The association between communication impairments and acquired alexithymia in chronic stroke patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Language dysfunction has recently been suggested to be one route to alexithymia, an impairment in recognizing and communicating one's own emotions. Neuropsychological evidence is needed to investigate the possibility that acquired language problems could underlie acquired alexithymia. METHOD: = 118) to test whether self-reported or behavioral measures of language and communication problems were associated with alexithymia. We also examined the impact of hemisphere of damage on alexithymia. RESULTS: We found no differences in alexithymia levels for patients with observed language impairments on brief tests of picture naming, comprehension, and reading vs unimpaired patients. However, self-reported communication difficulties were found to be associated with higher scores of alexithymia, even after controlling for depression and anxiety. Patients with left- versus right-hemisphere damage did not differ in their alexithymia scores. CONCLUSIONS: We found partial support for the language hypothesis of alexithymia. We discuss potential reasons for the discrepant findings between the self-report and objective language measures and suggest that self-report measures may be more sensitive to milder, more pragmatic language impairments, as opposed to the severe structural language impairments measured by the cognitive screening tests.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".