ArticleClinical linguistics & phonetics2026
Phonemic simplification in apraxia of speech and aphasia with phonemic paraphasia.
Article in Clinical linguistics & phonetics, 2026. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There are varied reports about the extent to which people with apraxia of speech (AOS) simplify the phonemic complexity of utterances they attempt to produce and whether the degree to which they do so might inform differential diagnosis relative to aphasia with phonemic paraphasia (APP). Our study purpose was to determine whether either or both diagnostic groups simplify the phonemic content for words they repeat during a typical motor speech evaluation. 195 people with aphasia after stroke were assigned to four diagnostic groups based on quantitative metrics of core speech criteria for AOS and APP. In addition to the target groups, the sample was divided into a borderline group with equivocal feature combinations (BL) and a group with minimal sound production errors (MIN). Monosyllabic, disyllabic, and multisyllabic words were transcribed phonetically and scored for phonemic complexity. The ratio of produced complexity relative to target complexity - the word complexity measure (WCM) ratio - was compared across groups. According to the WCM ratio, participants in all four groups, including the group with minimal speech sound involvement, simplified more productions than they complicated. Those who produced the most speech sound errors also displayed greater phonemic simplification. People with stroke-induced aphasia sometimes produce words that are phonemic complications of targets, but more often they simplify the phonemic output. We conclude that phonemic simplification at the word level has limited value for differentiating clinically between AOS and APP. Future research should consider comparing alternative simplification measures.
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.