打字与手写:失语症患者书写输出中的模态效应初探

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00344
Jaime B Lee, Laura E Kinsey, Leora R Cherney
{"title":"打字与手写:失语症患者书写输出中的模态效应初探","authors":"Jaime B Lee, Laura E Kinsey, Leora R Cherney","doi":"10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Handwriting and typing have different cognitive and motor demands; however, questions remain as to whether performance in people with aphasia varies based on modality. This study compares written discourse production across handwritten and onscreen typed modalities for a large sample of people with aphasia. We also aimed to explore potential variables that predict the number of written words generated by participants and determine if modality differences emerge when these variables are included as predictors.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Writing samples, via handwriting and onscreen typing, elicited in a picture description task were collected from 52 participants with chronic aphasia and coded for number of words. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to model the data. Aphasia type, severity of aphasia, writing severity, and use of nondominant hand for writing or onscreen typing were included as predictor variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences between the number of words generated in the typed modality versus handwritten modality for the sample. Of the predictor variables examined, Western Aphasia Battery-Revised writing scores significantly predicted the number of words produced (<i>p</i> < .001). However, the interaction of writing severity with modality was not significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This preliminary study suggests that there was no effect of modality on one measure of written production, number of words. Future research is needed to evaluate if there are meaningful differences between modalities when additional measures, such as writing informativeness, are considered.</p><p><strong>Supplemental material: </strong>https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.26506144.</p>","PeriodicalId":49240,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Typing Versus Handwriting: A Preliminary Investigation of Modality Effects in the Writing Output of People With Aphasia.\",\"authors\":\"Jaime B Lee, Laura E Kinsey, Leora R Cherney\",\"doi\":\"10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00344\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Handwriting and typing have different cognitive and motor demands; however, questions remain as to whether performance in people with aphasia varies based on modality. This study compares written discourse production across handwritten and onscreen typed modalities for a large sample of people with aphasia. We also aimed to explore potential variables that predict the number of written words generated by participants and determine if modality differences emerge when these variables are included as predictors.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Writing samples, via handwriting and onscreen typing, elicited in a picture description task were collected from 52 participants with chronic aphasia and coded for number of words. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to model the data. Aphasia type, severity of aphasia, writing severity, and use of nondominant hand for writing or onscreen typing were included as predictor variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences between the number of words generated in the typed modality versus handwritten modality for the sample. Of the predictor variables examined, Western Aphasia Battery-Revised writing scores significantly predicted the number of words produced (<i>p</i> < .001). However, the interaction of writing severity with modality was not significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This preliminary study suggests that there was no effect of modality on one measure of written production, number of words. Future research is needed to evaluate if there are meaningful differences between modalities when additional measures, such as writing informativeness, are considered.</p><p><strong>Supplemental material: </strong>https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.26506144.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00344\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00344","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:手写和打字有不同的认知和运动要求;然而,失语症患者的表现是否会因打字方式的不同而有所差异,这个问题仍然存在。本研究比较了大样本失语症患者在手写和屏幕打字模式下的书面表达能力。我们还旨在探索预测参与者产生的书面语数量的潜在变量,并确定在将这些变量作为预测因素时是否会出现模式差异:我们收集了 52 名慢性失语症患者在图片描述任务中通过手写和屏幕打字获得的书写样本,并对字数进行了编码。采用广义线性混合效应模型对数据进行建模。将失语类型、失语严重程度、书写严重程度以及使用非惯用手书写或在屏幕上打字作为预测变量:结果:在样本中,打字模式与手写模式产生的单词数量没有明显差异。在所研究的预测变量中,Western Aphasia Battery-Revised 书写评分能显著预测产生的单词数(p < .001)。然而,书写严重程度与书写模式的交互作用并不显著:这项初步研究表明,书写模式对书写字数这一衡量标准没有影响。未来的研究需要评估在考虑其他测量指标(如写作信息量)时,不同模式之间是否存在有意义的差异。补充材料:https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.26506144。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Typing Versus Handwriting: A Preliminary Investigation of Modality Effects in the Writing Output of People With Aphasia.

Purpose: Handwriting and typing have different cognitive and motor demands; however, questions remain as to whether performance in people with aphasia varies based on modality. This study compares written discourse production across handwritten and onscreen typed modalities for a large sample of people with aphasia. We also aimed to explore potential variables that predict the number of written words generated by participants and determine if modality differences emerge when these variables are included as predictors.

Method: Writing samples, via handwriting and onscreen typing, elicited in a picture description task were collected from 52 participants with chronic aphasia and coded for number of words. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to model the data. Aphasia type, severity of aphasia, writing severity, and use of nondominant hand for writing or onscreen typing were included as predictor variables.

Results: There were no significant differences between the number of words generated in the typed modality versus handwritten modality for the sample. Of the predictor variables examined, Western Aphasia Battery-Revised writing scores significantly predicted the number of words produced (p < .001). However, the interaction of writing severity with modality was not significant.

Conclusions: This preliminary study suggests that there was no effect of modality on one measure of written production, number of words. Future research is needed to evaluate if there are meaningful differences between modalities when additional measures, such as writing informativeness, are considered.

Supplemental material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.26506144.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.50%
发文量
353
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Mission: AJSLP publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles on all aspects of clinical practice in speech-language pathology. The journal is an international outlet for clinical research pertaining to screening, detection, diagnosis, management, and outcomes of communication and swallowing disorders across the lifespan as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. Because of its clinical orientation, the journal disseminates research findings applicable to diverse aspects of clinical practice in speech-language pathology. AJSLP seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work. Scope: The broad field of speech-language pathology, including aphasia; apraxia of speech and childhood apraxia of speech; aural rehabilitation; augmentative and alternative communication; cognitive impairment; craniofacial disorders; dysarthria; fluency disorders; language disorders in children; speech sound disorders; swallowing, dysphagia, and feeding disorders; and voice disorders.
期刊最新文献
Dynamic Changes Toward Reflective Practice: Documented Shifts in Speech-Language Pathologists' Evaluation Practices. Efficacy of Complexity-Based Target Selection for Treating Morphosyntactic Deficits in Children With Developmental Language Disorder and Children With Down Syndrome: A Single-Case Experimental Design. Self-Improved Language Production in Nonfluent Aphasia Through Automated Recursive Self-Feedback. The Effects of Functional Reading Activities to Motivate and Empower for Autistic Young Adults: A Single-Case Design Study. Applications of the R.A.I.S.E. Assessment Framework to Support the Process of Assessment in Primary Progressive Aphasia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1