To the top

Page Manager: Webmaster
Last update: 9/11/2012 3:13 PM

Tell a friend about this page
Print version

Morphosyntactic productio… - University of Gothenburg, Sweden Till startsida
Sitemap
To content Read more about how we use cookies on gu.se

Morphosyntactic production in agrammatic aphasia: A cross-linguistic machine learning approach.

Journal article
Authors Valantis Fyndanis
Charalambos Themistocleous
Published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Volume 92
ISSN 1662-5161
Publication year 2018
Published at Department of Swedish
Language en
Links https://www.frontiersin.org/10.3389...
Subject categories Neurology, Linguistics, Phonetics

Abstract

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).

Page Manager: Webmaster|Last update: 9/11/2012
Share:

The University of Gothenburg uses cookies to provide you with the best possible user experience. By continuing on this website, you approve of our use of cookies.  What are cookies?