Alexia and agraphia in Spanish

Abstract

Background: Every language has certain specific idiosyncrasies in its writing system. Cross-linguistic analyses of alexias and agraphias are fundamental to understand commonalities and differences in the brain organization of written language. Few reports of alexias and agraphias in the Spanish language are currently available. Aims: To analyse the clinical manifestations of alexias and agraphias in Spanish, and the effect of demographic variables. Methods & Procedures: Spanish versions of the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) and Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) were used for language assessment. Lesion localization was obtained by using computed axial tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. The final sample included 200 patients: 195 (97.5%) righthanded and five (2.5%) left-handed; 119 men and 81 women with a mean age of 57.37 years (SD = 15.56), education of 13.52 years (SD = 4.08), and mean time post-onset of 6.58 months (SD = 12.94). Using theWAB, four quotients were calculated: aphasia quotient (AQ), reading–writing quotient (RWQ), language quotient (LQ) and cortical quotient (CQ). Outcomes & Results: The types of aphasia were: global = 11 patients (5.5%), Broca = 31 (15.5%), Wernicke = 30 (15.0%), conduction = 22 (11.0%), transcortical sensory = 17 (8.5%), transcortical motor = 3 (1.5%), amnesic or anomic = 54 (27.0%) and mixed non-fluent = 32 (16.0%). The degree of oral and written language impairment differed across the various aphasia types. Most severe reading and writing difficulties were found in global, mixed non-fluent and transcortical motor aphasia; fewer difficulties were observed in amnesic, Broca and conduction aphasia. The severity of the written language impairments paralleled the severity of the oral language disturbances. Age negatively, while schooling positively, correlated with the scores in reading and writing tests. No effect of sex and time since onset was found. Conclusions & Implications: In Spanish-speaking aphasia patients, difficulties in reading and writing are similar to oral language difficulties. This similarity of performance is mostly based on severity rather than the participants’ patterns of errors.