Literature DB >> 33784197

A Comparison of Manual Versus Automated Quantitative Production Analysis of Connected Speech.

Davida Fromm1, Saketh Katta2, Mason Paccione3, Sophia Hecht3, Joel Greenhouse3, Brian MacWhinney1, Tatiana T Schnur2,4.   

Abstract

Purpose Analysis of connected speech in the field of adult neurogenic communication disorders is essential for research and clinical purposes, yet time and expertise are often cited as limiting factors. The purpose of this project was to create and evaluate an automated program to score and compute the measures from the Quantitative Production Analysis (QPA), an objective and systematic approach for measuring morphological and structural features of connected speech. Method The QPA was used to analyze transcripts of Cinderella stories from 109 individuals with acute-subacute left hemisphere stroke. Regression slopes and residuals were used to compare the results of manual scoring and automated scoring using the newly developed C-QPA command in CLAN, a set of programs for automatic analysis of language samples. Results The C-QPA command produced two spreadsheet outputs: an analysis spreadsheet with scores for each utterance in the language sample, and a summary spreadsheet with 18 score totals from the analysis spreadsheet and an additional 15 measures derived from those totals. Linear regression analysis revealed that 32 of the 33 measures had good agreement; auxiliary complexity index was the one score that did not have good agreement. Conclusions The C-QPA command can be used to perform automated analyses of language transcripts, saving time and training and providing reliable and valid quantification of connected speech. Transcribing in CHAT, the CLAN editor, also streamlined the process of transcript preparation for QPA and allowed for precise linking of media files to language transcripts for temporal analyses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33784197      PMCID: PMC8608208          DOI: 10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00561

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res        ISSN: 1092-4388            Impact factor:   2.297


  19 in total

1.  Conversational discourse analysis as a method for evaluating progress in aphasia: a case report.

Authors:  L Boles
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  1998 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.288

Review 2.  Reviewing the quality of discourse information measures in aphasia.

Authors:  Madeleine Pritchard; Katerina Hilari; Naomi Cocks; Lucy Dipper
Journal:  Int J Lang Commun Disord       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 3.020

Review 3.  Linguistic analysis of discourse in aphasia: A review of the literature.

Authors:  Lucy Bryant; Alison Ferguson; Elizabeth Spencer
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 1.346

4.  Let's talk real talk: An argument to include conversation in a D-COS for aphasia research with an acknowledgment of the challenges ahead.

Authors:  Jacquie Kurland; Polly Stokes
Journal:  Aphasiology       Date:  2017-11-06       Impact factor: 2.773

5.  Selection for position: the role of left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex in sequencing language.

Authors:  Malathi Thothathiri; Myrna F Schwartz; Sharon L Thompson-Schill
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2010-02-10       Impact factor: 2.381

6.  Connected speech production in three variants of primary progressive aphasia.

Authors:  Stephen M Wilson; Maya L Henry; Max Besbris; Jennifer M Ogar; Nina F Dronkers; William Jarrold; Bruce L Miller; Maria Luisa Gorno-Tempini
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2010-06-11       Impact factor: 13.501

7.  UK speech and language therapists' views and reported practices of discourse analysis in aphasia rehabilitation.

Authors:  Madeline Cruice; Nicola Botting; Jane Marshall; Mary Boyle; Deborah Hersh; Madeleine Pritchard; Lucy Dipper
Journal:  Int J Lang Commun Disord       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 3.020

8.  Finding the Right Words: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Improves Discourse Productivity in Non-fluent Aphasia After Stroke.

Authors:  Jared Medina; Catherine Norise; Olufunsho Faseyitan; H Branch Coslett; Peter E Turkeltaub; Roy H Hamilton
Journal:  Aphasiology       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 2.773

9.  Manual Versus Automated Narrative Analysis of Agrammatic Production Patterns: The Northwestern Narrative Language Analysis and Computerized Language Analysis.

Authors:  Chien-Ju Hsu; Cynthia K Thompson
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  A core outcome set for aphasia treatment research: The ROMA consensus statement.

Authors:  Sarah J Wallace; Linda Worrall; Tanya Rose; Guylaine Le Dorze; Caterina Breitenstein; Katerina Hilari; Edna Babbitt; Arpita Bose; Marian Brady; Leora R Cherney; David Copland; Madeline Cruice; Pam Enderby; Deborah Hersh; Tami Howe; Helen Kelly; Swathi Kiran; Ann-Charlotte Laska; Jane Marshall; Marjorie Nicholas; Janet Patterson; Gill Pearl; Elizabeth Rochon; Miranda Rose; Karen Sage; Steven Small; Janet Webster
Journal:  Int J Stroke       Date:  2018-10-10       Impact factor: 5.266

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.