MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010664279 · doi:10.1037/a0034655

Verbal irony comprehension in older adults with amnestic mild cognitive impairment.

2013· article· en· W2010664279 on OpenAlexafffund
Geneviève Gaudreau, Laura Monetta, Joël Macoir, Robert Laforce, Stéphane Poulin, Carol Hudon

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecUniversité Laval
FundersAlzheimer Society
KeywordsPsychologyIronyComprehensionTheory of mindCognitionCognitive psychologyJokeDevelopmental psychologyLinguisticsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The present study examined verbal irony comprehension in 31 aMCI and 33 healthy control (HC) subjects. Although nonliteral language impairments have been evidenced in individuals with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) or Alzheimer's disease (AD), verbal irony comprehension remained somewhat underinvestigated in these populations. METHOD: A task measured the capacity to attribute Second-order mental state (i.e., theory of mind; ToM) as well as the ability to distinguish an ironic statement from a lie. Subjects were asked to identify, in a short story, whether the final assertion was a lie or an ironic joke. RESULTS: Our results showed lower performance on a verbal irony comprehension task for aMCI individuals compared with those in the HC group. This pattern of results was related to Second-order ToM and executive functions. CONCLUSION: These findings have implications for the conceptualization of aMCI, and foster investigation of social language comprehension in neurodegenerative diseases such as prodromal AD. Results are discussed in light of actual linguistic theories. The importance of evaluating the role of underlying cognitive processes in verbal irony comprehension is also emphasized.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychologySame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207