Performance Deviations in the Connected Speech of Adults With No Brain Damage and Adults With Aphasia A rule-based system was used to score performance deviations in the connected speech of 40 adults with no brain damage, 10 adults with fluent aphasia, and 10 adults with nonfluent aphasia. Performance deviations were productions that did not qualify as words or as correct information units (CIUs) (Nicholas & Brookshire, ... Supplement Article
Supplement Article  |   November 01, 1995
Performance Deviations in the Connected Speech of Adults With No Brain Damage and Adults With Aphasia
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Robert H. Brookshire
    VA Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
  • Linda E. Nicholas
    VA Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
  • Contact author: Robert H. Brookshire, PhD, Aphasia Research (127A), VA Medical Center, One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Language Disorders / Aphasia / Attention, Memory & Executive Functions / Traumatic Brain Injury / Supplement: Clinical Aphasiology Conference Supplement
Supplement Article   |   November 01, 1995
Performance Deviations in the Connected Speech of Adults With No Brain Damage and Adults With Aphasia
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, November 1995, Vol. 4, 118-123. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0404.118
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, November 1995, Vol. 4, 118-123. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0404.118

A rule-based system was used to score performance deviations in the connected speech of 40 adults with no brain damage, 10 adults with fluent aphasia, and 10 adults with nonfluent aphasia. Performance deviations were productions that did not qualify as words or as correct information units (CIUs) (Nicholas & Brookshire, 1993). They were assigned to 2 nonword categories (part-words or unintelligible productions and nonword filler) and 8 non-CIU categories (inaccurate words, false starts, unnecessary exact repetitions, nonspecific or vague words, filler words, the word and, offtask or irrelevant words, and uncategorizable productions). Speech samples from both aphasic groups contained significantly greater percentages of inaccurate words, false starts, and part-words or unintelligible productions than those of the non-brain-damaged group. In comparison with the non-brain-damaged group, speech samples from the fluent aphasic group contained significantly greater percentages of unnecessary exact repetition, whereas those of the nonfluent aphasic group contained significantly greater percentages of the word and and nonword filler. The only significant difference between the two aphasic groups was for nonword filler, with the nonfluent aphasic group producing more than the fluent aphasic group. Individual aphasic subjects showed performance that generally was consistent with that of their group.

Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Service and by the Research Service, Minneapolis Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Patrick Doyle provided audiotaped speech samples of several aphasic subjects. Julia Edgar, Mina Hwang, Debra Lewis, and Lisa LaGorio assisted with transcription, scoring, assessment of interjudge agreement, and data entry.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access