The Neural Correlates of Semantic Feature Analysis in Chronic Aphasia: Discordant Patterns According to the Etiology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study reports on the impact of semantic feature analysis (SFA) therapy on the neural substrate sustaining the recovery from severe anomia in two patients: one participant was diagnosed with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) 2 years before this study; the other participant acquired aphasia 8 years before this study. The participant with PPA showed severe progressive nonfluent aphasia (PNFA), the language profile being similar to a Broca's aphasia; the stroke patient presented with Broca's aphasia and a severe apraxia of speech (AOS). To examine the neural substrate allowing for recovery, both patients received brief and intensive therapy with SFA; behavioral and event-related (ER)-fMRI measures during oral picture naming were obtained pre- and post-therapy. Both patients benefitted from SFA to improve their naming performance. Functional MRI performances on trained and correct pretraining items were contrasted. Adaptive brain plasticity appeared to operate differently in each patient, despite the similarity of naming recovery profiles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it