Revisiting the dissociation between singing and speaking in expressive aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the production of sung and spoken utterances in a non-fluent patient, C.C., who had a severe expressive aphasia following a right-hemisphere stroke, but whose language comprehension and memory were relatively preserved. In experiment 1, C.C. repeated familiar song excerpts under four different conditions: spoken lyrics, sung lyrics on original melody, lyrics sung on new but familiar melody and melody sung to a neutral syllable "la". In experiment 2, C.C. repeated novel song excerpts under three different conditions: spoken lyrics, sung lyrics and sung-to-la melody. The mean number of words produced under the spoken and sung conditions did not differ significantly in either experiment. The mean number of notes produced was not different either in the sung-to-la and sung conditions, but was higher than the words produced, hence showing a dissociation between C.C.'s musical and verbal productions. Therefore, our findings do not support the claim that singing helps word production in non-fluent aphasic patients. Rather, they are consistent with the idea that verbal production, be it sung or spoken, result from the operation of same mechanisms.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".