Cited by 265Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health Research TopicsMental Health via Writing

Speech Graphs Provide a Quantitative Measure of Thought Disorder in Psychosis

Open access
Mota, Natalia B., Vasconcelos, Nivaldo A. P., Lemos, Nathalia, Pieretti, Ana C., Kinouchi, Osame, Cecchi, Guillermo A., Copelli, Mauro, Ribeiro, Sidarta·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Psychosis has various causes, including mania and schizophrenia. Since the differential diagnosis of psychosis is exclusively based on subjective assessments of oral interviews with patients, an objective quantification of the speech disturbances that characterize mania and schizophrenia is in order. In principle, such quantification could be achieved by the analysis of speech graphs. A graph represents a network with nodes connected by edges; in speech graphs, nodes correspond to words and edges correspond to semantic and grammatical relationships. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: To quantify speech differences related to psychosis, interviews with schizophrenics, manics and normal subjects were recorded and represented as graphs. Manics scored significantly higher than schizophrenics in ten graph measures. Psychopathological symptoms such as logorrhea, poor speech, and flight of thoughts were grasped by the analysis even when verbosity differences were discounted. Binary classifiers based on speech graph measures sorted schizophrenics from manics with up to 93.8% of sensitivity and 93.7% of specificity. In contrast, sorting based on the scores of two standard psychiatric scales (BPRS and PANSS) reached only 62.5% of sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The results demonstrate that alterations of the thought process manifested in the speech of psychotic patients can be objectively measured using graph-theoretical tools, developed to capture specific features of the normal and dysfunctional flow of thought, such as divergence and recurrence. The quantitative analysis of speech graphs is not redundant with standard psychometric scales but rather complementary, as it yields a very accurate sorting of schizophrenics and manics. Overall, the results point to automated psychiatric diagnosis based not on what is said, but on how it is said.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0034928

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • Iter et al. were unable to convincingly separate clinical and control participants using the tangentiality model of Elvevåg et al. and the incoherence model of Bedi et al.

    “They noted that when using the tangentiality model of semantic coherence (i.e. regression of the coherence over time with the sliding window) of Elvevåg et al. [25] and the incoherence model of semantic coherence of Bedi et al. [16], they were unable to convincingly separate their clinical and control participants based on language analysis.”
  • In Bedi et al.'s study, the most predictive language features were the minimum coherence between consecutive phrases and the frequency of determiners normalized by sentence length.

    “The language features with the best predictive power in the classifier were the minimum coherence between consecutive phrases for each participant (maximum discontinuity) and the frequency of use of determiners (normalized by sentence length).”
  • Bedi et al.'s initial study had only 34 participants total, including 5 CHR+ participants, and was intended as a proof-of-principle exploration.

    “This initial study only had 34 participants total (only 5 CHR+ participants) and was intended as a proof-of-principle exploration.”

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

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [2]First MH Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams J 1990 Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders – Research Version, Patient Edition (SCID-I/P) New York Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mota, N. B., Vasconcelos, N. A. P., Lemos, N., Pieretti, A. C., Kinouchi, O., Cecchi, G. A., Copelli, M., & Ribeiro, S.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (BR)
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
  • IBM Research - Thomas J. Watson Research Center (US)
  • Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (BR)
Corresponding author
Ribeiro, Sidarta
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-04-09
Volume
7
Issue
4
Pages
e34928
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2091298722
Cited by
265
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Governo Brasil
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (481506/2007-1)
  • Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (01.06.1092.00)
  • Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
Keywords
thought disorder, psychosis, schizophrenia, mania, differential diagnosis, graph theory, speech analysis, flight of ideas, automated psychiatric diagnosis, psychiatric symptoms
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychotic Disorders, Schizophrenia, Speech, Thinking, Young Adult

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