Repetition of Self-Generated Utterances in Conduction Aphasia Verbal repetition performance was analyzed in four individuals with conduction aphasia. Comparisons at the sentence level included novel versus self-generated, conceptually chained utterances, and spontaneous, narrative utterances versus their repetition. No significant differences were found; however, repetition of self-generated utterances was superior to novel utterances for most subjects. For three ... Supplement Article
Supplement Article  |   November 01, 1995
Repetition of Self-Generated Utterances in Conduction Aphasia
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Katharine H. Odell
    University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Jill Bonkoski
    University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Jennifer Mello
    University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Contact author: Katharine H. Odell, PhD, Department of Communicative Disorders, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1975 Willow Drive, Madison W153706
Article Information
Language Disorders / Aphasia / Supplement: Clinical Aphasiology Conference Supplement
Supplement Article   |   November 01, 1995
Repetition of Self-Generated Utterances in Conduction Aphasia
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, November 1995, Vol. 4, 169-173. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0404.169
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, November 1995, Vol. 4, 169-173. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0404.169

Verbal repetition performance was analyzed in four individuals with conduction aphasia. Comparisons at the sentence level included novel versus self-generated, conceptually chained utterances, and spontaneous, narrative utterances versus their repetition. No significant differences were found; however, repetition of self-generated utterances was superior to novel utterances for most subjects. For three speakers, repetition of their own utterances did not show decline relative to spontaneous speech. Error analysis of original and repeated productions showed that speakers produced more instances of preliminary speech efforts and word and sound level errors in repetition. Discussion includes comments on assessment and treatment implications.

Appendix A
Definition of Error Types That Were Identified and Tallied
  1. Preliminary effort: any verbal unit (reformulations involving several words, subphonemic and phonemic speech productions, laryngealizations, fillers such as “ah”) that is followed by another effort or by the utterance finally produced by the speaker.

  2. Literal paraphasia: real or nonsense word, close in sound to target and recognizable as an attempt at the target but involving a sound segment substitution.

  3. Verbal paraphasia: real word substitution, close in meaning to target.

  4. Multiword substitution: substitution of a phrase for a word.

  5. Elaboration: morphosyntactic addition (e.g., “lookingVlook”).

  6. Simplification: morphosyntactic reduction (e.g., “*”looking”).

  7. Omission: whole word deletion.

  8. Addition: whole word addition (e.g., “*”boy is reaching”).

  9. Neologism: nonsense word for which the target could not be determined.

  10. Sound segment distortion: segment level deviations from standard phonetic production (not attributable to casual speech).

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access