ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2024
Automated Analysis of Fluency Behaviors in Aphasia.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2024. 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.
- Subtle language deficits in WAB-recovered patients at 12 months after left-hemisphere stroke.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Introducing the NEURAL Research Lab Data Set for Studies of Discourse and Gesture in Aphasia and Cognitively Healthy Aging Adults.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2025Article
- Optimizing Detection of Very Mild Aphasia With Letter Fluency Tests.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2025Article
- To be or not to be aphasic: use of story retelling as a marker in subclinical aphasia.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- The Link Between Syntactic Complexity and Stuttering-Like Disfluencies in French Speaking Adults.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study explored the use of an automated language analysis tool, FLUCALC, for measuring fluency in aphasia. The purpose was to determine whether CLAN's FLUCALC command could produce efficient, objective outcome measures for salient aspects of fluency in aphasia.
methodThe FLUCALC command was used on CHAT transcripts of Cinderella stories from people with aphasia (PWA;
resultsPWA produced significantly fewer total words, fewer words per minute, more pausing, more repetitions, more revisions, and more phonological fragments than controls, with only one exception: The Wernicke's group was similar to the control group in percentage of filled pauses. Individuals with Broca's aphasia had significantly longer inter-utterance pauses and fewer total words than all other aphasia groups. Both the Broca's and conduction aphasia groups had higher percentages of phrase repetitions than the NABW (NotAphasicByWAB) group. The conduction aphasia group also had a higher percentage of phrase revisions than the NABW and the anomic aphasia groups. Principal components analysis revealed two principal components that accounted for around 60% of the variance and related to quantity of output, rate of speech, and quality of output. The Gaussian mixture models showed that the participants clustered in three groups, which corresponded predominantly to the controls, the nonfluent aphasia group, and the remaining aphasia groups (all classically fluent aphasia types).
conclusionsFLUCALC is an efficient way to measure objective fluency behaviors in language samples in aphasia. Automated analyses of objective fluency behaviors on large samples of adults with and without aphasia can produce measures that can be used by researchers and clinicians to better understand and track salient aspects of fluency in aphasia. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25979863.
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.