A quantitative production analysis of picture description
A quantitative production analysis of picture description
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/02687030500472777
复制
发表时间：
2006-02-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Gordon, Jean K.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gordon, Jean K.
背景定量生产分析（QPA）（Berndt等人，2000; Saffran等人，1989年）的发展，以提供一个客观的手段来表征失语症的自发言语的语法性。然而，仍然没有达成共识的性能配置文件，在这个或任何其他措施，确定grammatization.Aim：本研究的目的是推进努力grammatic语音生产，通过检查的影响，失语症的严重程度和流畅性的QPA评分模式，从广泛的个人与失语症。这个过程的目标是确定的定量变量最预测grammatization.Methods & Procedures：自发语音样本引起非脑损伤（NBD）老年受试者和一组参与者失语症的诊断，并使用QPA分析。对NBD组和失语组的数据进行统计学比较，并与严重程度分级相关。然后比较失语症组中流利和不流利的受试者。最后，nonfluent组进行了探索的证据agrammatis.Outcomes & Results：许多QPA的措施被发现反映失语症的严重程度和/或语音生产的流畅性，这表明这些措施的结果可能并不表明语法本身。特别是，输出生产力的措施（生产的数量和效率）在很大程度上取决于失语症的严重程度，和词汇选择的措施与生产的流畅性。配置文件的非流利的科目也有很大的不同，加强了不同的语法functions.Conclusions的分离性：没有QPA的措施可以解释为单独反映语法不清，事实上，许多似乎是反映失语症的严重程度或流畅性。语法缺失的诊断仍然依赖于临床判断;然而，QPA提供的一系列客观定量信息极大地帮助了这种判断。
Background. The Quantitative Production Analysis (QPA) (Berndt et al., 2000; Saffran et al., 1989) was developed to provide an objective means of characterising the grammaticality of spontaneous speech in aphasia. However, there is still no consensus as to the profile of performance, on this or any other measure, that identifies agrammatism.Aim: The aim of this study is to advance the effort to characterise agrammatic speech production, by examining the influence of aphasia severity and fluency on patterns of QPA scores obtained from a broad range of individuals with aphasia. The goal of this process is to identify the quantitative variables most predictive of agrammatism.Methods & Procedures: Spontaneous speech samples were elicited from non-brain-damaged (NBD) older subjects and a group of participants with aphasia unselected by diagnosis, and analysed using the QPA. Data from the NBD and aphasia groups were statistically compared and correlated with ratings of severity. Fluent and non-fluent subjects within the group with aphasia were then compared. Last, the nonfluent group was explored for evidence of agrammatism.Outcomes & Results: Many of the QPA's measures were found to reflect the severity of aphasia and/or the fluency of speech production, suggesting that results on these measures may not be indicative of agrammatism per se. In particular, measures of output productivity (the amount and efficiency of production) were largely determined by aphasia severity, and measures of lexical selection were related to the fluency of production. Profiles of the non-fluent subjects also varied widely, reinforcing the dissociability of different grammatical functions.Conclusions: None of the QPA's measures could be interpreted to reflect agrammatism alone; in fact, many appeared to be reflective of aphasia severity or fluency. Diagnoses of agrammatism still depend on clinical judgement; however, this judgement is aided greatly by the array of objective quantitative information provided by the QPA.