Inflectional Morphology in Fluent Aphasia: A Case Study in a Highly Inflected Language
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inflectional morphology difficulties are typically reported in non-fluent aphasia with agrammatism, but a growing number of studies show that they can also be present in fluent aphasia. In agrammatism, morphological difficulties are conceived as the consequence of impaired phonological encoding and would affect regular verbs more than irregular verbs. However, studies show that inflectional morphology difficulties concern both regular and irregular verbs, and that their origin could be more conceptual/semantic in nature. Additionally, studies report more pronounced impairments for the processing of the past tense compared to other tenses. The goal of this study was to characterize the impairment of inflectional morphology in fluent aphasia. RY, a 69-year-old man with chronic fluent aphasia completed a short neuropsychological and language battery and three experimental tasks of inflectional morphology. The tasks assessed the capacity to select the correct inflected form of a verb based on time information, to access the time information included in an inflectional morpheme, and to produce verbs with tense inflection. His performance was compared to a group of five adults without language impairments. Results showed that RY had difficulties selecting the correct inflected form of a verb, accessing time information transmitted by inflectional morphemes, and producing inflected verbs. His difficulties affected both regular and irregular verbs, and verbs in the present, past, and future tenses. The performance also shows the influence of processing limitations over the production and comprehension of inflectional morphology. More studies of inflectional morphology in fluent aphasia are needed to understand the origin of difficulties.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".