Abstract
A dichotic CV-syllable listening task was administered to a group of eleven non-brain-injured adults and to a group of eleven adult aphasics. The results of this study may be summarized as follows: 1)The group of non-brain-injured adults showed a slight right ear advantage for dichotically presented CV-syllables. 2)In comparison with the control group the asphasic group showed a bilateral deficit in response to the dichotic CV-syllables, superimposed on a non-significant right ear advantage. 3) The asphasic group demonstrated a great deal of intersubject variability on the dichotic task with six aphasics showing a right ear preference for the stimuli. The non-brain-injured subjects performed more homogeneously on the task. 4) The two subgroups of aphasics, a right ear advantage group and a left ear advantage group, performed significantly different on the dichotic listening task. 5) Single correct data analysis proved valuable by deleting accuracy of report for an examination of trials in which there was true competition for the single left hemispheric speech processor. These results were analyzed in terms of a functional model of auditory processing. In view of this model, the bilateral deficit in dichotic performance of the asphasic group was accounted for by the presence of a lesion within the dominant left hemisphere, where the speech signals from both ears converge for final processing. The right ear advantage shown by one asphasic subgroup was explained by a lesion interfering with the corpus callosal pathways from the left hemisphere; the left ear advantage observed within the other subgroup was explained by a lesion in the area of the auditory processor of the left hemisphere.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.