ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2025
The Use of Conversational Repairs in Interactions Involving People With Parkinson's Disease: A Large Corpus Comparison Study.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeInterlocutors engage in acts of conversational repair to resolve trouble sources, or communication breakdowns. This is necessary for successful communication, allowing interlocutors to establish and maintain common ground. Here, we investigated the use of conversational repairs in the conversations of people with Parkinson's disease (PD) and concomitant dysarthria.
methodConversational repairs were coded in a large corpus of 114 conversations involving a person with PD and a neurotypical (NT) partner (NT-PD dyads) and a comparison corpus of 80 conversations involving two NT partners (NT-NT dyads). Conversations varied across two contextual dimensions: conversational goal (informational vs. relational) and partner familiarity (familiar vs. unfamiliar).
resultsOver the course of 10-min conversations, NT-PD and NT-NT dyads produced a similar number of conversational repairs; however, NT-PD dyads exhibited higher usage of repairs per conversational turn. In addition, dyads involving participants with PD with moderate dysarthria showed different repair patterns relative to dyads involving participants with PD with mild or mild-moderate dysarthria as well as NT-NT dyads-the key being that they used fewer self-initiated and more other-initiated repairs. Across all dyads, informational conversations had more repairs than relational conversations, and dyads involving participants with PD with moderate dysarthria relied more heavily on other-initiated repairs when conversing with a familiar partner relative to an unfamiliar partner.
conclusionsThe use of repairs in the conversations of people with PD differs from that in NT-NT conversations. The key is that the conversations of people with PD have a greater number of repairs per conversational turn and the distribution of repairs differs when people with PD have more pronounced intelligibility impairments. Additionally, the study provides empirical support for longstanding claims regarding the use of repairs in NT-NT dyads as well as claims from case study conversations involving people with dysarthria.
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.