Loading…

Relational processing following stroke

► Stroke patients and matched controls completed four relational processing tasks. ► Each task included items at two or three levels of relational complexity. ► Ternary-relational items were most sensitive to stroke status. ► The frontal stroke group was more severely impaired than non-frontal strok...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Brain and cognition 2013-02, Vol.81 (1), p.44-51
Main Authors: Andrews, Glenda, Halford, Graeme S., Shum, David, Maujean, Annick, Chappell, Mark, Birney, Damian
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:► Stroke patients and matched controls completed four relational processing tasks. ► Each task included items at two or three levels of relational complexity. ► Ternary-relational items were most sensitive to stroke status. ► The frontal stroke group was more severely impaired than non-frontal stroke group. ► Inter-correlations among tasks suggest relational processing is domain-general. The research examined relational processing following stroke. Stroke patients (14 with frontal, 30 with non-frontal lesions) and 41 matched controls completed four relational processing tasks: sentence comprehension, Latin square matrix completion, modified Dimensional Change Card Sorting, and n-back. Each task included items at two or three levels of relational complexity. Relational processing was impaired in the stroke groups. This was due mainly to items at the intermediate ternary-relational level of complexity. Less complex binary-relational items and more complex quaternary-relational items (the latter are difficult for adults generally) were less sensitive to stroke status. Impairment was greater in frontal than non-frontal stroke patients. Positive inter-correlations among measures supported the domain-general nature of relational processing. Implications for assessment and intervention are discussed.
ISSN:0278-2626
1090-2147
DOI:10.1016/j.bandc.2012.09.003