Decision Making by People With Aphasia: A Comparison of Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Decision making involves multiple cognitive and linguistic processes. The extent to which these processes are involved depends, in part, on the conditions under which decision making is assessed. Because people with aphasia (PWA) have impaired language abilities and may also present with cognitive deficits, they may have difficulty during decision-making tasks. Yet little research exists on the decision-making abilities of PWA. Thus, the purposes of this study were to investigate the performance of PWA on linguistic and nonlinguistic decision-making measures and to explore the relationship between decision making and cognitive test performance. Method A quasi-experimental design was used to compare the performance of PWA (n= 16) and age- and education-matched control participants (n= 16) on three decision-making tasks: Making a Decision subtest from the Functional Assessment of Verbal Reasoning and Executive Strategies (linguistic decision-making task), Iowa Gambling Task (nonlinguistic decision-making task with ambiguity), and Game of Dice Task (nonlinguistic decision-making task without ambiguity). Participants also completed assessments of language, working memory, and executive functions. Scores on the three decision-making tasks were compared between groups, and cognitive influences on decision-making performance were examined using correlation analyses. Results PWA differed significantly from control participants on linguistic decision making, particularly when required to verbalize their rationale for making their decision. PWA and control participants did not differ significantly on measures of nonlinguistic decision making. Performance on multiple cognitive measures was correlated with performance on the linguistic reasoning task, as well as one of the nonlinguistic tasks (Game of Dice Task). Conclusions Decision-making tasks that are heavily dependent on language, such as those used in capacity assessments, may disadvantage PWA. Assessments of decision-making capacity should include communication supports for people with acquired communication disorders; further investigation in the areas of decision making and aphasia is needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".