A review of conduction aphasia
Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, ISSN: 1528-4042, Vol: 10, Issue: 6, Page: 499-503
2010
- 44Citations
- 139Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations44
- Citation Indexes44
- 44
- CrossRef42
- Captures139
- Readers139
- 139
- Mentions1
- References1
- Wikipedia1
Review Description
In this paper, a historical overview of the interpretation of conduction aphasia is initially presented. It is emphasized that the name conduction aphasia was proposed by Wernicke and was interpreted as a disconnection between the temporal and frontal brain language areas; this interpretation was re-taken by Geschwind, attributing the arcuate fasciculus the main role in speech repetition disturbances and resulting in the so-called Wernicke-Geschwind model of language. With the introduction of contemporary neuroimaging techniques, this interpretation of conduction aphasia as a disconnection syndrome due to an impairment of the arcuate fasciculus has been challenged. It has been disclosed that the arcuate fasciculus does not really connect Wernicke's and Broca's areas, but Wernicke's and motor/premotor frontal areas. Furthermore, conduction aphasia can be found in cases of cortical damage without subcortical extension. It is concluded that conduction aphasia remains a controversial topic not only from the theoretic point of view, but also from the understanding of its neurologic foundations. © 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=78049289405&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11910-010-0142-2; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20711691; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11910-010-0142-2; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11910-010-0142-2; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11910-010-0142-2; http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s11910-010-0142-2; http://www.springerlink.com/index/pdf/10.1007/s11910-010-0142-2
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know