Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 8 – uploaded by Belghis Rovshan

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
The control group produced 120 sentences totally (each participant 20 sentences). In this paper, due to space lim- itations, some of them are presented and the necessary explanations are provided in Table 9. monkey) and 4 actions (eating, coddling, hugging, and killing) were used. The test was administered first to the control group in an appropriate time and place determined by the participants. The pictures were shown to each par- ticipant and they were asked to tell a simple declarative sentence about each picture. Their responses were record- ed in the answer sheet (Table 9). After 10 pictures, they had a 10-min break, and then the test was resumed.

Table 9 The control group produced 120 sentences totally (each participant 20 sentences). In this paper, due to space lim- itations, some of them are presented and the necessary explanations are provided in Table 9. monkey) and 4 actions (eating, coddling, hugging, and killing) were used. The test was administered first to the control group in an appropriate time and place determined by the participants. The pictures were shown to each par- ticipant and they were asked to tell a simple declarative sentence about each picture. Their responses were record- ed in the answer sheet (Table 9). After 10 pictures, they had a 10-min break, and then the test was resumed.

Related Figures (13)

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of 6 Persian-speaking patients with Broca’s aphasia Table 2. Internal consistency of language skills of 6 Persian-speaking patients with Broca’s aphasia
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of 6 Persian-speaking patients with Broca’s aphasia Table 2. Internal consistency of language skills of 6 Persian-speaking patients with Broca’s aphasia
Table 3. Internal consistency of sub-test of 6 Persian-speaking patients with Broca’s aphasia
Table 3. Internal consistency of sub-test of 6 Persian-speaking patients with Broca’s aphasia
Table 4. The correlation matrix of the skills in Persian-speaking patients with Broca’s aphasia “Significance at P<0.05.
Table 4. The correlation matrix of the skills in Persian-speaking patients with Broca’s aphasia “Significance at P<0.05.
Table 6. Demographic characteristics of the control group To analyze linguistic data of the aphasic group, the ap- proaches of Garman, Saffran, Kolk, Friedman, Dolfic, and Fabiyanié were utilized [3, 4, 21, 25, 26]. Tests description
Table 6. Demographic characteristics of the control group To analyze linguistic data of the aphasic group, the ap- proaches of Garman, Saffran, Kolk, Friedman, Dolfic, and Fabiyanié were utilized [3, 4, 21, 25, 26]. Tests description
Table 5. The relationship between language skills and aphasic type of patients in six Persian-speaking patients with Broca’s aphasi:
Table 5. The relationship between language skills and aphasic type of patients in six Persian-speaking patients with Broca’s aphasi:
Table 7. Characteristics of the control group and distribution of their age, gender, and education Table 8. Characteristics of the patients and distribution of their age, gender, and education
Table 7. Characteristics of the control group and distribution of their age, gender, and education Table 8. Characteristics of the patients and distribution of their age, gender, and education
Table 9. Presence of “ra” in the control group (the first test) /fir/ /maimuno/ /mikofe/ “The lion is killing the mon- key” sentence about each. Their responses were recorded in the answer sheet (Table 10).
Table 9. Presence of “ra” in the control group (the first test) /fir/ /maimuno/ /mikofe/ “The lion is killing the mon- key” sentence about each. Their responses were recorded in the answer sheet (Table 10).
Table 11. Comparison of the presence of the object marker “ra” between the aphasics and control grour
Table 11. Comparison of the presence of the object marker “ra” between the aphasics and control grour
Table 10. Presence of the object marker “ra” in the aphasic group (the first test) As can be seen in sentences 7 to 12 and Table speech of all 6 aphasic patients is short and telegraphic. These findings are in and Fabijani¢ findings findings are consisten' Dolfic, and Fabijanic¢ ine with Garman, Saffran, with Garman, Saffran, Dol 2-4] approaches, pronouns 0, the Dolfic, [2-4]. The utilized words are con- ent words (e.g. subject, object, main verb). Again, these fic, and Fabijani¢ results [2-4]. Contrary to Garman, Saffran, and are not used, while the contro group used pronouns (Tab e9).In ine with Garman [2], the speech flow of the 6 aphasics is not fluent, and it has some disorders mainly related After the first test was administered to Broca’s apha- sics, it was arranged with the therapist to administer the second test after a 1-month training (treatment). It was decided that the aphasics would be trained one session a week by specialized therapists. After 4 sessions, they were tested in an appropriate place and time selected by themselves. Similar to the first test, 10 pictures were first shown to the subjects and they were asked to construct
Table 10. Presence of the object marker “ra” in the aphasic group (the first test) As can be seen in sentences 7 to 12 and Table speech of all 6 aphasic patients is short and telegraphic. These findings are in and Fabijani¢ findings findings are consisten' Dolfic, and Fabijanic¢ ine with Garman, Saffran, with Garman, Saffran, Dol 2-4] approaches, pronouns 0, the Dolfic, [2-4]. The utilized words are con- ent words (e.g. subject, object, main verb). Again, these fic, and Fabijani¢ results [2-4]. Contrary to Garman, Saffran, and are not used, while the contro group used pronouns (Tab e9).In ine with Garman [2], the speech flow of the 6 aphasics is not fluent, and it has some disorders mainly related After the first test was administered to Broca’s apha- sics, it was arranged with the therapist to administer the second test after a 1-month training (treatment). It was decided that the aphasics would be trained one session a week by specialized therapists. After 4 sessions, they were tested in an appropriate place and time selected by themselves. Similar to the first test, 10 pictures were first shown to the subjects and they were asked to construct
Figure 1. A comparison between the aphasic group and the control group regarding the presence of “1a” A comparison between the aphasic group and the contro] croiun
Figure 1. A comparison between the aphasic group and the control group regarding the presence of “1a” A comparison between the aphasic group and the contro] croiun
Test 1. Statistical analysis statistical analysis (1) Comparison of the control group and Broca’s aphasic group through 1-way ANOVA (a=0.05)
Test 1. Statistical analysis statistical analysis (1) Comparison of the control group and Broca’s aphasic group through 1-way ANOVA (a=0.05)
Table 12. The presence of the object marker “ra” in the speech of the aphasic group (second test) or 4” was absent in their speech. Our findings support Nilipour’s findings, too [29]. were compared through one-way ANOVA to see if there was any statistically significant difference between them. The alpha coefficient was set at 0.05 (statistical analysis 1). A large value of “F” rejects the null hypothesis, that is, there is more between-group variance than within- group variances. Hence, one can argue that the popula- tion is not homogenous. F-value varies from 1-120. As can be observed in analysis 1, F=65535 which is much greater than |. Therefore, there is a significant difference between the two groups regarding the use of “ra’’.
Table 12. The presence of the object marker “ra” in the speech of the aphasic group (second test) or 4” was absent in their speech. Our findings support Nilipour’s findings, too [29]. were compared through one-way ANOVA to see if there was any statistically significant difference between them. The alpha coefficient was set at 0.05 (statistical analysis 1). A large value of “F” rejects the null hypothesis, that is, there is more between-group variance than within- group variances. Hence, one can argue that the popula- tion is not homogenous. F-value varies from 1-120. As can be observed in analysis 1, F=65535 which is much greater than |. Therefore, there is a significant difference between the two groups regarding the use of “ra’’.
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved