Wernicke (1874)

Localisation

Supports or oppose localization?

Supports

Study method?

Case study

Aim

To investigate the localisation of function in patients with brain damage. Like Broca, Wernicke wanted to investigate another speech/language and comprehension disorder, in which he believed, resulted from a different area than Broca’s area responsible for the comprehension of speech. 

Procedure

Wernicke worked in a similar fashion to Broca, by noting behaviour and conducting post-mortem autopsies to locate brain damage after patients had died, particularly in stroke victims. 

Findings

• After performing the autopsies, Wernicke concluded that there was a section of the brain which was responsible for the comprehension of speech. 

• The area later became known as Wernicke’s area. 

• Individuals with this type of aphasia might have problems understanding the speech of others or might substitute wrong words into planned phrases. 

• He now had evidence that damage to Wernicke’s area was responsible for the loss of ability to comprehend and understand speech, but still being able to speak

Conclusion

• Wernicke’s area is responsible for an impairment of comprehending / understanding language. 

• Through studies like Wernicke and Broca’s, it became clear that specific parts of the brain were responsible for specific human activities and behaviour. 

• However, it was still very difficult to find ways to investigate this further, as cases like these were usually rare. 

• Furthermore, people could not be operated on as it is deemed to be unethical. 

Evaluation of Study?

• Naturally occurring brain lesion is rarely found in a specific area.

• Have to wait until the patient dies

• Case study → One participant → May lack generalizability

• Impossible to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship