ArticleCognitive neuropsychology
Apraxia of speech and the study of speech production impairments: Can we avoid further confusion? Reply to Romani (2021).
Article in Cognitive neuropsychology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnosing Apraxia of Speech in Children and Adults When There Is No Gold Standard: A Scoping Review About the Diagnostic Process.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2026Article
- Refined Operational Definitions for the Apraxia of Speech Rating Scale.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2025Article
- The serial order system in word production and working memory: A case series approach.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2025Article
- Longitudinal changes in functional connectivity in speech motor networks in apraxia of speech after stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- How to cut the pie is no piece of cake: Toward a process-oriented approach to assessment and diagnosis of speech sound disorders.International journal of language & communication disordersReview
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We agree with Cristina Romani (CR) about reducing confusion and agree that the issues raised in her commentary are central to the study of apraxia of speech (AOS). However, CR critiques our approach from the perspective of basic cognitive neuropsychology. This is confusing and misleading because, contrary to CR's claim, we did not attempt to inform models of typical speech production. Instead, we relied on such models to study the impairment in the clinical category of AOS (translational cognitive neuropsychology). Thus, the approach along with the underlying assumptions is different. This response aims to clarify these assumptions, broaden the discussion regarding the methodological approach, and address CR's concerns. We argue that our approach is well-suited to meet the goals of our recent studies and is commensurate with the current state of the science of AOS. Ultimately, a plurality of approaches is needed to understand a phenomenon as complex as AOS.
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.