Modelling confrontation naming and discourse performance in aphasia
Modelling confrontation naming and discourse performance in aphasia
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/02687038.2015.1067288
复制
发表时间：
2016-04-02
期刊：
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Wright, Heather Harris
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fergadiotis, Gerasimos;Wright, Heather Harris
背景资料：在文献中有很好的记载，对失语症（PWA）患者及其家人来说，产生话语的能力是最重要的。然而，量化话语在典型的临床设置是一项具有挑战性的任务，由于其动态和多方面的性质。因此，专业人士经常依赖于对抗命名测试来识别和测量受损的潜在认知机制，这些机制也被假设为对话语产生很重要。该研究的主要目的是调查对抗命名测试（CNT）分数在多大程度上预测（i）连接言语中的错语比例，方法：从失语症数据库中检索98名单语失语症患者的数据，采用结构方程模型进行分析。CNT中的表现被建模为基于波士顿失语症测试、西方失语症电池-R失语症子测试和动词失语症测试的潜在变量。在话语水平上的表现是根据观察到的比例paraphasias在三个话语任务（自由言论，事件和故事复述）。信息量是使用基于故事retell.Outcomes和结果的正确信息单位的百分比进行量化：对于第一个问题，两个潜在因素之间的回归系数估计为-0.52。当潜在因素的基础上的碳纳米管回归的信息量，估计的回归系数为0.68。结论：性能的碳纳米管是不是一个强有力的预测的比例产生的连接语音，但实质上是更高的信息量的沟通PWA。临床医生被告诫不要预测扬声器的性能后，建立CNT性能在话语水平。其他失范行为（例如，停顿）在话语生产过程中可能与CNT性能，并应考虑在未来的调查。
Background: It is well documented in the literature that the ability to produce discourse is what matters most to people with aphasia (PWA) and their families. However, quantifying discourse in typical clinical settings is a challenging task due to its dynamic and multiply determined nature. As a result, professionals often depend on confrontation naming tests to identify and measure impaired underlying cognitive mechanisms that are also hypothesised to be important for discourse production.Aims: The main goals of the study were to investigate the extent to which confrontation naming test (CNT) scores are predictive of (i) the proportion of paraphasias in connect speech, and (ii) the amount of information PWA can effectively communicate.Methods& Procedures: Data from 98 monolingual PWA were retrieved from AphasiaBank and analysed using structural equation modelling. Performance in CNTs was modelled as a latent variable based on the Boston Naming Test, the Western Aphasia Battery-R Naming Subtest, and the Verb Naming Test. Performance at the discourse level was modelled based on the observed proportions of paraphasias in three discourse tasks (free speech, eventcasts, and story retell). Informativeness was quantified using the percentage of Correct Information Units based on story re-tell.Outcomes &Results: For the first question, the regression coefficient between the two latent factors was estimated to be -0.52. When the latent factor based on the CNTs was regressed on informativeness, the estimated regression coefficient was equal to 0.68.Conclusions: Performance on CNTs was not a strong predictor of the proportion of paraphasias produced in connected speech but was substantially higher for the amount of information communicated by PWA. Clinicians are cautioned not to predict a speaker's performance at the discourse level after establishing CNT performance. Other anomic behaviours (e.g., pauses) during discourse production may be associated with CNT performance and should be considered in future investigations.