Separate neural sub-systems within 'Wernicke's area'. Sounds do-able: auditory–motor transformations and the posterior temporal plane. The neuroanatomical and functional organization of speech perception. Auditory processing - speech, space and auditory objects. in Analysis of visual behavior (eds Ingle, D. Hearing and saying: The functional neuro-anatomy of auditory word processing. Lateralization of phonetic and pitch discrimination in speech processing. The anatomy of phonological and semantic processing in normal subjects. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of human auditory cortex. Some anatomo-clinical aspects of phonemic and semantic comprehension disorders in aphasia. Interaction between phonological and semantic factors in auditory comprehension. Analysis of lesions by MRI in stroke patients with acoustic-phonetic processing deficits. The anatomical basis of conduction aphasia. Some aspects of phonological impairment in aphasia. Miceli, G., Gainotti, G., Caltagirone, C. Dorsal and ventral streams: A framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language. ![]() Towards a functional neuroanatomy of speech perception. The perception and production of voice-onset time in aphasia. Phonological factors in auditory comprehension in aphasia. Phonemic identification defects in aphasia. in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science (eds Cohen, R. They stated that future studies should adequately describe the process of assessment and training of speakers and listeners, describe communication partners, and assess other outcome measures.Wernicke, C. Research: The authors stated that there is an urgent need to assess various speech supplementation strategies in more natural communication settings using well-controlled experimental studies. The authors stated that the choice of which strategy to use must be made on an individual basis and that listener training should be incorporated into the interventions. ![]() The patients likely to receive most benefit have dysarthria limiting communication in natural settings, and have adequate pragmatic and cognitive abilities and sufficient motor function to generate the cues. Practice: The authors stated that speech supplementation techniques may be useful for speakers with severe or profound dysarthria, regardless of the type of dysarthria or medical diagnosis. Implications of the review for practice and research The evidence was based on small studies in a variety of patients, hence any conclusions must be viewed as suggestive rather than definitive. Since the quality of the included studies and the methods used to conduct the review were not reported, it is difficult to comment on the strength of the evidence underpinning the authors' conclusions. The authors discussed some of the limitations of the review. ![]() Given the variability among the studies, a narrative synthesis was appropriate. Validity was not assessed, and there were no details of the study designs or of the agreement among multiple listeners assessing outcomes. Two authors reviewed the studies but, as it was not stated whether this was done independently, it is not known whether any efforts were made to reduce errors and bias. It was unclear whether any language restrictions had been applied. Three relevant databases, books and reference lists were searched, but no attempts were made to locate unpublished studies, thus raising the possibility of publication bias. Inclusion criteria were not specified for either the outcomes or study design. The review addressed a broad research question encompassing a wide range of participants. Compared with no cues, semantic cues increased word intelligibility for all speakers (mean gain 28.1%, range: 3 to 48 based on 33 speakers) and sentence intelligibility (mean gain 10.7%, range: 0 to 52 based on 26 speakers). Nine studies assessed this outcome, six of which reported results for the individual patients. Greater improvement was found for speakers with greater severity of disability, but there was increased variability in the results among severely impaired patients. Compared with no cues, alphabet cues increased word intelligibility for all speakers (mean gain 11.3%, range: 5 to 25 based on 11 speakers) and sentence intelligibility (mean gain 25.6%, range: 5 to 69 based on 21 speakers). Six studies assessed this outcome and reported results for the individual patients. Three of the six studies examining gestures used the same speaker. No details of the study designs were given.Īll studies showed improvements in outcome measures. Nineteen studies (89 speakers and 785 listeners) were included.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |