Asset Details
MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Morphosyntactic production in agrammatic aphasia: A cross-linguistic machine learning approach
by
Fyndanis, Valantis
, Themistocleous, Charalambos
in
agrammatic aphasia
/ Comparative Language Studies and Linguistics
/ Cross-linguistic study
/ German
/ Greek
/ Italian
/ Jämförande språkvetenskap och allmän lingvistik
/ machine learning
/ mood
/ morphosyntactic production
/ Neurologi
/ Neurology
/ polarity
/ subject-verb agreement
/ tense/time reference
2018
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Morphosyntactic production in agrammatic aphasia: A cross-linguistic machine learning approach
by
Fyndanis, Valantis
, Themistocleous, Charalambos
in
agrammatic aphasia
/ Comparative Language Studies and Linguistics
/ Cross-linguistic study
/ German
/ Greek
/ Italian
/ Jämförande språkvetenskap och allmän lingvistik
/ machine learning
/ mood
/ morphosyntactic production
/ Neurologi
/ Neurology
/ polarity
/ subject-verb agreement
/ tense/time reference
2018
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Morphosyntactic production in agrammatic aphasia: A cross-linguistic machine learning approach
by
Fyndanis, Valantis
, Themistocleous, Charalambos
in
agrammatic aphasia
/ Comparative Language Studies and Linguistics
/ Cross-linguistic study
/ German
/ Greek
/ Italian
/ Jämförande språkvetenskap och allmän lingvistik
/ machine learning
/ mood
/ morphosyntactic production
/ Neurologi
/ Neurology
/ polarity
/ subject-verb agreement
/ tense/time reference
2018
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Morphosyntactic production in agrammatic aphasia: A cross-linguistic machine learning approach
Journal Article
Morphosyntactic production in agrammatic aphasia: A cross-linguistic machine learning approach
2018
Request Book From Autostore
and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Introduction
Recent studies on agrammatic aphasia by Fyndanis et al. (2012, 2017) reported evidence against the cross-linguistic validity of unitary accounts of agrammatic morphosyntactic impairment, such as the Distributed Morphology Hypothesis (DMH) (Wang et al., 2014), the two versions of the Interpretable Features’ Impairment Hypothesis (IFIH-1: Fyndanis et al., 2012; IFIH-2: Fyndanis et al., 2018b), and the Tree Pruning Hypothesis (TPH) (Friedmann & Grodzinsky, 1997). However, some of the features/factors emphasized by the accounts above (i.e. involvement of inflectional alternations (DMH), involvement of integration processes (IFIH-1), involvement of both integration processes and inflectional alternations (IFIH-2), position of a morphosyntactic feature/category in the syntactic hierarchy (TPH)) may still play a role in agrammatic morphosyntactic production. These features may act in synergy with other factors in determining the way in which morphosyntactic production is impaired across persons with agrammatic aphasia (PWA) and across languages. Relevant factors may include language-independent and language-specific properties of morphosyntactic categories, as well as subject-specific and task/material-specific variables. The present study addresses which factors determine verb-related morphosyntactic production in PWA and what is their relative importance.
Methods
We collapsed the datasets of the 24 Greek-, German-, and Italian-speaking PWA underlying Fyndanis et al.’s (2017) study, added the data of two more Greek-speaking PWA, and employed machine learning algorithms to analyze the data. The unified dataset consisted of data on subject-verb agreement, time reference (past reference, future reference), grammatical mood (indicative, subjunctive), and polarity (affirmatives, negatives). All items/conditions were represented as clusters of theoretically motivated features: ±involvement of integration processes, ±involvement of inflectional alternations, ±involvement of both integration processes and inflectional alternations, and low/middle/high position in the syntactic hierarchy. We included 14 subject-specific, category-specific and task/material-specific predictors: Verbal Working Memory (WM), (years of formal) Education, Age, Gender, Mean Length of Utterance in (semi)spontaneous speech (Index 1 of severity of agrammatism), Proportion of Grammatical Sentences in (semi)spontaneous speech (Index 2 of severity of agrammatism), Words per Minute in (semi)spontaneous speech (Index of fluency), Involvement of inflectional alternations, Involvement of integration processes, Involvement of both integration processes and inflectional alternations, Position of a given morphosyntactic category in the syntactic hierarchy (high, middle, low), Item Presentation mode (cross-modal, auditory), Response mode (oral, written), and Language (Greek, German, Italian). Different machine learning models were employed: Random Forest, C5.0 decision tree, RPart, and Support Vector Machine.
Results & Discussion
Random Forest model outperformed all the other models achieving the highest accuracy (0.786). As shown in Figure 1, the best predictors of accuracy on tasks tapping morphosyntactic production were the involvement of both integration processes and inflectional alternations (categories involving both integration processes and inflectional alternations were more impaired than categories involving one or neither of them), verbal WM capacity (the greater the WM capacity, the better the morphosyntactic production), and severity of agrammatism (the more severe the agrammatism, the worse the morphosyntactic production). Results are consistent with IFIH-2 (Fyndanis et al., 2018b) and studies highlighting the role of verbal WM in morphosyntactic production (e.g., Fyndanis et al., 2018a; Kok et al., 2007).
MBRLCatalogueRelatedBooks
Related Items
Related Items
We currently cannot retrieve any items related to this title. Kindly check back at a later time.
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.