The Performance of the Korean Montreal Protocol for Evaluation of Communication in the Stroke Patients with Right vs. Left Hemispheric groups: A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
대뇌 손상 부위에 따라 의사소통장애 양상이 다르기 때문에 언어평가도구에 포함되는 문항들도 달라져야 한다. 그러나 국내 실어증 평가도구는 좌반구 뇌졸중 환자를 위주로 개발된 도구이므로 우뇌 손상 환자의 인지-의사소통장애 유무와 양상을 파악하는 데에는 제약이 있다. 본 연구는 우뇌 손상 환자를 위한 의사소통평가도구를 좌뇌 및 우뇌 손상 뇌졸중 환자 각 25명씩 총 50명에게 적용한 후, 좌·우뇌 뇌졸중에 따른 하위검사 영역별 수행력 차이를 알아보았다. 그 결과, 우뇌 손상군이 ‘대화적 담화’, ‘구어유창성(비제한적/음소/의미)’, ‘언어적 운율-따라말하기’, ‘감정적 운율-따라말하기’, ‘감정적 운율-산출’ 하위검사에서 좌뇌 손상군보다 유의하게 낮은 수행력을 보였다. ‘은유’, ‘감정적 운율’, ‘화행’ 및 ‘대화적 담화’를 이해하는 과제나 ‘어휘 판단’ 과제에서는 두 집단 간 유의한 차이가 없었으나, 과제 반응 양상에서 질적인 차이를 보였다. 우뇌 손상군의 특이성에 초점을 두고 개발된 의사소통평가도구이지만 일부 하위검사 영역은 실어증 검사의 실어증 지수와도 유의한 상관성을 보여 우뇌 관장 영역으로 알려져 있던 일부 의사소통 능력의 처리과정에 좌뇌도 함께 관여하고 있음을 알 수 있었다. 이를 기초로 추후 인지-의사소통장애를 보이는 우뇌 손상 환자를 대상으로 한 적극적인 평가와 중재를 기대해 볼 수 있을 것이다.The items included in language assessment must be able to differentiate between different lesion sites. The aphasia battery of Korea is a limited in identifying the existence and characteristics of cognitive-communication disorders in patients with right hemisphere dysfunction (RHD). In this study, the communication assessment for RHD was administered to 25 stroke patients with left hemisphere dysfunction (LHD) and 25 patients with RHD. The differences in performance in each subtest according to left and right hemispheric lesions were examined. The RHD group exhibited significantly worse performance than that of the LHD group in the 5 domains. However, there were no significant differences in comprehension task between the two groups, they showed qualitative differences in response type. Communication assessment was developed focusing on specificity for RHD, however, some subtests showed significant correlation with the aphasia battery. Based on this, active evaluation and intervention can be expected for patients with RHD who show cognitive-communication disorders.
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 | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".