MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210732103 · doi:10.3390/brainsci11111458

Resting-State Functional Connectivity following Phonological Component Analysis: The Combined Action of Phonology and Visual Orthographic Cues

2021· article· en· W3210732103 on OpenAlexafffund
Michèle Masson‐Trottier, Anna Sontheimer, E. Dana Durand, Ana Inés Ansaldo

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAphasiaPhonologyPsychologyCognitive psychologyNeuroplasticityCognitionResting state fMRINeuroscienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anomia is the most frequent and pervasive symptom for people with aphasia (PWA). Phonological component analysis (PCA) is a therapy incorporating phonological cues to treat anomia. Investigations of neural correlates supporting improvements following PCA remain scarce. Resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) as a marker of therapy-induced neuroplasticity has been reported by our team. The present study explores the efficacy of PCA in French and associated therapy-induced neuroplasticity using whole-brain rsFC analysis. Ten PWA participated in a pre-/post-PCA fMRI study with cognitive linguistic assessments. PCA was delivered in French following the standard procedure. PCA led to significant improvement with trained and untrained items. PCA also led to changes in rsFC between distributed ROIs in the semantic network, visual network, and sub-cortical areas. Changes in rsFC can be interpreted within the frame of the visual and phonological nature of PCA. Behavioral and rsFC data changes associated with PCA in French highlight its efficacy and point to the importance of phonological and orthographic cues to consolidate the word-retrieval strategy, contributing to generalization to untrained words.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain SciencesSame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207