Decision Making by People With Aphasia: A Comparison of Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Measures
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose Decision making involves multiple cognitive and linguistic processes. The extent to which these processes are involved depends, in part, on the conditions under which decision making is assessed. Because people with aphasia (PWA) have impaired language abilities and may also present with cognitive deficits, they may have difficulty during decision-making tasks. Yet little research exists on the decision-making abilities of PWA. Thus, the purposes of this study were to investigate the performance of PWA on linguistic and nonlinguistic decision-making measures and to explore the relationship between decision making and cognitive test performance. Method A quasi-experimental design was used to compare the performance of PWA ( n = 16) and age- and education-matched control participants ( n = 16) on three decision-making tasks: Making a Decision subtest from the Functional Assessment of Verbal Reasoning and Executive Strategies (linguistic decision-making task), Iowa Gambling Task (nonlinguistic decision-making task with ambiguity), and Game of Dice Task (nonlinguistic decision-making task without ambiguity). Participants also completed assessments of language, working memory, and executive functions. Scores on the three decision-making tasks were compared between groups, and cognitive influences on decision-making performance were examined using correlation analyses. Results PWA differed significantly from control participants on linguistic decision making, particularly when required to verbalize their rationale for making their decision. PWA and control participants did not differ significantly on measures of nonlinguistic decision making. Performance on multiple cognitive measures was correlated with performance on the linguistic reasoning task, as well as one of the nonlinguistic tasks (Game of Dice Task). Conclusions Decision-making tasks that are heavily dependent on language, such as those used in capacity assessments, may disadvantage PWA. Assessments of decision-making capacity should include communication supports for people with acquired communication disorders; further investigation in the areas of decision making and aphasia is needed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».