Clustering and switching in verbal fluency: a comparison between control and individuals with brain damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to analyze and compare the performance and strategies used by control subjects and patients with unilateral brain damage on phonemic and semantic Verbal Fluency tasks. METHODS: The sample consisted of 104 participants divided into four groups (26 with left hemisphere damage and aphasia- LHDa, 28 with left hemisphere damage and no aphasia- LHDna, 25 with right hemisphere damage- RHD and 25 neurologically healthy control subjects). All participants were administered the phonemic ("M" letter-based) and semantic (animals) verbal fluency tasks from the Montreal-Toulouse Language Assessment Battery (MTL-BR). RESULTS: Patients in the LHDa group showed the worst performance (fewer words produced, fewer clusters and switches) in both types of fluency task. RHD group showed fewer switching productions when compared with controls and LHDna had fewer words productions than controls in the first 30 seconds block. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the LHDa group obtained lower scores in most measures of SVF and PVF when compared to the other groups.
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".