The Role of Caregiver Prosody in Conversations With Persons Who Have Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research was supported in part by funding from the British Columbia Medical Services Foundation (BCM02-0115). The funding source had no role in the design, methods, participant recruitment, data collection, interpretation of the study, or in the preparation of the manuscript for publication. Approval for the study was granted by the University of British Columbia Behavioural Ethics Review Board, and participants provided informed consent. This study investigated whether aspects of family caregivers' prosody (pitch and loudness) would be associated with successful or unsuccessful conversations with spouses who have Alzheimer's disease (AD). Secondary analysis was conducted of 12 caregivers' speech when interacting with spouses who have AD. Acoustic analyses were conducted to calculate the fundamental frequency (pitch) and intensity (loudness) of caregivers' speech. The results showed no significant overall differences between the caregivers' pitch or loudness in either successful or unsuccessful conversations. However, for 1 subgroup of caregivers, an increase in pitch variation and loudness was associated with unsuccessful communication, whereas for another subgroup the opposite pattern was observed-reduced pitch variation and loudness with unsuccessful communication. The results provide preliminary directions for helping family caregivers become aware of how characteristics of their speech prosody may relate to the quality of communication when interacting with persons who have AD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".