MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038413034 · doi:10.1044/2020_jslhr-19-00351

Cognitive–Linguistic Functions in Adults With Epilepsy: Preliminary Electrophysiological and Behavioral Findings

2020· article· en· W3038413034 on OpenAlexaff
Manaswita Dutta, Laura L. Murray, Wendy R. Miller, Isaiah J. Innis, Sharlene D. Newman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurotypicalEpilepsyCognitionPsychologyCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyAutismNeuroscienceAutism spectrum disorder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Cognition and language difficulties are frequently reported in both children and adults with epilepsy. The majority of the existing research has focused on pediatric epilepsy, documenting impairments in learning, academics, and social-emotional functioning. In comparison, language deficits in younger and older adults with epilepsy have received less empirical attention. Given recently identified limitations in the extant literature regarding assessing epilepsy-related language problems in adults (Dutta et al., 2018), the current exploratory study described in this research note investigated the cognitive-linguistic abilities of adults with focal or generalized types of epilepsy. Method Twelve participants with epilepsy and 11 age- and education-matched healthy controls completed a cognitive-linguistic test battery. Event-related potential (ERP) procedures were also employed to assess the integrity of neural activity supporting psycholinguistic processing in both groups using a lexical decision task. Results No significant performance differences between epilepsy and healthy control groups were noted on basic language tasks; however, group differences were evident on the more complex language measures, including spoken discourse. Even though both groups performed the lexical decision task similarly in terms of accuracy, individuals with epilepsy demonstrated longer reaction times and some atypical ERP characteristics compared to controls. Conclusion The cognitive-linguistic assessment and ERP findings suggested that, compared to neurotypical adults, individuals with epilepsy demonstrate slower processing times and greater difficulty with high-level language and spoken discourse production, despite performing within typical limits on basic language tests. Preliminary results from this research are significant in providing new knowledge about language functioning in adults with epilepsy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Speech Language and Hearing ResearchSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207