Talk:Receptive aphasia

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

message: "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)
thread_title:  Unintelligible sentence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  duplicate wording 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wernicke's area? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Luria's theory: Dutch language illustration 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Luria's theory part 3 

message: 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)
replies: text: This 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Isn't Wernickes and receptive aphasia two different things?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation Needed! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lack of citations 

message: I (Msuvanto (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Intention to Edit

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposed New Intro Section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed Revisions to Presentation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Go live 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peer Edit for Recent Changes 

message: 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)
thread_title: Further Peer Review Comments

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wrong article? 

message: Please would an interested editor assess the material added 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)
thread_title:  Abandoned user draft