Dataset Information

Aphasia and spelling to dictation: Analysis of spelling errors and editing.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Spelling difficulty is a common symptom of aphasia and can entail editing difficulties. Previous research has shown that extensive editing is related to a lower production rate in text writing for persons with aphasia, yet editing difficulty is not commonly examined. It is not known if editing difficulty is related to reading and writing skills or to aspects of the word.

Aims

To analyse spelling and editing processes as well as errors in a dictation task performed by Swedish-speaking adults with post-stroke aphasia. Furthermore, the study aimed to identify any relationships between spelling and editing difficulties and characteristics of individual words. Finally, relationships between successful edits and reading and phonological ability were investigated and specific editing strategies or behaviours identified. Correlation analyses were performed between measures of spelling and editing and word frequency and length as well as participants' scores on tests of reading, phonological spelling and phonological decoding.

Methods & procedures

A total of 16 Swedish speaking participants with post-stroke aphasia wrote a word-dictation task in a keystroke logging program and were tested for phonological spelling, phonological decoding and reading ability. Spelling errors were categorized and analysed.

Outcomes & results

The most common error type was omission of letter(s) and there was evidence of aphasia-specific writing errors. Both spelling and editing difficulty were related to word frequency and word length. Successful editing was related to participants' scores on the phonological spelling task, but not to phonological decoding or reading ability. Specific editing strategies could be identified, and some strategies were individual, while others were more commonly used.

Conclusions & implications

Word length and word frequency should be taken into consideration in spelling tests for persons with aphasia, and the presence of editing difficulty should be taken into account when assessing spelling difficulties. Treatment for writing difficulties in aphasia should include training in successful editing strategies and individual fitting of digital writing aids. What this paper adds What is already known on the subject Post-stroke aphasia often causes writing and spelling difficulties. Spelling difficulties may entail editing difficulties, in turn causing extensive and/or unsuccessful editing. Extensive editing is known to impede productivity in text writing. Still, editing behaviour, abilities relating to editing or what features of a word that causes editing difficulty has not been investigated for persons with aphasia. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study adds an in-depth analysis of spelling ability, spelling errors and editing behaviour for persons with aphasia, using keystroke logging and a single-word dictation task. Results showed that both features of the target word (frequency and word length) and the individual abilities of the person with aphasia (score on a phonological spelling task) related to spelling and editing difficulty, editing behaviour and successful editing. Specific editing strategies were analysed and described. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Word length and word frequency should be taken into consideration when testing single-word spelling for persons with aphasia. When assessing spelling difficulties, both correctness of spelling as well as the presence and nature of any editing difficulties should be taken into account and treatment for writing difficulties in should include training in successful editing strategies. The fitting of digital writing aids for persons with aphasia should be individual, since many of the editing strategies used were individual.

SUBMITTER: Johansson-Malmeling C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7898650 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Aphasia and spelling to dictation: Analysis of spelling errors and editing.

Johansson-Malmeling Charlotte C Wengelin Åsa Å Henriksson Ingrid I

International journal of language & communication disorders 20201227 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Spelling difficulty is a common symptom of aphasia and can entail editing difficulties. Previous research has shown that extensive editing is related to a lower production rate in text writing for persons with aphasia, yet editing difficulty is not commonly examined. It is not known if editing difficulty is related to reading and writing skills or to aspects of the word.<h4>Aims</h4>To analyse spelling and editing processes as well as errors in a dictation task performed by ...[more]

PMID: 33368870

Similar Datasets

Project description:Predictors of treatment effects allow individual tailoring of treatment characteristics, thereby saving resources and optimizing outcomes. Electrical stimulation coupled with language intervention has shown promising results in improving language performance in individuals with Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA). The current study aimed to identify language and cognitive variables associated with response to therapy consisting of language intervention combined with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Forty individuals with PPA received written naming/spelling intervention combined with anodal tDCS or Sham, using a between-subjects, randomized design, with intervention delivered over a period of 3 weeks. Participants were assessed using a battery of neuropsychological tests before and after each phase. We measured letter accuracy during spelling of trained and untrained words, before, immediately after, 2 weeks, and 2 months after therapy. We used step-wise regression methods to identify variables amongst the neuropsychological measures and experimental factors that were significantly associated with therapy outcomes at each time-point. For trained words, improvement was related to pre-therapy scores, in RAVLT (5 trials sum), pseudoword spelling, object naming, digit span backward, spatial span backward and years post symptom onset. Regarding generalization to untrained words, improvement in spelling was associated with pseudoword spelling, RAVLT proactive interference, RAVLT immediate recall. Generalization effects were larger under tDCS compared to Sham at the 2-month post training measurement. We conclude that, for trained words, patients who improve the most are those who retain for longer language skills such as sublexical spelling processes (phoneme-to-grapheme correspondences) and word retrieval, and other cognitive functions such as executive functions and working memory, and those who have a better learning capacity. Generalization to untrained words occurs through improvement in knowledge of phoneme-to-grapheme correspondences. Furthermore, tDCS enhances the generalizability and duration of therapy effects.

Project description:BackgroundThe written format and literacy competence of screen-based texts can interfere with the perceived trustworthiness of health information in online forums, independent of the semantic content. Unlike in professional content, the format in unmoderated forums can regularly hint at incivility, perceived as deliberate rudeness or casual disregard toward the reader, for example, through spelling errors and unnecessary emphatic capitalization of whole words (online shouting).ObjectiveThis study aimed to quantify the comparative effects of spelling errors and inappropriate capitalization on ratings of trustworthiness independently of lay insight and to determine whether these changes act synergistically or additively on the ratings.MethodsIn web-based experiments, 301 UK-recruited participants rated 36 randomized short stimulus excerpts (in the format of information from an unmoderated health forum about multiple sclerosis) for trustworthiness using a semantic differential slider. A total of 9 control excerpts were compared with matching error-containing excerpts. Each matching error-containing excerpt included 5 instances of misspelling, or 5 instances of inappropriate capitalization (shouting), or a combination of 5 misspelling plus 5 inappropriate capitalization errors. Data were analyzed in a linear mixed effects model.ResultsThe mean trustworthiness ratings of the control excerpts ranged from 32.59 to 62.31 (rating scale 0-100). Compared with the control excerpts, excerpts containing only misspellings were rated as being 8.86 points less trustworthy, those containing inappropriate capitalization were rated as 6.41 points less trustworthy, and those containing the combination of misspelling and capitalization were rated as 14.33 points less trustworthy (P<.001 for all). Misspelling and inappropriate capitalization show an additive effect.ConclusionsDistinct indicators of incivility independently and additively penalize the perceived trustworthiness of online text independently of lay insight, eliciting a medium effect size.

Project description:The NCBI Reference Sequence (RefSeq) project and the NIH Mammalian Gene Collection (MGC) together define a set of approximately 30,000 nonredundant human mRNA sequences with identified coding regions representing 17,000 distinct loci. These high-quality mRNA sequences allow for the identification of transcribed regions in the human genome sequence, and many researchers accept them as the correct representation of each defined gene sequence. Computational comparison of these mRNA sequences and the recently published essentially finished human genome sequence reveals several thousand undocumented nonsynonymous substitution and frame shift discrepancies between the two resources. Additional analysis is undertaken to verify that the euchromatic human genome is sufficiently complete--containing nearly the whole mRNA collection, thus allowing for a comprehensive analysis to be undertaken. Many of the discrepancies will prove to be genuine polymorphisms in the human population, somatic cell genomic variants, or examples of RNA editing. It is observed that the genome sequence variant has significant additional support from other mRNAs and ESTs, almost four times more often than does the mRNA variant, suggesting that the genome sequence is more accurate. In approximately 15% of these cases, there is substantial support for both variants, suggestive of an undocumented polymorphism. An initial screening against a 24-individual genomic DNA diversity panel verified 60% of a small set of potential single nucleotide polymorphisms from which successful results could be obtained. We also find statistical evidence that a few of these discrepancies are due to RNA editing. Overall, these results suggest that the mRNA collections may contain a substantial number of errors. For current and future mRNA collections, it may be prudent to fully reconcile each genome sequence discrepancy, classifying each as a polymorphism, site of RNA editing or somatic cell variation, or genome sequence error.

Dataset Information

Aphasia and spelling to dictation: Analysis of spelling errors and editing.

Introduction

Aims

Methods & procedures

Outcomes & results

Conclusions & implications

Publications

Aphasia and spelling to dictation: Analysis of spelling errors and editing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets