Phonological encoding in apraxia of speech and aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Apraxia of speech (AOS) is considered a speech motor planning/programming disorder. While it is possible that co-occurring phonological impairments exist, the speech motor planning/programming deficit often makes it difficult to assess the phonological encoding stage directly. Studies using online methods have suggested that activation of phonological information may be protracted in AOS.Aims: The present study was designed to investigate the integrity of the phonological encoding stage in AOS and aphasia. We tested two specific hypotheses, the Frame Hypothesis and the Segment Hypothesis. According to the Frame Hypothesis, speakers with AOS have an impairment in retrieving metrical frames (e.g., number of syllables); according to the Segment Hypothesis, speakers with AOS have an impairment in retrieving segments (e.g., consonants).Methods & Procedures: Four individuals with AOS and varying degrees of aphasia, two speakers with aphasia, and 13 age-matched control speakers completed an online priming task in which participants name pictures in sets that do or do not share number of syllables (e.g., balcony-coconut-signature vs. balcony-carrot-sock), the initial consonant (e.g., carpenter-castle-cage vs. carpenter-beaver-sun), or both (e.g., boomerang-butterfly-bicycle vs. boomerang-sausage-cat). Error rates and reaction times were measured.Outcomes & Results: Data for controls replicated previous literature. Reaction time data supported the Segment Hypothesis for speakers with AOS and for one speaker with aphasia without AOS, with no differences in pattern from controls for the other speaker with aphasia without AOS.Conclusions: These results suggest that speakers with AOS may also have difficulties at the phonological encoding stage. Theoretical and clinical implications of these findings are 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".