Superior Written Over Spoken Picture Naming in a Case of Frontotemporal Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two main hypotheses have been proposed regarding the role of phonology in written word production. According to the phonological mediation hypothesis, the retrieval of the lexical phonological representation of a word is an obligatory prerequisite to the retrieval of its spelling. Therefore, deficits to the phonological lexicon should affect both spoken and written picture naming. In contrast, the orthographic autonomy hypothesis posits that the lexical orthographic representations of words can be accessed without any necessary phonological mediation. In support of this view, cases of preserved written naming despite impaired lexical phonology have been reported following brain damage. In this report, we replicate this basic pattern of performance in case YP, a 60-year-old woman with a pattern of frontotemporal dementia. As her disease progressed, YP's ability to write down the names of pictures remained very good despite a severe decline in oral naming. Further testing indicated that this deficit was not primarily due to an articulatory or post-lexical phonological deficit. YP's case provides strong additional support for the orthographic autonomy hypothesis. The significance of this case with respect to the characterization of dementia syndromes is discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".