↓ Skip to main content

Recovery of Sentence Production Processes Following Language Treatment in Aphasia: Evidence from Eyetracking

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Recovery of Sentence Production Processes Following Language Treatment in Aphasia: Evidence from Eyetracking
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00101
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer E. Mack, Michaela Nerantzini, Cynthia K. Thompson

Abstract

Introduction: Sentence production impairments in aphasia often improve with treatment. However, little is known about how cognitive processes supporting sentence production, such as sentence planning, are impacted by treatment. Methods: The present study used eyetracking to examine changes in sentence production resulting from a 12-week language treatment program focused on passive sentences (Treatment of Underlying Forms (TUF); Thompson and Shapiro, 2005). In two pre-treatment and two post-treatment sessions, nine participants with mild-to-moderate agrammatic aphasia performed a structural priming task, which involved repeating primed sentences (actives or passives) and then, using the same verb, producing sentences describing pictured events. Two individuals with aphasia performed the eyetracking task on the same schedule without intervening language treatment. Ten unimpaired older adults also performed the task to identify normal performance patterns. Sentence production accuracy and speech onset latencies were examined, and eye movements to the pictured Agent and Theme characters were analyzed in the first 400 ms after picture onset, reflecting early sentence planning, and in the regions preceding the production of the sentence subject and post-verbal noun, reflecting lexical encoding. Results: Unimpaired controls performed with high accuracy. Their early eye movements (first 400 ms) indicated equal fixations to the Agent and Theme, consistent with structural sentence planning (i.e., initial construction of an abstract structural frame). Subsequent eye movements occurring prior to speech onset were consistent with encoding of the correct sentence subject (i.e., the Agent in actives, Theme in passives), with encoding of the post-verbal noun beginning at speech onset. In participants with aphasia, accuracy improved significantly with treatment, and post-treatment (but not pre-treatment) eye movements were qualitatively similar to those of unimpaired controls, indicating correct encoding of the Agent and Theme nouns for both active and passive sentences. Analysis of early eye movements also showed a treatment-induced increase in structural planning. No changes in sentence production accuracy or eye movements were found in the aphasic participants who did not receive treatment. Conclusion: These findings indicate that treatment improves sentence production and results in the emergence of normal-like cognitive processes associated with successful sentence production, including structural planning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 20%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 19 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Neuroscience 5 9%
Linguistics 3 5%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 22 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 March 2017.
All research outputs
#9,013,868
of 26,556,730 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,540
of 7,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,760
of 327,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#99
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,556,730 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,860 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,205 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.