Higher-level language deficits resulting from left primary cerebellar lesions

Background: Contemporary neuropsychological studies suggest that cerebellar lesions may impact upon higher-level cognitive functioning via mechanisms of crossed cerebello-cerebral diaschisis. Accordingly, right cerebellar lesions have been previously associated with linguistic impairments such as reduced word fluency and agrammatic output. Recently, however, neuroimaging investigations have also identified ipsilateral cerebral hypoperfusion as a consequence of cerebellar lesions, implicating a potential role for the left cerebellum in the mediation of language processes. Aims: The purpose of this research was to investigate the effects of left cerebellar lesions of vascular origin, on general as well as high-level language skills. Methods & Procedures: Linguistic profiles were compiled for five individuals with left primary cerebellar lesions utilising a comprehensive language test battery. Individual scores relevant to each subtest were compared to a group of non-neurologically impaired controls. The criterion for anomalous performance was established as greater than or equal to 1.5 SD below the mean of the control group. Outcomes & Results: The findings of this research suggest that higher-level language deficits may result from left primary cerebellar lesions. All participants demonstrated deficits on measures of word fluency, sentence construction within a set context, producing word definitions, and producing multiple definitions for the same word. Deficits were also noted for several participants on measures of understanding figurative language, forming word associations, identifying and correcting semantic absurdities, and producing synonyms and antonyms. Conclusions: The results presented challenge the notion of a lateralised linguistic cerebellum, supporting a potential role for the left as well as right cerebellar hemispheres in the regulation of language processes, presumably via cerebellar-basal ganglia/thalamo-cortical pathways.

How can experience in clinical and community settings contribute to early medical education? A BEME systematic review

Review date: Review period January 1992-December 2001. Final analysis July 2004-January 2005. Background and review context: There has been no rigorous systematic review of the outcomes of early exposure to clinical and community settings in medical education. Objectives of review: (1) Identify published empirical evidence of the effects of early experience in medical education, analyse it, and synthesize conclusions from it. (2) Identify the strengths and limitations of the research effort to date, and identify objectives for future research. Search strategy: Ovid search of. BEI, ERIC, Medline, CIATAHL and EMBASE Additional electronic searches of: Psychinfo, Timelit, EBM reviews, SIGLE, and the Cochrane databases. Hand-searches of: Medical Education, Medical Teacher, Academic Medicine, Teaching and Learning in Medicine, Advances in Health Sciences Education, Journal of Educational Psychology. Criteria: Definitions: Experience: Authentic (real as opposed to simulated) human contact in a social or clinical context that enhances learning of health, illness and/or disease, and the role of the health professional. Early: What would traditionally have been regarded as the preclinical phase, usually the first 2 years. Inclusions: All empirical studies (verifiable, observational data) of early experience in the basic education of health professionals, whatever their design or methodology, including papers not in English. Evidence from other health care professions that could be applied to medicine was included. Exclusions: Not empirical; not early; post-basic; simulated rather than 'authentic' experience. Data collection: Careful validation of selection processes. Coding by two reviewers onto an extensively modified version of the standard BEME coding sheet. Accumulation into an Access database. Secondary coding and synthesis of an interpretation. Headline results: A total of 73 studies met the selection criteria and yielded 277 educational outcomes; 116 of those outcomes (from 38 studies) were rated strong and important enough to include in a narrative synthesis of results; 76% of those outcomes were from descriptive studies and 24% from comparative studies. Early experience motivated and satisfied students of the health professions and helped them acclimatize to clinical environments, develop professionally, interact with patients with more confidence and less stress, develop self-reflection and appraisal skill, and develop a professional identity. It strengthened their learning and made it more real and relevant to clinical practice. It helped students learn about the structure and function of the healthcare system, and about preventive care and the role of health professionals. It supported the learning of both biomedical and behavioural/social sciences and helped students acquire communication and basic clinical skills. There were outcomes for beneficiaries other than students, including teachers, patients, populations, organizations and specialties. Early experience increased recruitment to primary care/rural medical practice, though mainly in US studies which introduced it for that specific purpose as part of a complex intervention. Conclusions: Early experience helps medical students socialize to their chosen profession. It. helps them acquire a range of subject matter and makes their learning more real and relevant. It has potential benefits for other stakeholders, notably teachers and patients. It can influence career choices.