Dataset Information

Converging evidence for [coronal] underspecification in English-speaking adults.

ABSTRACT: The goal of this study was to test the predictions of the Featurally Underspecified Lexicon (FUL) theory by examining event-related potential (ERP) indices of phonological representation. Two English consonants differing in place of articulation were selected: [labial] /b/ and [coronal] /d/. It was assumed that the phonological representation of /d/ contained less distinctive feature information due to its [coronal] place of articulation, as compared to /b/. English-speaking adults were presented with two syllables, /b?/ and /d?/, in an ERP oddball paradigm where both syllables served as the standard and deviant stimulus in opposite stimulus sets. Three types of analyses were conducted: traditional mean amplitude measurements, cluster-based permutation tests, and single-trial general linear model (GLM) analyses of group-level and single-subject data. The less specified /d?/ deviant elicited a large MMN while no MMN was elicited by the more specified deviant /b?/. Additionally, the /d?/ standard syllable elicited larger responses than did the /b?/ standard, while deviant syllables did not differ. This implies that the MMN was driven by responses elicited by the standards rather than the deviants. At the single-subject level, not all participants demonstrated significant MMN responses, though all had measurable differences between the standard syllables. Thus, to continue to propose that [coronal] underspecification is a language universal phenomenon, ERP indices other than the MMN should be examined.

SUBMITTER: Cummings A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5659596 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Converging evidence for [coronal] underspecification in English-speaking adults.

Cummings Alycia A Madden John J Hefta Kathryn K

Journal of neurolinguistics 20170529

The goal of this study was to test the predictions of the Featurally Underspecified Lexicon (FUL) theory by examining event-related potential (ERP) indices of phonological representation. Two English consonants differing in place of articulation were selected: [labial] /b/ and [coronal] /d/. It was assumed that the phonological representation of /d/ contained less distinctive feature information due to its [coronal] place of articulation, as compared to /b/. English-speaking adults were presente ...[more]

PMID: 29085183

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAdvance care planning (ACP) is a process that allows patients to identify their goals for medical care. Traditionally, ACP has focused on completing advance directives; however, we have expanded the ACP paradigm to also prepare patients to communicate their wishes and make informed decisions. To this end, we created an ACP website called PREPARE (http://www.prepareforyourcare.org) to prepare diverse English-speaking and Spanish-speaking older adults for medical decision-making. Here, we describe the study protocol for a randomised controlled efficacy trial of PREPARE in a safety-net setting. The goal is to determine the efficacy of PREPARE to engage diverse English-speaking and Spanish-speaking older adults in a full spectrum of ACP behaviours.Methods and analysisWe include English-speaking and Spanish-speaking adults from an urban public hospital who are ≥55 years old, have ≥2 chronic medical conditions and have seen a primary care physician ≥2 times in the last year. Participants are randomised to the PREPARE intervention (review PREPARE and an easy-to-read advance directive) or the control arm (only the easy-to-read advance directive). The primary outcome is documentation of an advance directive and/or ACP discussion. Secondary outcomes include ACP behaviour change processes measured with validated surveys (eg, self-efficacy, readiness) and a broad range of ACP actions (eg, choosing a surrogate, identifying goals for care, discussing ACP with clinicians and/or surrogates). Using blinded outcome ascertainment, outcomes will be measured at 1 week and at 3, 6 and 12 months, and compared between study arms using mixed-effects logistic regression and mixed-effects linear, Poisson or negative binomial regression.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the appropriate Institutional Review Boards and is guided by input from patient and clinical advisory boards and a data safety monitoring board. The results of this study will be disseminated to academic and community stakeholders.Trial registration numbersNCT01990235; NCT02072941; Pre-results.

Project description:Background/objectivesAdvance care planning (ACP) rates are low in diverse, vulnerable older adults, yet little is known about the unique barriers they face and how these barriers impact ACP documentation rates.DesignValidated questionnaires listing patient, family/friend, and clinician/system-level ACP barriers and an open-ended question on ACP barriers.SettingTwo San Francisco public/Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals.ParticipantsOne thousand two hundred and forty-one English and Spanish-speaking patients, aged 55 and older, with two or more chronic conditions.MeasurementsThe open-ended question on ACP barriers was analyzed using content analysis. We conducted chart review for prior ACP documentation. We used chi-square/Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and logistic regression to assess associations between ACP barriers and demographic characteristics/ACP documentation.ResultsParticipant mean age was 65 ± 7.4 years; they were 74% from racial/ethnic minority groups, 36% Spanish-speaking, and 36% with limited health literacy. A total of 26 barriers were identified (15 patient, 4 family/friend, 7 clinician/system-level), and 91% reported at least one ACP barrier (mean: 5.6 ± 4.0). The most common barriers were: (patient-level) discomfort thinking about ACP (60%), wanting to leave health decisions to "God" (44%); (family/friend-level) not wanting to burden friends/family (33%), assuming friends/family already knew their preferences (31%); (clinician/system-level) assuming doctors already knew their preferences (41%), and mistrust (37%). Compared with those with no barriers, participants with at least one reported barrier were more likely to be from a racial/ethnic minority group (76% vs 53%), Spanish-speaking (39% vs 6%), with fair-to-poor health (48% vs 34%), and limited health literacy (39% vs 9%) (p < 0.001 for all). Participants who reported barriers were less likely to have ACP documentation (adjusted odds ratio = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [0.42, 0.98]).ConclusionEnglish- and Spanish-speaking older adults reported 26 unique barriers to ACP, with higher barriers among vulnerable populations, and barriers were associated with lower ACP documentation. Barriers must be considered when developing customized ACP interventions for diverse older adults.

Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) survivors experience difficulty navigating complex care pathways. Sharing care between GPs and specialist services has been proposed to improve health outcomes in cancer survivors following hospital discharge. Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) groups are known to have poorer outcomes following cancer treatment but little is known about their perceptions of shared care following surgery for CRC. This study aimed to explore how non-English-speaking and English-speaking patients perceive care to be coordinated amongst various health practitioners.MethodsThis was a qualitative study using data from face to face semi-structured interviews and one focus group in a culturally diverse area of Sydney with non-English-speaking and English-speaking CRC survivors. Participants were recruited in community settings and were interviewed in English, Spanish or Vietnamese. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed by researchers fluent in those languages. Data were coded and analysed thematically.ResultsTwenty-two CRC survivors participated in the study. Participants from non-English-speaking and English-speaking groups described similar barriers to care, but non-English-speaking participants described additional communication difficulties and perceived discrimination. Non-English-speaking participants relied on family members and bilingual GPs for assistance with communication and care coordination. Factors that influenced the care pathways used by participants and how care was shared between the specialist and GP included patient and practitioner preference, accessibility, complexity of care needs, and requirements for assistance with understanding information and navigating the health system, that were particularly difficult for non-English-speaking CRC survivors.ConclusionsBoth non-English-speaking and English-speaking CRC survivors described a blend of specialist-led or GP-led care depending on the complexity of care required, informational needs, and how engaged and accessible they perceived the specialist or GP to be. Findings from this study highlight the role of the bilingual GP in assisting CALD participants to understand information and to navigate their care pathways following CRC surgery.

Project description:Effective communication with primary care physicians is important yet incompletely understood for Spanish-speaking parents. We predicted lower satisfaction among Spanish-speaking compared to English-speaking Latino and non-Latino parents.Cross-sectional analysis at 2-month well visits within the Greenlight study at 4 pediatric resident clinics. Parents reported satisfaction with 14 physician communication items using the validated Communication Assessment Tool (CAT). High satisfaction was defined as "excellent" on each CAT item. Mean estimations compared satisfaction for communication items among Spanish- and English-speaking Latinos and non-Latinos. We used generalized linear regression modeling, adjusted for parent age, education, income, and clinic site. Among Spanish-speaking parents, we compared visits conducted in Spanish with and without an interpreter, and in English.Compared to English-speaking Latino (n = 127) and non-Latino parents (n = 432), fewer Spanish-speaking parents (n = 303) reported satisfaction with 14 communication items. No significant differences were found between English-speaking Latinos and non-Latinos. Greatest differences were found in the use of a greeting that made the parent comfortable (59.4% of Spanish-speaking Latinos endorsing "excellent" vs 77.5% English-speaking Latinos, P < .01) and discussing follow-up (62.5% of Spanish-speaking Latinos vs 79.8% English-speaking Latinos, P < .01). After adjusting for parent age, education, income, and study site, Spanish-speaking Latinos were still less likely to report high satisfaction with these communication items. Satisfaction was not different among Spanish-speaking parents when the physician spoke Spanish versus used an interpreter.Satisfaction with physician communication was associated with language but not ethnicity. Spanish-speaking parents less frequently report satisfaction with communication, and innovative solutions to enhance communication quality are needed.

Project description:One of the advantages of Internet-based research is the ability to efficiently recruit large, diverse samples of international participants. Currently, there is a dearth of information on the behind-the-scenes process to setting up successful online recruitment tools.The objective of the study was to examine the comparative impact of Spanish- and English-language keywords for a Google AdWords campaign to recruit pregnant women to an Internet intervention and to describe the characteristics of those who enrolled in the trial.Spanish- and English-language Google AdWords campaigns were created to advertise and recruit pregnant women to a Web-based randomized controlled trial for the prevention of postpartum depression, the Mothers and Babies/Mamás y Bebés Internet Project. Search engine users who clicked on the ads in response to keyword queries (eg, pregnancy, depression and pregnancy) were directed to the fully automated study website. Data on the performance of keywords associated with each Google ad reflect Web user queries from February 2009 to June 2012. Demographic information, self-reported depression symptom scores, major depressive episode status, and Internet use data were collected from enrolled participants before randomization in the intervention study.The Google ads received high exposure (12,983,196 impressions) and interest (176,295 clicks) from a global sample of Web users; 6745 pregnant women consented to participate and 2575 completed enrollment in the intervention study. Keywords that were descriptive of pregnancy and distress or pregnancy and health resulted in higher consent and enrollment rates (i.e., high-performing ads). In both languages, broad keywords (eg, pregnancy) had the highest exposure, more consented participants, and greatest cost per consent (up to US $25.77 per consent). The online ads recruited a predominantly Spanish-speaking sample from Latin America of Mestizo racial identity. The English-speaking sample was also diverse with most participants residing in regions of Asia and Africa. Spanish-speaking participants were significantly more likely to be of Latino ethnic background, not married, completed fewer years of formal education, and were more likely to have accessed the Internet for depression information (P<.001).The Internet is an effective method for reaching an international sample of pregnant women interested in online interventions to manage changes in their mood during the perinatal period. To increase efficiency, Internet advertisements need to be monitored and tailored to reflect the target population's conceptualization of health issues being studied.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00816725; http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00816725 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6LumonjZP).

Project description:ImportanceAdvance care planning improves the receipt of medical care aligned with patients' values; however, it remains suboptimal among diverse patient populations. To mitigate literacy, cultural, and language barriers to advance care planning, easy-to-read advance directives and a patient-directed, online advance care planning program called PREPARE For Your Care (PREPARE) were created in English and Spanish.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of PREPARE plus an easy-to-read advance directive with an advance directive alone to increase advance care planning documentation and patient-reported engagement.Design, setting, and participantsA comparative efficacy randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 1, 2014, to November 30, 2017, at 4 safety-net, primary-care clinics in San Francisco among 986 English-speaking or Spanish-speaking primary care patients 55 years or older with 2 or more chronic or serious illnesses.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to PREPARE plus an easy-to-read advance directive (PREPARE arm) or the advance directive alone. There were no clinician-level or system-level interventions. Staff were blinded for all follow-up measurements.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was documentation of new advance care planning (ie, legal forms and/or documented discussions) at 15 months. Patient-reported outcomes included advance care planning engagement at baseline, 1 week, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months using validated surveys. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed using mixed-effects logistic and linear regression, controlling for time, health literacy, and baseline advance care planning, clustering by physician, and stratifying by language.ResultsAmong the 986 participants (603 women and 383 men), the mean (SD) age was 63.3 (6.4) years, 387 of 975 (39.7%) had limited health literacy, and 445 (45.1%) were Spanish speaking. No participant characteristic differed between the 2 groups, and retention was 85.9% (832 of 969) among survivors. Compared with the advance directive alone, PREPARE resulted in a higher rate of advance care planning documentation (unadjusted, 43.0% [207 of 481] vs 33.1% [167 of 505]; P < .001; adjusted, 43.0% vs 32.0%; P < .001) and higher self-reported increased advance care planning engagement scores (98.1% vs 89.5%; P < .001). Results remained significant among English speakers and Spanish speakers.Conclusions and relevanceThe patient-facing PREPARE program and an easy-to-read advance directive, without clinician-level or system-level interventions, increased documentation of advance care planning and patient-reported engagement, with statistically higher gains for PREPARE vs advance directive alone. These tools may mitigate literacy and language barriers to advance care planning, allow patients to begin planning on their own, and could substantially improve the process for diverse English-speaking and Spanish-speaking populations.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01990235 and NCT02072941.

Dataset Information

Converging evidence for [coronal] underspecification in English-speaking adults.

Publications

Converging evidence for [coronal] underspecification in English-speaking adults.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets