Neuropsychological evaluation of pragmatics in a patient with acquired brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies in patients with brain injury have provided to clinical practice a wide range of valuable language assessment tools and rehabilitation strategies. In contrast, the ability to make a proper use of language adapted to a specific social and cultural context has been scarcely explored in brain-damaged patients. Therefore, clinicians still lack specific assessment batteries to diagnose pragmatic difficulties in these patients. Given the importance of such disorders on their social and professional reinsertion, we aimed at studying the usefulness of the Montréal Protocol for the Evaluation of Communication (MEC) in order to detect abnormal pragmatic capacities in a patient with a brain injury, as compared to a control participant. In addition, we explored the role of other cognitive processes, such as executive functions and social cognition on pragmatics. Results revealed that the MEC is a useful protocol to structure and guide the evaluation process of pragmatics, and it is sensitive to most of the symptoms observed at baseline. A partial dissociation between executive control and pragmatics was evident in the presented case, along with an impaired ability to recognize facial emotions, a difficulty that might explain some of the symptoms observed at the pragmatic level.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".