ArticleAphasiology
Semantic Knowledge Use in Discourse Produced by Individuals with Anomic Aphasia.
Article in Aphasiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResearchers have demonstrated that people with aphasia (PWA) have preserved semantic knowledge (Dell et al., 1997; Jefferies & Lambon Ralph, 2006). However, Antonucci (2014) demonstrated that some PWA have impaired access to certain types of knowledge more than others. Yet, all these studies used single concepts. It has not been demonstrated whether PWA have difficulty accessing certain types of features within a discourse sample.
aimsThe main goals of this study were to determine if semantic knowledge and two category types were used differently within discourse produced by participants with anomic aphasia and healthy controls. METHOD & PROCEDURES: Participants with anomic aphasia (n=19) and healthy controls (n=19) told stories that were transcribed and coded for 10 types of semantic knowledge and two category types, living and nonliving things. OUTCOMES &
resultsA Poisson regression model was conducted. The results indicated a significant difference between the groups for the semantic knowledge types,
conclusionPWA might have differential access to certain types of semantic knowledge within discourse production, but it does not rise to the level of categorical deficits. These findings extend single-concept research into the realm of discourse.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.