Literature DB >> 9210113

Determinants of sentence comprehension in aphasic patients in sentence-picture matching tasks.

D Caplan1, G S Waters, N Hildebrandt.   

Abstract

The results of two studies of sentence comprehension in aphasic patients using sentence-picture matching tests are presented. In the first study, 52 aphasic patients were tested on 10 sentence types. Analysis of the number of correct responses per sentence type showed effects of syntactic complexity and number of propositions. Factor analysis yielded first factors that accounted for two-thirds of the variance in performance to which all sentence types contributed. Clustering analysis yielded groups of patients whose performances progressively deteriorated and in which performance was more affected by sentence types that were harder for the group overall. These results were very similar to those previously obtained using an enactment task. In the second study, 17 aphasic patients were tested on the same 10 sentence types using both sentence-picture matching and enactment tasks. Correlational analyses showed that performance on the two tests was significantly correlated across both subjects and sentences. The results provide data relevant to the determinants of the complexity of a sentence in auditory comprehension.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9210113     DOI: 10.1044/jslhr.4003.542

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


  16 in total

1.  Vascular responses to syntactic processing: event-related fMRI study of relative clauses.

Authors:  David Caplan; Sujith Vijayan; Gina Kuperberg; Caroline West; Gloria Waters; Doug Greve; Anders M Dale
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 5.038

2.  Effects of age and speed of processing on rCBF correlates of syntactic processing in sentence comprehension.

Authors:  David Caplan; Gloria Waters; Nathaniel Alpert
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 5.038

3.  Pronominal resolution and gap filling in agrammatic aphasia: evidence from eye movements.

Authors:  Cynthia K Thompson; Jungwon Janet Choy
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2009-04-16

4.  Functional category production in English agrammatism.

Authors:  Jiyeon Lee; Lisa H Milman; Cynthia K Thompson
Journal:  Aphasiology       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.773

5.  A new modified listening span task to enhance validity of working memory assessment for people with and without aphasia.

Authors:  Maria V Ivanova; Brooke Hallowell
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 2.288

6.  Rasch models of aphasic performance on syntactic comprehension tests.

Authors:  Roee Gutman; Gayle DeDe; Jennifer Michaud; Jun S Liu; David Caplan
Journal:  Cogn Neuropsychol       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Recovery of Online Sentence Processing in Aphasia: Eye Movement Changes Resulting From Treatment of Underlying Forms.

Authors:  Jennifer E Mack; Cynthia K Thompson
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Development of a theoretically based treatment for sentence comprehension deficits in individuals with aphasia.

Authors:  Swathi Kiran; David Caplan; Chaleece Sandberg; Joshua Levy; Alex Berardino; Elsa Ascenso; Sarah Villard; Yorghos Tripodis
Journal:  Am J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2012-03-12       Impact factor: 2.408

9.  Tracking sentence comprehension: Test-retest reliability in people with aphasia and unimpaired adults.

Authors:  Jennifer E Mack; Andrew Zu-Sern Wei; Stephanie Gutierrez; Cynthia K Thompson
Journal:  J Neurolinguistics       Date:  2016-06-24       Impact factor: 1.710

10.  Dissociations and associations of performance in syntactic comprehension in aphasia and their implications for the nature of aphasic deficits.

Authors:  David Caplan; Jennifer Michaud; Rebecca Hufford
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2013-09-21       Impact factor: 2.381

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.