Phonological impairments in Hindi aphasics: Error analyses and cross-linguistic comparisons
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed phonological and apraxic impairments in Hindi persons with aphasia (PwA) and compared them to Italian PwA reported in previous studies. Overall, we found strong similarities. Phonological errors were present across production tasks (repetition, reading and naming), most errors were non-lexical and, among those, a majority involved individual phonemes. There were significant effects of length, but not frequency. Hindi PwA, like the Italian PwA, showed strong effects of syllabic structure, with most errors occurring on consonants and weak syllabic positions, preserving syllable structure and simplifying phonemes or syllabic templates. These similarities were modulated by some language-specific patterns. Vowel insertions were more common in Hindi, possibly due to the presence of a central vowel, and segmental simplifications concentrated on marked aspiration and retroflection features. We hope our study will encourage further research in Hindi and other Indian languages. This will improve clinical diagnosis and our understanding of cross-linguistic differences.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it