Talk:Aphasia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proper Scale in Comparison Table

The table summarizing the various sorts of aphasia, along with its counterpart in the article on Broca's_area, uses some perplexing descriptions, unless I'm completely misinterpreting it. Word repetition can be good or poor, but can it be mild or severe? I assume "mild" implies "mild difficulty", as that's used elsewhere in the table. I'll assume for now that these were taken directly from some other published article, such that changing the table would render it less accurate. So, what would "good" be on a scale of impairment? Just as "good" as an unaffected individual is capable of? If so, I assume the level of impairment would be little-to-none. Vague and problematic, I suppose. As it is, though, I find this unpleasant to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.246.24.239 (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Small edit recommendation

I noticed that at the end of the list of symptoms, it says "inability to write". This is a bit vague as similar symptoms can be found in dyslexia and this symptom as worded is also half of the description of illiteracy. Instead of it saying "inability to write", it should give the actual name for the specific condition refereed to which is agraphia, aka dysgraphia. I am thinking that perhaps the symptom listed directly above may have a specific name too.98.215.128.112 (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference #1 is not actually a reference at all

Someone just copied and pasted an in-text reference from somewhere else.

Here is one:

Goodglass, H. (1993) Understanding Aphasia. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.

The other one is ambiguous. It could be this paper, or an out-of-date version of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Neurogenic-Communication-Disorders-Brookshire/dp/0323045316/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226530150&sr=1-1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1357179?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

76.88.0.96 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Aphasia and Tourette's

Is there any relation between aphasia and Tourette syndrome? EmRick 15:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Although both inevitably involve the language processing system to some degree, I'm not aware of any research that links the two disorders.

No. I just did a search on the two using OVID and it can actually aid language. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.04.001 121.219.246.209 (talk) 08:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Aphasia and alcoholism?

Could George W. Bush's aphasia be caused by brain damage due to alcoholism? If one repeatedly drinks to the point of blackout, like Bush did in the past, what degree of brain damage might result?

George W Bush does not have aphasia and, in truth, his speaking skill isn't any worse than the average person. I am sure that if your every public word was recorded, then your enemies would find something to laugh at.

I strongly disagree, as do most of the rest of humanity. Mr. Bush's is a classic case of aphasia and he has acutally reached "case study status" in numerous universities and medical reserch facilities that engage in extensive research practices in this area.

well, could we get a reference for such a case study then? It would be a nice addition to both this article and Bushism. I agree, of course, that Bush's speaking performance is way below average. He is either affected by aphasia, or he has just an incredibly low intelligence. I seem to remember that he was a fluent speaker in earlier decades (when a gouvernor), so it seems more likely that he suffered a minor stroke at some point. I don't know which is more disconcerting, though, to have an idiot, or a brain-damage victim in charge of the world's deadliest arsenal. 83.77.216.101 20:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Bush wouldn't be considered to have aphasia in a clinical context. Although he does clearly have difficulties with formulating language, he is often able to articulate his meaning, just sometimes in a roundabout way! In the general population there is likely to be a spectrum of language ability, Bush is just near the 'lower ability' end

I believe that alcohol can cause temporary (and perhaps eventuntually permanent) aphasia. When I was in college, once, after a Saturday night of drinking too much, I tried to read the Sunday funnies. I could read all the words, but could make no sense of the sentences. But, my memory of this long ago event is imperfect: perhaps I was unable to put the letters together to form words. My speech and understanding of speech was unaffected.

Frankly I don't believe it. Find a reference for George Bush having aphasia and I will though. 121.219.246.209 (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

EB1911 additions

On Oct 6th user Pwqn added the contents of the article from Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. It is almost 100 years old, on a medical topic very outdated. Pwqn has been adding EB1911 articles alphabetically with no checking for accuraracy. I apologize for reverting other Wikipedians edits since then, please add them back as needed, theres no other way of backing out the EB1911 text. If you'd like to keep the 1911 text, it needs a lot of work to verify its accuracy, as well as providing sources and references beyond the 1800s. Thanks. Stbalbach 03:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Aphemia merge

The Aphemia article has a merge tag on it to suggest merging with this one. The content of Aphemia suggests that would be appropriate (but the lack of content of Aphemia means the merge would only consist of including the alternative name). Can someone who knows the subject confirm if the two are the same? Kcordina 12:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

See "Combine..." below. Wcmead3 (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit

I have added some information about the classification of aphasia, but was not logged on when I did it! So the edit by 82.2.230.131 was me!

Importantly, who was it that added the information claiming that Broca's aphasia affects the RIGHT hemisphere and thus reduces the capability of the RIGHT arm. This is just clearly wrong and demonstrates that this article is not worthy of its B class rating. Broca's territory is located in the LEFT hemisphere and that's exactly why it affects the RIGHT arm. sju —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.244.84 (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I removed a large part of this article, because of text plagiarised from the NIDCD website. Stiles 03:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Aphonia as a psychological disorder

I was redirected from aphonia to aphasia, which is not what I was searching for. Aphasia only implies that the ability to speak is lost through brain damage. However, there are also psychological reasons as to why a person would lose speech, such as a consequnece of anxiety or post-trauma, which is what I'm particularly trying to find. Am I looking in the wrong place? Grendel 18:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds that you were looking for Dysphonia. Dysphonia is a more appropriate redirect for aphonia so I have changed it. --JonRouston 13:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Curable =/= Treatable

I edited the article to say that aphasia has no definite cure but that it has treatments. This edit was reverted on the grounds that if it has treatments it's curable. But cancer has treatments but no cure. Shouldn't what I added stay? I included my reference as well. -Eratticus 02:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, here's what you said:

Some treatments are available for aphasia and it may go away with time but it is for the most part incurable.

Perhaps reword it to sound more like what you just said instead of what you wrote in the article. The other thing is to avoid WP:WEASEL words such as for the most part, some, instead tell what treatments, how often it goes away, how long it takes, etc. -THB 02:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC) i think this is stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.40.63.10 (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Apraxia of Speech

I change "Apraxia" to "Apraxia of Speech" to avoid confusion with other types of apraxia, such as limb apraxia or constructional apraxia.

Paraphasia

I created the article Paraphasia and I believe it is possible to add in a section about it in this article as paraphasia is a apasiatic characteristic... At least add it as a see also. What do some people think? Would add it in myself, but probably someone with more knowledge in the subject find a place to add it in. Cheers. Calaka 16:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Short bursts of fluid

I removed the following sentence: "People with aphasia may also be prone to short bursts of fluid."
There are two problems with this sentence:

1. It is not clear what it means. Bursts of fluid?? What kind of fluid? Where? In the brain? In the mouth??
2. It is not referenced. I googled aphasia and "bursts of fluid" but got no hit. So where does this information come from?
   

Would you please clarify? Lova Falk 17:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what in the world? Does it even mean that? I think of bursts of brain fluid like you. Or, does it mean bursts of fluidity and the writer was not a native English speaker?209.244.187.155 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that it meant occasional bursts of fluency (not fluidity haha - that sounds like a dance). Girabbit85 (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Emerson?

Emerson is listed as one of the famous people who had aphasia, but in Emerson's article i didn't see it mentioned. Also, this isn't cited. Can anyone find a source for this and if so, put it in Emerson's article? 24.33.239.54 17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Luria's classification

Would it be appropriate to include Alexander Luria's system of classification to the article? It is the system used in most of Europe in clinical situations, at least that is what I was told. biggoergen (UTC)

Lie Detection

I found an artical that said people with aphasia are better at picking up lies: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A664021

I thought it was interesting. If it goes in is up to you guys. --66.65.244.151 (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds dubious to me. 121.219.246.209 (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This page: http://www.pitara.com/discover/eureka/online.asp?story=86 references a study in Massachusetts and the book "The Man who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" as sources for this claim. 183.37.58.248 (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test

I am proposing that Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test should be merged into this article under Diagnosis. I don't believe the test is sufficiently notable to merit a separate article (only one secondary source is cited). Thoughts please? - Neparis (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty uncontroversial to me. Since nobody has objected in the past three months, I'd say go ahead with the merge. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks a little premature to me. The Frenchay fragment needs at least an additional reference to support its validity and importance. Also, to be useful, it needs a better general description of the test and/or a link to a detailed description of the test. Are there any online references that are appropriate? Wcmead3 (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

language vs speech

we should address whether aphasia is language in all forms or just speech. Llama (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. As I understood from a lecture, aphasia both affects speech and other language, such as writing or gestures. However, I have no source for this information. Lova Falk (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely language in all forms, as deaf people can have aphasia. However, does not affect all forms in every case. 58.168.142.207 (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

[aphasia is] "an impairment of language modalities: speaking, listening, reading and writing". Reference: Chapey , C. & Hallowell, B. (2001). Introduction to language intervention strategies in Adult aphasia. In "Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders." (2001). Chapey, R. (Ed). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.246.209 (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Aphasia / dysphasia relate to language impairment which can manifest in all of the modalities listed above however it should be clearly noted that it is distinct from an impairment of speech production such as apraxia of speech or dysarthria. By this I mean it is not related to the motoric functions of speech but the underlying processes such as recognising how sounds sequence together as a unit and how this unit matches a meaning... As a trainee Speech & Language Therapist I have found Whitworth, A; Webster, J. and Howard, D. (2005) A Cognitive Neuropsychological Approach to Assessment and Intervention in Aphasia. Hove: Psychology Press to be an invaluable source in explaining the underlying processes involved in this disorder at a single word level and would suggest this is easier reading than the Chapey book, though that book contains more information on areas such as sentence production... Nick demora (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ketamin and aphasia

So... I'm not particularly proud of this, but from past personal experience the use of ketamin can cause temporary aphasia. But one person's testimony is not enough right? ClamsonJ (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

More info available about causes?

Is aphasia always a component of the development of Alzheimer's or Parkinson"s? If so, does it occur at any predictable phase of the disease development?

Is there an inherited risk factor?

Is there any more quantitative information about the relative frequencies of the different kinds of Aphasia? Frequency of occurrence? Relative importance or frequency of different causes? Wcmead3 (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no information I can provide you regarding frequency of occurence of different "types" of aphasia, however I would say that clinicians are not trained to look at defining patients in terms of "broca's" or "wernicke's" etc anymore because the number of people with aphasia you can fit into these specific parameters.

Inherited risk factors... well, I am not a neurologist or cardiologist but if heart conditions can be inherited then surely that will relate to risk of stroke? Maybe someone more qualified can respond?

With regard to causes of aphasia, the NHS state:

"Aphasia is caused by damage to an area of the brain responsible for language. The damage is most commonly caused by a stroke or a head injury, but can also be the result of a brain tumour or other neurological condition."

[1]

I think you are mistaking severe hypokinetic dysarthria for aphasia in the case of Parkinson's as it is very rare (see [2]) --Nick demora (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Is aphasia a disease or a symptom? Downgrade article?

After thinking about this entry, I wonder if aphasia is actually a disease. It seems more like a symptom (or disability or disorder?) that can be caused by a number of diseases or by an accident.

In general, after thinking about this article, I'd recommend downgrading its status a notch. It would surely benefit significantly from more work, by the best "expert" who's willing. In its present condition, it seems more like a good start than like a maturing article.

Wcmead3 (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

History of aphasia

I moved the sentence "For a brief history of the study of aphasia and how our understanding of this complex disorder has evolved in recent years, see Aphasia and the Relationship of Language and Brain by notable Cognitive Neuropsychologist Eleanor Saffran." from History of aphasia to the External links section. Articles in Wikipedia should consist of text, not of links. So, if you feel like it, please write some lines about the history of amnesia, and of course you can use Saffran's article as a reference. (Also, if somebody is notable or not, can be a matter of discussion, so it is better to avoid such wording.) Lova Falk (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge dysphasia and aphasia

I would not advocate for merging aphasia and dysphasia as there does exist a subtle distinction. According to Stedman's Medical Dictionary 27th Edition(Lipincott Williams & Wilkins 2000), aphasia is defined as impaired or absent comprehension or production of, or communication by, speech, writing, or signs sue to an acquired lesion of the dominant cerebral hemisphere. Dysphasia, on the other hand, is purely a motor deficit defined as impairment in the production of speech and failure to arrange words in an understandable was caused by an acquired lesion of the brain.Gbyker (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In modern usage aphasia and dysphasia are equal, in my experience. Aphasia is the preferred term, to avoid confusion with dysphagia. --kylet 18:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, although the original terms have different meanings, in modern use they are the same. --JonRouston

Even though I myself feel these terms to be distinct because the prefix "a" means absence of and the prefix "dys" means disorder of, it would seem that in common and medical usage the terms are held to be synonymous in the same way as dysrhythmia and arhythmia. Since the dysphasia article is still a stub, I feel it should be merged into aphasia as it's the more developed article. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 23:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Combining seems to be the way to go, with a cross-reference from the Dysphasia entry to the more complete entry at Aphasia. Simply merging would lead to repetition. Wcmead3 (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Taking into consideration the roots of the words, Aphasia means "lacking the ability to speak". Dysphagia means essentially "an altered (or painful?) speech. I think they are two different ideas. You can have one without the other; Actually if you are aphasic, you cannot be dysphasic, and if you are dysphasic you cannot be aphasic (necessarily). Make sense? —Precedingunsigned comment added by206.135.142.45 (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The terms are distinct, in that Aphasia is technically 'no language' and Dysphasia a disturbance of (as u said). But in actual use, Aphasia is the dominant, overarching term, and more people use this than Dysphasia to describe the group of disorders.58.168.142.207 (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the comment immediately above my entry here; dysphasia and aphasia are two different things. Consider the terms dyspnea and apnea. Dyspnea refers to difficulty breathing, whereas apnea indicates the absence of breathing. For example, someone having an asthma attack would be dyspneic, and a dead person is apneic. Where medical terminology is concerned, we can't ignore the prefixes (in this case, the "dys" and the "a").

Because something is "modern use" does not make it correct.

-- r3dsh1ft (talk) 04:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with keeping them separate. Dysphasia and Aphasia are the SAME thing, but differ in severity.
Gbyker - Aphasia is caused by a lesion of the language dominant hemisphere, but dysphasia is too. Dysphasia is NOT a motor impairment, that is dysarthria (even medical dictionaries can be wrong :-) ).
206.135.142.45 - You cannot have Aphasia and dysphasia because they are the same thing. If they were different, you could have both. Patients frequently progress from Aphasia to dysphasia.
So dysphasia is (as has been said above) a disturbance of language, and aphasia is a lack of. In fact, dysphasia is by far the most common of the two. The current page is contradictory in that it says Aphasia is the loss of ability to speak but goes on to list subtypes where the patient can speak. How can someone with NO language have intact repetition or paraphasias in speech?

They do need to be merged as they are the same, there is no subtle distinction except in severity - it would just need a paragraph stating that Aphasia is complete lack of language whereas dysphasia is disturbance of. (Ref: duffy, J., (1995). Motor Speech disorders; Chapey, R. (2001). Language Intervention Strategies in Aphasia and Related Neurogenic Communication Disorders.) Girabbit85 (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Aphasia, Alexia, Dyslexia, Auditory Processing Disorder

I am currently midway through editing the WIKI Dyslexia project, which includes the Alexia (acquired dyslexia) article. I also have a personal interest in the Auditory Processing Disorder, as this is my own disability which causes me to be dyslexic. I do not have a great understanding of aphasia, so I am looking for some help to clarify what you appear to call "pure aphasia" in comparison to the other issues which would appear to sahre the same symptoms such as Developmental Dyslexia, and Auditory Processing Disorder.

dolfrog (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge: Jargon Aphasia

Hi

I'm new here, but in looking around it seems that jargon aphasia should be merged with the Aphasia article. But, I don't know how to do that. Aphasiaadvocate (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that 1) "Jargon aphasia" is more of an informal term, what it is really referring to is the jargonistic output found in many receptive aphasias. I may be wrong, but there are no references in the article. 2) go ahead and merge it, or even delete it. Girabbit85 (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, probably needs cleaning --The.Filsouf (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Truncated section?

The "Signs and symptoms" section appears to be truncated. It ends in the middle of a word: "Commonly, substitutions involve picking another (actual) word starting with the same sound (e.g. clocktower - colander), picking another se". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.170.224.13 (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That text was merged from the now-deleted Jargon aphasia article. I'm trying to get that article undeleted so the text can be restored properly. nneonneo ^talk 20:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Now fixed. nneonneo ^talk 19:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Aphasia as side effect of psychotropic medications

Aphasia is not infrequently a side effect of psychotropic medications. This deserves to be covered in the article; people experiencing aphasia as a side effect will likely be confused by the omission of this information in Wikipedia.

A quick Google search shows that it is listed as a side effect on reputable source sites as well as numerous patient community sites. There has also been other coverage - http://www.psychweekly.com/aspx/article/ArticleDetail.aspx?articleid=56 - but this side effect is not by any means limited to the elderly.

Some medications known to cause aphasia are frequently associated with bipolar disorder treatment, particularly mood stabilizers and atypical antipsychotics. They include: Topamax/topiramate (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2006.00684.x/full), Effexor (www.drugs.com/sfx/effexor-side-effects.html), Lyrica (www.drugs.com/sfx/lyrica-side-effects.html), Abilify (mostly patient sites and sideeffects101.com), Gabapentin (www.drugs.com/sfx/gabapentin-side-effects.html), Seroquel/quetiapine (www.drugs.com/sfx/quetiapine-side-effects.html), and Lamictal/lamotrigine (www.drugs.com/sfx/lamotrigine-side-effects.html, http://journals.lww.com/psychopharmacology/Abstract/2006/04000/Cognitive_Functioning_in_Bipolar_Patients.12.aspx, www.lamictal.com - PDF fact sheet).

Note that some of the scholarly articles refer to verbal memory rather than aphasia; I'm not sure if these are considered synonymous, but since it's on the official fact sheets, I'm guessing the answer to that would be yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.62.178 (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Epidemiology Section

The whole Epidemiology Section had to be deleted , a copyright violation, as it was copied and pasted from Medscape Medicine

New content will be required for a new Epidemiology Section. Could try to find some secondary research sources from a selection of Aphasia Research Review articles dolfrog (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Stroke damage -leading to 'fluent welsh'

This is a reliable but not a specialist medical source and appears to be an interesting case history. Could somebody who knows the subject better please add it -if appropriate?
Regards JRPG (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this is not a WP:reliable source in the way Wikipedia defines it, especially not when it comes to articles with medical content. In WP:RSMED you can read more about the requirements for medical sources. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 20:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"Aphasia can also cause........ cancer, epilepsy and Alzheimer's" WHAT!

The following sentence needs to be either verified or corrected (The linked reference is not accessible if you are not connected to that university): . '...Brain damage linked to aphasia can also cause further brain diseases, including cancer, epilepsy and Alzheimer's disease....' . That sentence is highly suspect. I seriously doubt the brain damage linked to aphasia has been conclusively proven (or even strongly suspected) as causing cancer, epilepsy, and Alzheimer's. 70.171.44.124 (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC) BGRIFFIN

Comment

Hi, this article has a lot of useful information, as well as some unnecessary information. For example mentioning that “language is complicated” is not necessary, rather you could say that a lot of different processes are involved in the production of language. Also I would recommend slightly reorganizing the page so that it flows better and is more cohesive. For example, I would put the causes of aphasia before the signs and symptoms and before the localization model. I would also recommend putting the “history” section in the introduction, rather than the history being its own small section. Alexandraf51895 (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Alexandraf51895 please review WP:MEDMOS#Sections. Also, if you are editing from a class, please see WP:ASSIGN and add a course assignment template to the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this suggested reorganization would work well and improve the page significantly.

Dysphasia

Dysphasia redirects here, and is mentioned in the second Infobox_disease instance, but it's not defined or explained in the lede, or even mentioned a single time in the prose - What's missing here? MrZaius^talk 12:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Having experience with a child with dysphasia, I, too, am wondering why there is not a separate article on it. It seems like dysphasia - definition of dysphasia by Medical dictionary might be a good place to start. Though there seems to be some ambiguity of use of the term, particularly in the U.S., it is my understanding that aphasia is the absence of verbal communication ability whereas dysphasia is a partial loss or impairment of verbal communication ability. That may not be medically significant, but when it comes to working with an afflicted person, it makes all the difference in the world. Softtest123 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Symptoms edits

I wanted to add a few things to the symptoms section of this article. I want to add 'Often those with aphasia will try to hide their inability to name objects by using words like thing. So when asked to name a pencil they may say it is a thing used to write. Also I want to add the symptom -inability to to follow or understand simple requests

All of this information was found in the textbook Abnormal Psychology by Susan Nolen-Hoeksema which I will cite with my edits.

I believe that this is important information to add to this article to help the readers better understand aphasia as well as to make them aware of an additional symptom of aphasia. And I want to know if others think it will be a good addition as well. Misskatiem (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Correcting Errors and Expanding Broca's and Wernicke's Aphasia

Glancing over the article, it seems as though there are some generalizations that are inaccurate when discussing Aphasia. The area talking about Broca's and Wernicke's Aphasia also could use some expansion.Catroger (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Localizationist model - of historical interest only?

The model of aphasia describe in this section is rather archaic, and also rather dense and difficult to understand. I suggest it might work better if moved to a section on History? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilshica (talk • contribs) 05:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

History and Types edits

The History of Aphasia section is a bit scarce, which I would like to add more information or integrate it into another section. Also in the types of Aphasia section, there are only a few that have been expanded on further down in the article, but I would also like to add more information about the types not discussed more n depth. The Glass Fox (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Revision of intro

The third paragraph could use some revising.

"that is, aphasia is not related to the mechanics of speech but rather the individual's language cognition (although a person can have both problems)."

This provides no informational significance, and is simply a deduction.

"An individual's "language" is the socially shared set of rules as well as the thought processes that go behind verbalized speech. It is not a result of a more peripheral motor or sensory difficulty, such as paralysis affecting the speech muscles or a general hearing impairment.""

This is overtly explanatory, and doesn't pertain to the article, although it does give some context. Its statements on language is also not sourced, and instead declared, which is rather contentious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.9.75 (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Mess

This article was a mess from waves of student editing that didn't work with the whole article but rather just dumped in chunks of content. I did some work on this tonight but it needs a bunch more. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Aphasia is not unique to spoken language

The short description says that aphasia is the "inability to use spoken language". Needless to say, this is wrong; aphasia also affects signers. Can anyone change it? I do not know how to edit it.--Megaman en m (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

In popular culture

Added an in popular culture to aid cultural awareness of aphasia. Needs expanding though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.197.121 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 July 201 (UTC)

Yours: "...although a person can have both problems, particularly if they suffered a..."

How about: "...although a person can have both problems, particularly if they suffered a ..."

And in the same article similar examples of your preferred relative pronoun, namely "they", not agreeing in number with its demonstratively singular antecedents, e.g. "an individual" or "a person", confusion which can force a reader take an educated guess about the writer's meaning. Perhaps Aphasia can rob some article writers of the ability to distinguish between singular and plural. Or could it be that Wikipedia has adopted modern feminist grammar, which forbids use of the appropriate word, be it "he" or "she"? 88.152.112.84 (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Aphasia - Muteness

Can aphasia occur when the said person is a baby or toddler? I've been reading about it in kids and mostly adults but no articles about someone perhaps younger, is there a reason for this? I'm a writer and I have a mute character who is 25 but has little to no anxiety and has been mute since her toddler or baby years. Is that impossible or just rare? 70.51.162.32 (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 5 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clairedonaldson. Peer reviewers: Cire2002.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:31, 16 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): Catroger, The Glass Fox.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Prelevance

Can we get a better source for this? There has to be some sort of paper out there. I don't especially trust a webpage that doesn't cite any sources, even if it is from an advocacy organisation. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

A source for what, specifically? I'm sorry if I'm overlooking something obvious in the article when I skimmed it just now. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

A better source for the statistics of aphasia's prevelance, as discussed in the lede. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I just spent the last 30 minutes looking for sources. A number of news sources and medical/academic websites cite the federal National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), which at a glance would seem reliable, but when I look at their actual paper with the numbers it says "according to the National Aphasia Association." The UK-based Stroke Association says 350k people with aphasia in GB which is different than the numbers in the article, but it's also an advocacy group, so that's not an improvement on reliability. Maybe someone more versed in medical literature can turn up something better. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I added a reference to a research paper and to WebMD, as well as the heading Prevalence. Given the prevalence due to stroke (170,000 cases out of 180,000 new cases annually), I think the ASHA info is valid, but will let that be inferred instead of stating it outright in the first paragraph. I think the call out about unreliable sources can be removed. AnnMarie Johnson (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I expect that the numbers are valid also, but that doesn't make it a good source. I like the change to the lede, but that still leaves the problematic sentence at the start of the Prevalence section itself: "Aphasia affects about two million people in the U.S. and 250,000 people in Great Britain." Can we change the sentence to read something like "According to the National Aphasia Association ..." ? VernoWhitney (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Dysphraisia

In the autopsy report on L. Ron Hubbard (the founder of Scientology) on
http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/hubbard,%20l.r._report.pdf
page 4 of 18, 2nd paragraph there is the word "Dysphraisia" (exactly written this way).

The wikipedia does not (yet) "know" this word, nor does the World Book Dictionary (of 1979). But both know a "Dysphasia" (without "r" and without "i").

I therefore suppose that this ("Dysphasia") was meant in above mentioned autopsy report.

I know the wikipedia does not create a redirect for every different spelling. But because this person (Hubbard) is of great interest, I think a redirect is warranted.

Therefore I'm going to create a redirect from "Dysphraisia" to "Dysphasia".

In case it does not redirect, I'm going to redirect "Dysphraisia" to "Aphasia".

2A01:C23:8121:4900:E4EB:418C:33F5:9535 (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)