A solution space tree-based method supporting the collocation of relative word automatic identification in Chinese complex sentences

Accuracy of Four Language Analysis Procedures Performed Automatically

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology ◽

10.1044/1058-0360(2001/017) ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 10 (2) ◽

pp. 180-188 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Steven H. Long ◽

Ron W. Channell

Keyword(s):

Automatic Identification ◽

Published Data ◽

Typically Developing ◽

Language Impaired ◽

Productivity Data ◽

Language Analysis ◽

Word Classes ◽

Human Coder ◽

Impaired Children ◽

Metalinguistic Skills

Most software for language analysis has relied on an interaction between the metalinguistic skills of a human coder and the calculating ability of the machine to produce reliable results. However, probabilistic parsing algorithms are now capable of highly accurate and completely automatic identification of grammatical word classes. The program Computerized Profiling combines a probabilistic parser with modules customized to produce four clinical grammatical analyses: MLU, LARSP, IPSyn, and DSS. The accuracy of these analyses was assessed on 69 language samples from typically developing, speech-impaired, and language-impaired children, 2 years 6 months to 7 years 10 months. Values obtained with human coding and by the software alone were compared. Results for all four analyses produced automatically were comparable to published data on the manual interrater reliability of these procedures. Clinical decisions based on cutoff scores and productivity data were little affected by the use of automatic rather than human-generated analyses. These findings bode well for future clinical and research use of automatic language analysis software.

Download Full-text

When Hearing Does Not Mean Understanding: On the Neural Processing of Syntactically Complex Sentences by Listeners With Hearing Loss

Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research ◽

10.1044/2020_jslhr-20-00262 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-13

Author(s):

Margreet Vogelzang ◽

Christiane M. Thiel ◽

Stephanie Rosemann ◽

Jochem W. Rieger ◽

Esther Ruigendijk

Keyword(s):

Hearing Loss ◽

Sentence Processing ◽

Secondary Task ◽

Sentence Comprehension ◽

Inferior Frontal Gyrus ◽

Normal Hearing ◽

Cognitive Demands ◽

Sentence Complexity ◽

Complex Sentences ◽

And Task

Purpose Adults with mild-to-moderate age-related hearing loss typically exhibit issues with speech understanding, but their processing of syntactically complex sentences is not well understood. We test the hypothesis that listeners with hearing loss' difficulties with comprehension and processing of syntactically complex sentences are due to the processing of degraded input interfering with the successful processing of complex sentences. Method We performed a neuroimaging study with a sentence comprehension task, varying sentence complexity (through subject–object order and verb–arguments order) and cognitive demands (presence or absence of a secondary task) within subjects. Groups of older subjects with hearing loss ( n = 20) and age-matched normal-hearing controls ( n = 20) were tested. Results The comprehension data show effects of syntactic complexity and hearing ability, with normal-hearing controls outperforming listeners with hearing loss, seemingly more so on syntactically complex sentences. The secondary task did not influence off-line comprehension. The imaging data show effects of group, sentence complexity, and task, with listeners with hearing loss showing decreased activation in typical speech processing areas, such as the inferior frontal gyrus and superior temporal gyrus. No interactions between group, sentence complexity, and task were found in the neuroimaging data. Conclusions The results suggest that listeners with hearing loss process speech differently from their normal-hearing peers, possibly due to the increased demands of processing degraded auditory input. Increased cognitive demands by means of a secondary visual shape processing task influence neural sentence processing, but no evidence was found that it does so in a different way for listeners with hearing loss and normal-hearing listeners.

Download Full-text