a script for a scenario (such as ordering food at a restaurant), and help the patient practice and perform the scenario in and out of the clinic while evaluating the outcome.
2. Supported conversation also involves using a communicative partner who supports the patient's learning by providing contextual cues, slowing their own rate of speech, and increasing their message's redundancy to promote the patient's comprehension.
3. Promoting Aphasics Communicative Effectiveness (PACE) encourage conversation outside the clinic.

Successful treatment incorporates these various treatment programs and approaches to facilitate patient's learning. In order to reduce logorrhea, press and rate of speech, patient's self-monitoring needs to be improved. In order to improve self-monitoring SLPs will slow their own rate of speech, pausing between meaningful segments and encourage patients to do the same, slowing down their own speech, listening to themselves speak and monitoring their speech output.

It is also important to include patient's families in treatment programs so they can have speaking partners where they communicate the most, at home. Clinicians can teach family members how to support one another an adjust their speaking patterns to further facilitate their loved ones treatment and rehabilitation.

Go live

Great work here that will substantively improve this page. It is time to get it on the main page. As you make the changes, know that this will bring the attention of editors. They will have suggestions. Also consider how your information links to existing pages from Wiki and make the links live on first use of terms. Wiki loves images, recordings, video, etc. so if there is stable reliable info in the public domain, go for it.Marentette (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Msuvanto I'm not sure you want the phrase mental disorder, I would consider brain disorder. This talk page discusses the terminology question. The the page is titled receptive aphasia and I think perhaps you need to use that as your default term whereas you have chosen Wernicke's aphasia. I think this will confuse readers. You may need to integrate the previous text more smoothly, and feel free to remove the citation needed notes as you add refs. Yes, the swearing claim needs a ref but it shouldn't be hard to find. Try Jay's textbook on Psyc of language.Marentette (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Clfergus Ditto above about terminology. This section "Many studies have found that when doing comprehension tasks the average person shows activation in Broca and Wernicke's areas in the left hemisphere of the brain with little activation in the right hemisphere. In contrast a patient with Wernicke's Aphasia shows activation in the left hemisphere of their brain" confuses me. Do you mean right hemisphere in that last phrase? You need to cite the difficult to diagnose claim in the first sentence of your sandbox. Also watch where you string multiple cites together. Editors on wiki often assume this means you are synthesizing your own position. Best to cite each claim once with a strong source. State that x is widely agreed if you want to show broad support for a statement and provide multiple sources.Marentette (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Strange things happening to your references portion. On other pages they divide references from Bibliography. Can you figure out how to mimic that here so that the books in Notes are listed as an alphabetic bibliography? Also there is a problem with Reference #3. This is looking very good. Nice additions. Did you edit the lead? These are the paragraphs before the content listing. It should read as a summary of the contents of the article. Finally, can you see any other claims that need sources? If not, we may be able to remove the flag from the article page. Marentette (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Edit for Recent Changes

Overall, you have added a lot of great information to the article. It is much more comprehensive. Here are some things I noted that you might agree could be improved:

General minor fixes:

- Some spelling (i.e., used "an" instead of "and")

- A comma may ease the reading of some of the longer sentences.

- In some places "aphasia" is capitalized, in some it is not.

- I agree with Paula that maybe it would be best to say "receptive aphasia" throughout the article consistently rather than using both "receptive" and "Wernicke's."

By section:

- Lead

- Kind of craving a definition of what "aphasia" means (not receptive, but just the word "aphasia").

- Who is "they" in the second sentence? Might want to say "Those diagnosed with receptive aphasia..." or something like that.

- Presentation

- You briefly explain "anomia" but not "paraphasia."

- Maybe a link to prosody and logorrhoea.

- The sentence "The rate of speech errors produced is variable..." could be shortened for clarity.

- Are there any other examples of emotional words that you found besides swear words?

- Causes

- Probably don't need two links to Wernicke's area.

- Treatment

- Last half of the Comprehension section has some minor grammatical errors (i.e., period in middle of sentence, increase enhance).

- Schuell - By "present time" do you mean "time of presentation"?

- Social approach - The first sentence is oddly worded.

- Social approach - What is an SLP?

Thank you, CRHeck (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi CRHeck thanks for the recommendations I worked on the edits pertaining to my topics (Treatment and Assessment).

• I think I caught all the grammatical errors in comprehension but let me know if it's still not clear.
• I changed the Schuell "present time" to most effective treatment to date. Does that make more sense? I mean that as of right now (2015) it is the most effective treatment. Not sure how else to word it or if the new wording makes what I mean more explicit.
• Reworded social approach
• Fixed acronym use (changed SLP to speech language pathologist)

Clfergus (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Further Peer Review Comments

Great work on this article guys. Here are some small changes you might consider making to make the article more clear.

The intro section could use an explicit definition of aphasia, or you might consider linking aphasia to its own page (which you link to later in the intro) sooner. I also noticed the term "they" which CRHeck noted above. It might be useful to explain your subjects to the audience. Also "grammar, syntax, rate, and intonation" could be clarified for those not trained in language studies these terms may be difficult to grasp. Perhaps they need to be defined or linked to another wiki page. "Rate" is also used. This is quite general, are we talking about the speed of speech?, # of words? or sentences per allotted time period? Also, the explanation behind why Wernicke's aphasia is kind of strangely worded, "recognize" could be substituted for something else ( maybe he established, discovered, introduced, or formalized the study of this disorder). Another sentence that could be reworded is as follows : People with Wernicke's aphasia are typically unaware of how they are speaking and do not realize it may lack meaning. People is the subject of this sentence, not their speech. Should read " People with Receptive aphasia are typically unaware of how they are speaking and do not realize their speech may lack meaning.".

The presentation section could also use some clarification. This sentence "Wernicke's aphasia results from damage to Wernicke's area located posterior to the lateral sulcus in the left hemisphere." might be better understood with clear mention of the word brain. Or perhaps an image that might clear up the exact location where trauma may have occurred. Also, you might consider explaining why damage in this area results in this disorder by briefly explaining the function of Wernicke's area sooner. You also kind of contradict this explanation in the Causes section which states that "the key deficits of receptive aphasia do not come from damage to Wernicke's area". Make sure that your explanations are consistent throughout the article.

Thanks, Amandafoort (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Not adding much to the suggestions made by your peers. Another sentence from the lead "When experienced with Broca's aphasia the patient ..." I fixed the link to actually refer to Global aphasia, but had to read the sentence twice to get the gist. Aim for a skimming reader, which means references need to be explicit, for example: "When expressive and receptive aphasia occur together..." or some similar approach. I reiterate the concern about the multiple labels. If Wiki has decided to use receptive aphasia, then run with it rather than flipping back and forth. Indeed, you should probably use the term expressive aphasia rather than Broca's since that is what that Wiki article is called. I second Amandafoort's recommendation for an image of the location of Wernicke's area. There is one in expressive aphasia that could be used. Marentette (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC) I edited Presentation for clarity and simplicity. the sentence immediately after the dialogue seems repetitive but I didn't want to delete yet in case you had a reason for leaving it there. Also if you canfind a ref for the right hemisphere Wernicke's damage that would be lovely. Marentette (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC) One last bit in Comprehension training: "...(such as facial expressions and gestures) and remind the patient to stop speaking while listening to these instructions through the use of gestures and reminders." This chunk feels redundant. Perhaps "through the use of these cues"? Marentette (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Amandafoort and Marentette. I went through and tried to correct all the us of Wernicke's aphasia to expressive aphasia. Let me know if I missed any. I also changed Broca's aphasia to expressive aphasia, again let me know if I missed anything. There is one image (the same from expressive aphasia) of the location of Wernicke's and Broca's areas, should we move it to a different location so it is more easily seen or add another image?

Marentette do you mean a reference for left hemisphere Wernicke's damage? Or the right brain redistribution portion? I hopefully made the comprehension less redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clfergus (talk • contribs) 03:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Wrong article?

The following sentence does not appear to belong to this article: “Writing often reflects speech in that it tends to lack content or meaning.”

I believe this corresponds to the article on the related condition where a person can understand speech but has trouble expressing language. ZacharyFoj (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Abandoned user draft

Please would an interested editor assess the material added[2] at User:Mphifer711/sandbox, incorporate what is useful, blank the WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 06:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)