Purpose: The heterogeneous nature of measures, methods, and analyses reported in the aphasia spoken discourse literature precludes comparison of outcomes across studies (e.g., meta-analyses) and inhibits replication. Furthermore, funding and time constraints significantly hinder collecting test-retest data on spoken discourse outcomes. This research note describes the development and structure of a working group, designed to address major gaps in the spoken discourse aphasia literature, including a lack of standardization in methodology, analysis, and reporting, as well as nominal data regarding the psychometric properties of spoken discourse outcomes.Method: The initial initiatives for this working group are to: 1) propose recommendations regarding standardization of spoken discourse collection, analysis, and reporting in aphasia, based on the results of an international survey and a systematic literature review; and, 2) create a database of test-retest spoken discourse data from individuals with and without aphasia. The survey of spoken discourse collection, analysis, and interpretation procedures was distributed to clinicians and researchers involved in aphasia assessment and rehabilitation September – November 2019. We will publish survey results and recommend standards for collecting, analyzing, and reporting spoken discourse in aphasia. A multisite endeavor to collect test-retest spoken discourse data from individuals with and without aphasia will be initiated. This test-retest information will be contributed to a central site for transcription and analysis, and data will be subsequently openly curated.Conclusion: The goal of the working group is to create recommendations for field-wide standards in methods, analysis and reporting of spoken discourse outcomes, as has been done across other related disciplines (e.g., CONSORT, EQUATOR, COBIDAS). Additionally, the creation of a database through our multi-site collaboration will allow the identification of psychometrically sound outcome measures and norms that can be used by clinicians and researchers to assess spoken discourse abilities in aphasia.
Purpose The heterogeneous nature of measures, methods, and analyses reported in the aphasia spoken discourse literature precludes comparison of outcomes across studies (e.g., meta-analyses) and inhibits replication. Furthermore, funding and time constraints significantly hinder collecting test–retest data on spoken discourse outcomes. This research note describes the development and structure of a working group, designed to address major gaps in the spoken discourse aphasia literature, including a lack of standardization in methodology, analysis, and reporting, as well as nominal data regarding the psychometric properties of spoken discourse outcomes. Method The initial initiatives for this working group are to (a) propose recommendations regarding standardization of spoken discourse collection, analysis, and reporting in aphasia, based on the results of an international survey and a systematic literature review and (b) create a database of test–retest spoken discourse data from individuals with and without aphasia. The survey of spoken discourse collection, analysis, and interpretation procedures was distributed to clinicians and researchers involved in aphasia assessment and rehabilitation from September to November 2019. We will publish survey results and recommend standards for collecting, analyzing, and reporting spoken discourse in aphasia. A multisite endeavor to collect test–retest spoken discourse data from individuals with and without aphasia will be initiated. This test–retest information will be contributed to a central site for transcription and analysis, and data will be subsequently openly curated. Conclusion The goal of the working group is to create recommendations for field-wide standards in methods, analysis, and reporting of spoken discourse outcomes, as has been done across other related disciplines (e.g., Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research, Committee on Best Practice in Data Analysis and Sharing). Additionally, the creation of a database through our multisite collaboration will allow the identification of psychometrically sound outcome measures and norms that can be used by clinicians and researchers to assess spoken discourse abilities in aphasia.
Purpose: Dementia due to cerebrovascular disease (CVD) is common. Detecting early cognitive decline in CVD is critical because addressing risk factors may slow or prevent dementia. This study used a multidomain discourse analysis approach to determine the spoken language signature of CVD-related cognitive impairment. Method: Spoken language and neuropsychological assessment data were collected prospectively from 157 participants with CVD as part of the Ontario Neurodegenerative Disease Research Initiative, a longitudinal, observational study of neurodegenerative disease. Participants were categorized as impaired (n = 92) or cognitively normal for age (n = 65) based on neuropsychology criteria. Spoken language samples were transcribed orthographically and annotated for 13 discourse features, across five domains. Discriminant function analyses were used to determine a minimum set of discourse variables, and their estimated weights, for maximizing diagnostic group separation. Results: The optimal discriminant function that included 10 of 13 discourse measures correctly classified 78.3% of original cases (69.4% cross-validated cases) with a sensitivity of 77.2% and specificity of 80.0%. Conclusion: Spoken discourse appears to be a sensitive measure for detecting cognitive impairment in CVD with measures of productivity, information content, and information efficiency heavily weighted in the final algorithm.
Verb and action knowledge deficits are reported in persons with Parkinson’s disease (PD), even in the absence of dementia or mild cognitive impairment. However, the impact of these deficits on combinatorial semantic processing is less well understood. Following on previous verb and action knowledge findings, we tested the hypothesis that PD impairs the ability to integrate event-based thematic fit information during online sentence processing. Specifically, we anticipated persons with PD with age-typical cognitive abilities would perform more poorly than healthy controls during a visual world paradigm task requiring participants to predict a target object constrained by the thematic fit of the agent-verb combination. Twenty-four PD and 24 healthy age-matched participants completed comprehensive neuropsychological assessments. We recorded participants’ eye movements as they heard predictive sentences (The fisherman rocks the boat) alongside target, agent-related, verb-related, and unrelated images. We tested effects of group (PD/control) on gaze using growth curve models. There were no significant differences between PD and control participants, suggesting that PD participants successfully and rapidly use combinatory thematic fit information to predict upcoming language. Baseline sentences with no predictive information (e.g., Look at the drum) confirmed that groups showed equivalent sentence processing and eye movement patterns. Additionally, we conducted an exploratory analysis contrasting PD and controls’ performance on low-motion-content versus high-motion-content verbs. This analysis revealed fewer predictive fixations in high-motion sentences only for healthy older adults. PD participants may adapt to their disease by relying on spared, non-action-simulation-based language processing mechanisms, although this conclusion is speculative, as the analyses of high- vs. low-motion items was highly limited by the study design. These findings provide novel evidence that individuals with PD match healthy adults in their ability to use verb meaning to predict upcoming nouns despite previous findings of verb semantic impairment in PD across a variety of tasks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.