Talk:Transcortical sensory aphasia

Non-peer review

Hey guys, awesome job on the article. It reads really well and the information you have included is not only interesting, but it is thorough. I have a few suggestions as you close in on the final product:

• You might be including too much detail in the intro--you include a lot of really great information, but try to pare it down to the most critical information, and save the rest of the detail for subsections.
• Careful when you start getting into 1.2.1 divisions of the information - sometimes it can be hard to follow. You may want to make "characteristics" its own section, rather than a subsection of "Diagnosis" to avoid excessive subsections.
• The history section should probably come first after the introduction
• You may rely a little too heavily on the few sources that you have found. It may strengthen your article to find sources that add to what you already have/complement the information.
• I'm not sure that it is necessary to include either the image for fMRI or the detailed description on this page, since it is fairly common knowledge

Good luck! Stempera (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, the article looks really good! However, I think one clarification needs to be made, maybe in the introductory paragraph. I have heard of transcortical aphasia (not sensory) before and was very interested in what made transcortical sensory aphasia different from just transcoritcal aphasia. I looked it up and there seems to be transcortical motor aphasia and transcortical sensory aphasia (transcrotical aphasia is a general term encompassing both). I was thinking that you may want to point out what makes transcortical sensory aphasia different from transcoritcal motor aphasia, or what causes it to be specifically sensory aphasia. From what I read in your article and online it seems that sensory aphasia has to do with comprehending sensory and auditory stimuli (language) as opposed to producing the speech, which has more to do with transcortical motor aphasia. Otherwise, everything looks great! Good work!Goverman (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool article, I am kind of surprised that Burdo hasn't talked about it. Altogether it is very good. However, you might want to expand in a couple of places. Specifically the characteristics/clinical assessment of transcortical sensory aphasia is a little lacking, especially since the disease is basically diagnosed based on its physical manifestations. You might want to provide some specifics on the some of the characterstics, because they are pretty ambiguous considering a diagnosis is made from these. Also, if you were looking to talk about more stuff, maybe putting in a current research section would be good. This seems like a pretty interesting topic, specifically on what these aphasia's reveal about brain structure. So maybe talk about new diagnostic methods or maybe something that they have revealed/implications would be interesting to read about. It seems like this subject would have a lot of new research to talk about. Westerdahl (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, this article is really interesting! Overall and especially content-wise, everything looks great! There were just a couple of things I noticed. I would switch the order of the introduction paragraph and say what the disease is, followed by what it's caused by. I think this will give new readers a better idea initially of what the article is about. Also, the first time you mention cognition, I would link to Wikipedia's page on it, just because not everyone knows what cognition is. In the clinical assessment section, you say that the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination is the most lengthy and thorough of its type, which is definitely important, but I think you should back up that qualification with a citation. In the characteristics section, I believe Wernicke is misspelled. Other than those couple of things, everything is really good! Cassianp (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, great job on the article. It is clear, interesting, and informative. I have a few suggestions that might make the article flow better. I would consider making the history section the last section of the article because, according to the Manual of Style for Medicine-Related Articles, articles about diseases or disorders should have treatment or management before history (as long as the disease is not only of historical significance). Having the characteristics of the disorder right before management would allow the reader to have the symptoms fresh in their mind as they read through the therapy section, giving the article more fluidity. In addition, it would be helpful to have some more internal links, as this conveniently allows the reader to better understand the article as a whole by enabling them to quickly comprehend lesser known words. For example, I would make an internal link for paragrammatic speech, as the article for paragrammatism has a direct link to aphasia. Also, I noticed one trivial error in a sentence in the History section: “According to his model, the commissural pathways that link the concept center with the sensory and motor speech centers were include two separate commissures and a set of converging fiber tracts…” I am guessing you did not mean to have “were” in there. Anyways, I hope my suggestions help. Great job and good luck! Tlicolli (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Image caption 21:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you might mention.the color of the "temporal lobe (in green)"--Ancheta Wis (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Great job guys! I really think overall you did a very good job explaining what is going on with the disease and what you would expect to see if you have somebody with the disease. Therefore I only have a few comments on this article which are mostly very minor and easily editable. My first suggestion is to add more internal links to other wikipedia pages. This is something that is easy to do and allows the reader to make more connections and get a deeper understanding of your topic and how it relates to other topics on wikipedia. I think all of the paragraphs should look closer to the first one, in terms of links, if that is possible. I also noticed the spelling error that was mentioned above so instead of referring to it again I will just advise you remove the "were" that was discussed above. My last comment is that when I looked for some more information about the injury I read that this type of aphasia occurs when Broca's area, Wernicke's area and the arcuate fasciculus are all isolated from the rest of the brain by the infarcted tissues, but none of those areas themselves are damaged. I would suggest looking at http://www.csuchico.edu/~pmccaffrey//syllabi/SPPA336/336unit8.html for a more detailed "how transcoritcal sensory aphasia happens" section. Again these are just suggestions I think the article was great and helped me understand what the injury was and it was very readable and well written! Brian Sleasman (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Good article. I think that the picture really helps enhance the physical basis of the disease and the location of the brain it affects. The article is well-written and organized too. It conveys concepts easily so that readers without an extensive background in science can understand it. That being said, I have a few suggestions to hopefully make it even better. Mainly, add more hyperlinks. Even if you had the term hyperlinked in the introduction maybe add the same hyperlink in some of the other sections too. Some of the more technical terms about speech could probably hyperlinked as well (i.e. phonological processing (as phonological rule), lexical-semantic, action verbs (maybe)). Also, in the Clinical Assessment section, the phrase “the best test of prognosis and the degree of recovery” is a worded a little weird (maybe “best test to determine prognosis”?) Finally, if you could expand your See Also section a bit and maybe add a Further Reading section, I think the article would be more along the lines of Wikipedia format. Great article overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tas45 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Overall this article was very well done! I was very clear and very well written. You were able to take a topic that could honestly be very confusing for some readers and made it very easy to follow. I only have a few suggestions that I think could help enhance your article. First as a simple layout critique, I think the article would flow better if you switched the History and the Diagnosis sections. I feel like it would read a little better if history came right after your introduction and if management came right after diagnosis. Also in terms of headings, only the first word needs to be capitalized (ex: Management of the disorder). Your spelling and grammar was excellent, I only found two small corrections that I would make. First, in the Characteristics section you have "paragramatic" and you just need to fix that to "paragrammatic." You also have written " It pinpoints the subject’s strengths and weaknesses in the areas of audio, vision, reading comprehension, speech, and writing." I would just change this to "...weaknesses in the auditory and visual senses, as well as reading comprehension…" The only other suggestions I have are related to the actual Wikipedia aspects of your article. The content of your article is great, but I feel like if you supplemented it with more images that would be really helpful especially for readers who are more visual learners. Also adding more links would really increase the quality of the article. Some links I might add would be for: cognition, non-invasive, linguistic, fluency, rhythm, melody, phonology, Broca. Adding links as well as adding a link to your page to external pages really helps boost the quality of the article and it increases your chances of getting your article a "Good article" status. I hope you find my suggestions helpful. You guys have written a really great article. I learned something and it was interesting and easy to follow. Great job guys! Peter Clarner (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Nicely done so far. It might just be a personal preference, but I think under the Diagnosis heading, if you moved the Clinical Assessment and Characteristics (with following subheadings) sections to the top would make a little more sense, especially since this apasia cannot be detected through imaging. It sounds a little weird to say 'Hey here's how you diagnose this disease, but wait a minute this first technique (imaging) actually doesn't work.' Also, I noticed the bulk of the article has very few links in it. I think it might've been mentioned in earlier comments, but this is quite noticeable and I think it would just help the overall look/helpfulness of the article. Finally, I'm pretty sure only the first word of each heading should be capitalized. You've got 'Clinical Assessment', 'Wernicke-Lichtheim Connectionist Model' (not the hyphenated name, just Connectionist and Model should be lowercase) and 'Management of the Disorder'. But other than that it's looking good. Cameron (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

So far I think you guys have done a really great job! One think I think you could do is specify the differences between transcortical sensory aphasia and transcortical motor aphasia. As a random wiki user, there with not much neurobiology they might be slightly confused between the two apahasias. If you could expand on the characteristics section, I think you would have a much stronger article. Especially since there is only a few sentences in some subsections. Also there is only a brief description of what goes on in Wenicke's area. It would be great if you could include more physiological effects. I think that the history section is very well written and detailed! GREAT JOB GUYS! Songforsunshine5 (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Great job so far! Sorry if I’m repeating some points above but more links in the article itself always helps! For example, fMRI could be hyperlinked. Are there more ways of clinically assessing than the Boston Diagnostic and the Minnesota test? I was also thinking maybe you could rearrange the diagnosis section into methods of diagnosing (imaging and clinical assessment) and then characteristics of the disease (comprehension, naming, paraphasia) I also think you could benefit from putting the history first before going into the next sections. Lastly, I was wondering if there was any direction research was going into better managing the disease. Otherwise, I thought it was really clear and a good article! TheDanKim (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

This is a very interesting and well written article! I just have a couple of quick notes that might help with clarity. In the "Imaging" section under the "Diagnosis" topic, the article ends with "The following standardized testing techniques are most commonly used in the diagnosis of transcortical sensory aphasia". This is then followed by other headings listing diagnostic techniques. Because the techniques are listed in the same heading as the "Imaging" section, it is a little bit hard to follow. I understand where you were coming from because the techniques do follow, but I feel that it would be more clear if the list of techniques were indented from the main section or listed as a lesser heading or something of this nature. I hope what I am trying to say makes sense...I just think it would help with the flow of the section! Everything written within the sections however is quite clear and informative!

Also, as mentioned above, some extra links would be helpful. I especially think that there should be a link to Paul Broca in the history section where his name is used.

I found the therapy section very comprehensive and felt that it tied the rest of the article together quite nicely! It touched on various aspects mentioned earlier in the article and demonstrated how individual issues and symptoms associated with the disease are dealt with in a clinical sense. Overall this article was clear and concise! Good job! Kelseyfish1189 (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Good job so far! Your article was really informative and clear. I especially liked the comparison to Wernicke's aphasia, since Wernicke's aphasia is a more commonly known neurological disorder. I also liked the breakdown of the "Diagnosis" section; I thought the subdivisions you employed really helped to facilitate understanding. However, I do have a few suggestions with regard to improving the flow of your article. First, I would moved the "History" section below "Diagnosis" and "Management of the disorder." Both Diagnosis and Management are more concerned with TCA's clinical significance and application, and thus, I would recommend keeping these two sections together and putting History after. You can refer to aphasia--here, the writers put History after the clinically-related information. Also, under the Diagnosis section, I think "Characteristics" of TCA should precede Imaging and Clinical Assessment; physical symptoms are almost always the first detectable sign of a possible neurological problem. As such, detecting the characteristics you list would lead to the afflicted individual to seek clinical assessment. Another suggestion I have would be to change the name of the subdivision "Comprehension" to specifically "Verbal Comprehension." This clarifies more precisely the type of comprehension to which you are referring. Besides these minor suggestions, I think you guys have done great work! Jinhl (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

First of all, great job thus far. One of the strengths of this article is that it takes the topic and makes it very understandable and easy to grasp. It is concise, which is very important. In terms of some suggestions, I'd definitely like to see some expansion on ideas in the "Diagnosis" section. I would also be interested to know if there are any surgical procedures available to curb symptoms, as well as causes, prevention, and future research. As some people have commented previously, it might also be better if you adjusted the order of the article. Other than that, great start! Fahertch (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to peer review

Response 1

I would like to thank everyone for their very thoughtful and constructive criticism. As a group, we have made many of the changes that were suggested and I feel that these changes have greatly improved our article. Personally, I created the introduction and characteristics sections (and the subheadings under characteristics). I added more internal links to the introduction, a few sentences on transcortical motor aphasia (so that the reader does not mistake it with TSA), and reordered the "causes" and "neuroanatomy" of the disease to make it flow better. Someone suggested that I go into further detail of the brain structures involved in TSA and mention the arcuate fasciculus. After conducting more research on the arcuate fasciculus, I found a couple of supporting sources, and wrote a brief section on "Affected brain areas." I expanded the "Characteristics" section, as many of the peer responses suggested. Specifically, I was more descriptive in the "Comprehension" subsection. Although I would have liked to expand on "naming" and "paraphasia", I could not find any other pertinent information on these two characteristics, and although it is very concise, I think it gives the reader a good idea of the language limitations of patients with TSA. Lastly, I added a "current research" section. This section is fairly brief, as there has not been much research done on transcortical sensory aphasia. Thanks again for all of your supportive comments! Marcetk (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Response 2

Thanks everyone for all of the great feedback! I was responsible for the History section and helped Kristen with the "current research" section. I corrected the grammatical error present in this section that someone pointed out. After consulting the Manual of Style for Medicine-Related Articles, we decided to place the history section toward the end of the article, since TSA does not have a specific historical significance. The manual seemed to suggest that the research section should be placed after history, so we placed it at the end. I also went to thank everyone for the link suggestions. I went through and linked to more Wikipedia articles, and I also added our article under the "See Also" section of other relevant articles. We were also able to find more sources to support the information that we presented in the article. Thanks again to everyone for all of the suggestions! You guys were a great help! --Quallsk (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Response 3

Hey guys, I really do appreciate the feedback to our article. I'm the one responsible for the Therapy section of the article. I expanded on the "Builder's Game" section as I thought that it was a fairly good example of a therapy technique that utilizes multiple good therapeutic qualities. In addition, I added another source to the section, as it's probably a good idea to get multiple views on aphasia therapy techniques. Lastly, I added a summary at the start of the section on three major principles of aphasia therapy techniques. I really appreciate the feedback guys and look forward to getting more feedback in the futures! --Heyjorge102 —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Nonlesional transcortical aphasias

Both TSA and TMA can be temporary, resulting from inactivation of the relevant cortex. The spreading cortical depression of migraine, ictal aphasia, and post-ictal aphasia can all present as transcortical aphasias. Reversibility is the hallmark of these etiologies. The current article, littered with reference to 'damage' and 'lesions', does not account for this. 2600:1700:2082:C000:3497:3B5B:C707:FDC5 (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)