Searching the Resource Information Network
Are you sure you want to leave this community? Leaving the community will revoke any permissions you have been granted in this community.
It is known that patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD) may show deficits in several areas of cognition, including speech and language abilities. One domain of particular interest is pragmatics, which refers to the capacity of using language in context for a successful communication. Several studies showed that some specific aspects of pragmatics - both in production and in comprehension - might be impaired in patients with PD. However, a clear picture of pragmatic abilities in PD is still missing, as most of the existing studies focused on specific aspects of the pragmatic competence rather than on sketching a complete pragmatic profile. Moreover, little is known on the potential role of protective factors in compensating the decline of communicative skills as the disease progresses. The present study has two aims: (1) to provide a complete picture of pragmatic abilities in patients with PD, by using a comprehensive battery (Assessment of Pragmatic Abilities and Cognitive Substrates, APACS) and by investigating the relationship with other aspects of cognitive functioning (e.g., working memory and Theory of Mind) and (2) to investigate whether Cognitive Reserve, i.e., the resilience to cognitive impairment provided by life experiences and activities, may compensate for the progressive pragmatic deficits in PD. We found that patients with PD, compared to healthy matched controls, had worse performance in discourse production and in the description of scenes, and that these impairments were tightly correlated with the severity of motor impairment, suggesting reduced intentionality of engaging in a communicative exchange. Patients with PD showed also an impairment in comprehending texts and humor, suggesting a problem in inferring from stories, which was related to general cognitive impairment. Notably, we did not find any significant difference between patients and controls in figurative language comprehension, a domain that is commonly impaired in other neurodegenerative diseases. This might be indicative of a specific profile of pragmatic impairment in patients with PD, worth of further investigation. Finally, Cognitive Reserve measures showed a high degree of association with pragmatic comprehension abilities, suggesting that the modification of life-styles could be a good candidate for compensating the possible problems in understanding the pragmatic aspects of language experienced by patients with PD.
Pubmed ID: 31275189
Publication data is provided by the National Library of Medicine ® and PubMed ®. Data is retrieved from PubMed ® on a weekly schedule. For terms and conditions see the National Library of Medicine Terms and Conditions.
The Museum of Comparative Anthropogeny (MOCA) is a collection of comparative information regarding humans and our closest evolutionary cousins (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans i.e, great apes), with an emphasis on uniquely human features. MOCA is organized by Domains, each grouping Topics by areas of interest and scientific discipline. Each topic entry will eventually cover existing information about a particular difference (alleged or documented) between humans and non-human hominids. Comparisons of these non-human hominids with humans are difficult, as so little is known about their phenotypic features (phenomes), in contrast to humans. Ethical, fiscal and practical issues also limit collection of further information about great apes. MOCA attempts to collect existing information about human-specific differences from great apes, currently scattered in the literature. Having such information in one location could lead to new insights and multi-disciplinary interactions, and to ethically-sound studies to explain differences, and uniquely human specializations. MOCA is not targeted at experts in specific disciplines, but rather aims to communicate basic information to a broad audience of scientists from many backgrounds, and to the interested lay public. MOCA includes not only aspects wherein there are known or apparent differences between humans and great apes, but additionally, topics for which popular wisdom about claimed or assumed differences is not entirely correct. It is for all these reasons that MOCA is called a Museum, and not an Encyclopedia or Database.
View all literature mentions