Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessPerspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech and Language DisordersArticle1 Apr 2002Acalculia Ann Marie Cimino-Knight, Amber L. Hollingsworth, and Leslie J. Gonzalez-Rothi Ann Marie Cimino-Knight VA RR&D Brain Rehabilitation Research Center and University of Florida, Gainesville Google Scholar More articles by this author , Amber L. Hollingsworth VA RR&D Brain Rehabilitation Research Center and University of Florida, Gainesville Google Scholar More articles by this author and Leslie J. Gonzalez-Rothi VA RR&D Brain Rehabilitation Research Center and University of Florida, Gainesville Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/nnsld12.1.30 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In References Dahmen, W., Hartje, W., Bussing, A., & Sturm, W. (1982). Disorders of calculation in aphasic patients: Spatial and verbal components.Neuropsychologia, 20, 145–153. Google Scholar Delazer, M., Girelli, L., Semenza, C., & Denes, G. (1999). Numerical skills and aphasia.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 5, 213–221. Google Scholar Deloche, G., Dellatolas, G., Vendrell, J., & Bergego, C. (1996). Calculation and number processing: Neuropsychological assessment and daily life difficulties.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 2, 177–180. Google Scholar Deloche, G., & Seron, X. (1982). From three to 3: A differential analysis of skills in transcoding quantities between patients with Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia.Brain, 105, 719–733. Google Scholar Deloche, G., & Seron, X. (1987). Numerical transcoding: A general production model.In G. Deloche & X. Seron (Eds.), Mathematical disabilities: A cognitive neuropsychological perspective (pp. 137–170). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar Frattali, C. M., Thompson, C. K., Holland, A. L., Wohl, C. B., & Ferketic, M. M. (1995). Functional assessment of communication skills foraAdults (ASHA-FACS). Rockville, MD: ASHA. Google Scholar Girelli, L., Delazer, M., Semenza, C., & Denes, G. (1996). The representation of arithmetical facts: Evidence from two rehabilitation studies.Cortex, 32, 49–66. Google Scholar Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Barressi, B. (2001). The assessment of aphasia and related disorders (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Google Scholar Hittmair-Delazer, M., Semenza, C., & Denes, G. (1994). Concepts and facts in calculation.Brain, 117, 715–728. Google Scholar Kertesz, A. (1982). Western Aphasia Battery. London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario Press. Google Scholar Lezak, M. D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar Macaruso, P., Harley, W., & McCloskey, M. (1992). Assessment of acquired dyscalculia.In D.I. Margolin (Ed.), Cognitive neuropsychology in clinical practice (pp. 405–434). New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar McCloskey, M., Aliminosa, D., & Macaruso, P. (1991). Theory based assessment of acquired dyscalculia.Brain and Cognition, 17, 285–308. Google Scholar McCloskey, M., Aliminosa, D., & Sokol, S. M. (1991). Facts, rules, and procedures in normal calculation: evidence from multiple single-patient studies of impaired arithmetic fact retrieval.Brain and Cognition, 17, 154–203. Google Scholar McCloskey, M., Caramazza, A., & Basili, A. G. (1985). Cognitive mechanisms in number processing and calculation: Evidence from dyscalculia.Brain and Cognition, 4, 171–196. Google Scholar McCloskey, M., & Caramazza, A. (1987). Cognitive mechanisms in normal and impaired number processing.In G. Deloche & X. Seron (Eds.), Mathematical disabilities: A cognitive neuropsychological perspective (pp. 201–219). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar Rosselli, M., & Ardila, A. (1989). Calculation deficits in patients with right and left hemisphere damage.Neuropsychologia, 27, 607–618. Google Scholar Rosselli, M., & Ardila, A. (1997). Rehabilitation of calculation disorders.In J. Leon-Carrion (Ed.), Neuropsychological rehabilitation: Fundamentals, innovations, and directions (pp. 353–370). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press. Google Scholar Rothi, L. J., & Horner, J. (1983). Restitution and substitution: Two theories of recovery with application to neurobehavioral treatment.Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 5, 73–81. Google Scholar Spiers, P. A. (1987). Acalculia revisited: Current issues.In G. Deloche & X. Seron (Eds.), Mathematical disabilities: A cognitive neuropsychological perspective (pp. 1–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar Sokol, S. M., & McCloskey, M. (1991). Cognitive mechanisms in calculation.In R. J. Sternberg & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp. 86–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1998). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Adminstration, norms, and commentary. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar Wilkinson, G. S. (1993). WRAT-3 Adminstration Manual. Delaware: Wide Range. Google Scholar Woodcock, R. W., & Mather, N. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources. Google Scholar Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation. Google Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 12Issue 1April 2002Pages: 30-36 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Apr 1, 2002 Metrics Topicsasha-topicsasha-sigsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2002 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.336 | 0.159 |
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".