Cited by 64Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismVoice and Speech Disorders

Computerized Analysis of Speech and Language to Identify Psycholinguistic Correlates of Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration

Open access
Pakhomov, Serguei V. S., Smith, Glenn E., Chacon, Dustin, Feliciano, Yara, Graff-Radford, Neill, Caselli, Richard, Knopman, David S.·2010·Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of a semiautomated computerized system for measuring speech and language characteristics in patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). BACKGROUND: FTLD is a heterogeneous disorder comprising at least 3 variants. Computerized assessment of spontaneous verbal descriptions by patients with FTLD offers a detailed and reproducible view of the underlying cognitive deficits. METHODS: Audiorecorded speech samples of 38 patients from 3 participating medical centers were elicited using the Cookie Theft stimulus. Each patient underwent a battery of neuropsychologic tests. The audio was analyzed by the computerized system to measure 15 speech and language variables. Analysis of variance was used to identify characteristics with significant differences in means between FTLD variants. Factor analysis was used to examine the implicit relations between subsets of the variables. RESULTS: Semiautomated measurements of pause-to-word ratio and pronoun-to-noun ratio were able to discriminate between some of the FTLD variants. Principal component analysis of all 14 variables suggested 4 subjectively defined components (length, hesitancy, empty content, grammaticality) corresponding to the phenomenology of FTLD variants. CONCLUSION: Semiautomated language and speech analysis is a promising novel approach to neuropsychologic assessment that offers a valuable contribution to the toolbox of researchers in dementia and other neurodegenerative disorders.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/wnn.0b013e3181c5dde3

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Hernández-Domínguez et al. found that generated features were significantly correlated with MMSE severity and achieved an AUC of approximately 0.76 for classifying Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, and healthy controls.

    “The resulting features were significantly correlated with severity as assessed by the MMSE, and classification performance was characterized by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under curve (AUC) performance of AUC ≈ 0.76 for all three groups.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [13]Roark B Hosom J Mitchell M Automatically derived spoken language markers for detecting Mild Cognitive Impairment Paper presented at the International Conference on Technology and Aging (ICTA) 2007
  2. [32]Berndt RS Waylannd S Rochon E Quantitative Production Analysis: A Training Manual for the Analysis of Aphasic Sentence Production Hove, UK Psychology Press 2000

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pakhomov, S. V. S., Smith, G. E., Chacon, D., Feliciano, Y., Graff-Radford, N., Caselli, R., & Knopman, D. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences Campus (PR)
Corresponding author
Pakhomov, Serguei V. S.
Venue
Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology
Published
2010-09
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
165-177
ISSN
1543-3633 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1986297645
Cited by
64
References
72
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (U01AG016976, P30AG019610, R01AG023195, P50AG016574)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
Keywords
frontotemporal lobar degeneration, linguistic analysis, neuropsychological assessment, dementia, neurodegenerative diseases, grammaticality
MeSH terms
Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Language Tests, Neuropsychological Tests, Psycholinguistics, Software Validation, Speech, Speech Production Measurement, Verbal Behavior, Principal Component Analysis, Speech Recognition Software, Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review