|
EXPRESSION
|
| Total length of the audio file |
Total length of the uncut audio recording (in seconds); |
| Total time analyzed |
Length of the recording used for the analysis, including the discussion of both topics (in seconds); |
| Total Number of Words |
Total number of words spoken by the participant, including repetitions, interjections and revisions; |
| Speed of speech |
Total number of words divided by total speech time (in seconds); |
| Reaction time (RT) |
Time taken to begin talking about the first topic (in seconds); |
|
COHERENCE
|
| Coherence Topic 1(C1); Coherence Topic 2 (C2) |
General measure of coherence scored on a scale of 1 to 4. A score of one (1) suggests the information provided by the participant was predominantly tangential and inaccurate, with the examiner having to guide the conversation and rely heavily on inferential comprehension to understand what the participant was attempting to convey. Two (2) points are attributed when the speech is somewhat related to the topic at hand, but includes inappropriate personal information, tangential comments or excessive emphasis on irrelevant elements of the conversation. The examiner may still rely on inferential processing to interpret what the participant is saying, but only at specific points in the dialogue, and not throughout the conversation as a whole. Three (3) points are given to participants whose speech is related to the topic at hand, and though it may contain some tangential or hypothetical information, it is still relevant to the themes under discussion. The examiner is able to understand what the participant says, though they may find their speech somewhat disorganized or insufficiently objective. Lastly, four (4) points are assigned when the speech produced by the participant is related to the topic at hand and contains enough information for the listener to understand its contents without relying on inferential processing (Carlomagno et al., 2011;Wright, Koutsoftas, Capilouto, & Fergadiotis, 2014); |
|
PRAGMATICS
|
| Lacks verbal initiative (LI) |
The participant cannot maintain the conversation without the aid of the examiner. They may answer the examiner's questions with a simple "yes" or "no", so that the dialogue resembles a question and answer session rather than a conversation; |
| Talks too much (TM) |
The participant does not make pauses in their speech (long speech segments). The examiner is unable to ask questions or interrupt the conversation and may make unsuccessful attempts to interact with the participant. In these cases, the examiner is also unable to change the subject after two minutes or end the task after four; |
| Change of topic (CT) |
The participant spontaneously introduces a new topic of conversation that is only tangentially or indirectly related to the topic at hand. The participant may or may not return to the original subject, with or without cues from the examiner. If 'CT' is maintained, it tends to progress to 'Does not follow the conversational topic (FCT)'; |
| Does not return to the subject (DRS) |
When the participant performs the subject change at first, then continues talking about the new subject until the speech time ends (or the examiner changes topic), without returning to the first prevailing topic prior to the exchange; |
| Returns to original topic with no help from the examiner (RTA) |
The participant returns to the original subject after a Change of topic (CT), and does so of their own accord, with no feedback from the examiner; |
| Returns to original topic with help from the examiner (RTEH) |
The participant returns to the original subject after a Change of topic (CT), but does so as a result of an external cue, such as a question asked by the examiner pertaining to the previous topic of discussion; |
| Changes topic due to examiner's interference (STEI) |
The participant is inadvertently prompted to shift to an unrelated topic as a result of a comment made by the examiner. Given the naturalistic format of the task, this type of incident was expected to occur on occasion. However, participants were never penalized for it. |
| Interrupts the examiner (IS) |
The participant interrupts the examiner mid-word or mid-sentence or talks over them. This behavior is usually indicative of impaired inhibitory control, and may prevent the examiner from contributing to the conversation, in addition to interfering with conversational turn-taking; |
| Inappropriate comments (IC) |
The participant's comments make the examiner uncomfortable. Examples include the use of profanity or irrelevant and out of context information, such as speaking ill of a third party, whom the examiner does not know. |
|
COHESION
|
| Abrupt interruption (AI) |
The participant pauses or interrupts their speech abruptly. The listener may wait for them to complete the sentence, but this does not happen, and the content may be implied. This is often accompanied by non-verbal behaviors such as gesturing. This does not include instances where the participant stops talking, makes a longer pause, and continues discussing the current topic (which would be coded 'Inappropriate pauses - IP'), or when the participant interrupts a word or sentence in order to reformulate it before continuing to speak (in this case, 'Reformulates sentences or words - RSW') (adapted from Carlomagno, Giannotti, Vorano, & Marini, 2011); |
| Repeats word (RW) |
All repetitions of words or phrases are coded, without exception. As such, the examiner does not need to determine whether the term was repeated in order to confirm an item of information or as a result of impaired self-monitoring (adapted from de Lira et al., 2011; Saling et al., 2014); |
| Repeats information (RI) |
This is a variation of the previous item (RW), defined as any occasion where the participant repeats a given idea (i.e. information that has the same meaning or content). The repetition can be both immediate as well as interspersed throughout the dialogue (e.g. when a topic begins to be discussed, and again at the end of the conversation) (adapted from de Lira et al., 2011; Saling et al., 2014); |
| Inconsistent use of referential pronouns (IU) |
This item is coded when the reference of a pronoun or the subject of a verb is ambiguous, unclear or incorrect (adapted from Galetto, Andreetta, Zettin & Marini, 2013). This behavior usually generates uncertainty in the examiner because they may not understand who or what the participant is actually talking about. For example, when talking about 'the dog' and 'the child' and soon after noting that "he is very sweet," the listener may not be sure who 'he' is if no contextual clues are provided; |
| Contradiction errors (CE) |
The participant provides new information that contradicts what was previously said (Saling et al., 2014). If the participant notices the error and corrects themselves, the occurrence is coded as 'Reformulates sentences or words (RSW)' rather than a Contradiction Error (CE); |
| Relation errors (RE) |
The participant presents new information that is not directly related to what was previously said (Saling et al., 2014). Such occurrences are unexpected, and may make the listener feel that the new information does not "fit" what was previously said, as if the sentences were not connected. Instances where the participant claims he will talk about a certain topic, but actually talks about a different - though related - subject, are also coded 'RE'. When an utterance is related to the overall theme of discussion, but is oddly placed, and requires additional inferential processing by the examiner, 'RE' may also be used. Likewise, if the participant notices the error and corrects what was said, the instance is scored 'RSW' rather than 'RE'. Lastly, it should be noted that, though this item is different from Change of topic ('CT'), one often precedes the other, so that an utterance coded 'RE' may be identified immediately before 'CT'. |
| Expresses ideas vaguely - confusing information (EVM- CI) |
The participant's speech is unclear and imprecise. Phrases are syntactically correct but have little content. Though the participant does not speak too little, too slowly or has any difficulty finding words, their utterances are confusing and imprecise, with the examiner having to make significant efforts to interpret what was said. The speech may be tangential, and the listener may not understand the main points expressed by the participant; |
Expresses ideas vaguely -
insufficient information
(EVM- II) |
This is a variation of the previous item (EVM-CI). In this case, the participant does not give enough information on a given subject. The participant may talk too much (TM) while still providing little information, if their speech does not have enough elements to construct a logical story. This is different from 'Lacks verbal initiative (LI)', where the participant does not speak or engage in conversation; |
| Expresses ideas vaguely manner - sentence planning difficulties (EVM- DP) |
This is a variation of the previous items (EVM-CI and EVM-II). In this case, participants have trouble organizing ideas or ordering facts in a story. The examiner may feel the speech is confusing, that the participant is talking in circles (mazes) or is having trouble finding the right word. This item is often accompanied by others such as 'Repeats word (RW)', 'Searches for words (SW)', 'Syllabic false starts (FS)' and 'Reformulates sentences or words (RSW)'; |
| Grammatical errors - article use (EVM- IA) |
Mistakes related to the agreement between articles and pronouns, nouns, adjectives, etc. For example, 'The man was walking/suddenly, she (instead of 'he') stopped' (Carlomagno, Giannotti, Vorano, & Marini, 2011); |
| Word-finding difficulties (SW) |
The participant has difficulty retrieving words and may display anomia. These difficulties can often by identified by comments such as, 'that ... that thing... what do you call it?', or 'you know, the thing you use to do...'. Word-finding difficulties may also manifest as gaps in speech or prolonged vowels. |
| Paraphasia (PAR) |
The participant exchanges one words or name for another. This category includes semantic, lexical and phonological paraphasia (adapted from Matsuoka et al., 2012). The occurrence can be followed by word-finding difficulties (SW), as in: 'Uh... (search for words)/ Use the pen to write' (when referring to the pencil); |
| Reformulates Sentences or Words (RSW) |
Participant corrects themselves at the word/sentence level. When a correction is made at the syllable, it is coded as a 'Syllabic false start (FS)'. This includes the self-correction of speech errors... For instance, if the participant contradicts themselves (CE) but correct the error, the utterance will be coded 'RSW' rather than 'CE'; |
| Syllabic false start (FS) |
The participant abruptly interrupts their speech at the syllable level (either initial or final syllables). For example, 'two bo... / boys are prepar... / preparing for a game) (Galetto et al., 2013). |
|
COMPREHENSION
|
| Does not understand what is said (UWS) |
The participant does not understand questions or literal observations made by the examiner. Participants with this type of difficulty may be indifferent to questions asked by the examiner, or answer with unrelated remarks . |
| Does not maintain the conversational topic (FCT) |
The participant performs a subject change and does not return to the original topic of conversation, either spontaneously or with the help of the examiner. This code also applies to instances where the participant forgets what they were saying mid-sentence. This item cannot be preceded by a question from the examiner, as it refers specifically to cases where the participant strays off topic of his own accord. |
| Does not understand indirect language (UIL) |
Participant cannot understand indirect speech (e.g. E: 'Your phone is ringing' as an implicit suggestion for the participant to turn off his phone); |
| Does not understand figurative language (UFL) |
Participant does not to understand figurative language, such as metaphors (e.g. 'Who wears the pants in the relationship?' or 'Are you a jack of all trades?'). |
| Indifferent to jokes or light-hearted comments (SLC) |
The participant does not respond or appears not to understand jokes or light-hearted comments made by the examiner. This may be accompanied by 'Does not understand what is said (UWS)'; |
| Inconsistent or no eye contact (IEC) |
The participant looks away from the examiner, or spends more time looking at objects or other people in the room. |
| Fixed facial expression (FFE) |
The participant maintains the same facial expression throughout the entire conversation, and does not change it to match verbal expressions of emotion or variations in linguistic prosody; |
| Adapts poorly to subject change (APSC) |
The participant has trouble changing topics halfway through the task. After the examiner signals the topic change, the participant may still want to finish a sentence or comment about the previous theme of conversation, or take longer to engage in the second topic of discussion (speech latency); |
|
LINGUISTIC AND EMOTIONAL PROSODY
|
| Abnormal speech rate - increased (ASR-I) |
Participant speaks abnormally fast. When this behavior is present, the patient receives the maximum score of one (1), regardless of how frequently the pattern occurred during the task. . |
| Has an abnormal speech rate - decreased (ASR-D) |
Participant speaks abnormally slow. When this behavior is present, the patient receives the maximum score of one (1), regardless of how frequently the pattern occurred during the task. |
| Inappropriate pauses (IP) |
The participant makes very long or frequent short pauses between words or ideas, changing the rhythm of the conversation. If the pauses occur while the patient is looking for a particular word, they are coded as 'Searches for words (SW)' rather than IP. |
| Speaks in monotone (MI) |
Participant does not display any variations in linguistic or emotional prosody. The participant does not rely on prosodic cues for communication, speaking in a monotone or with restricted prosodic variability; |
| Abnormal linguistic prosody (ASIP) |
Participant does not display the prosodic features associated with commands, statements and questions; |
| Does not respond to linguistic prosody (USIP) |
Participant is unable to use prosodic cues to identify an utterance as a command, statement or question; |
| Abnormal emotional prosody (AEIP) |
Participant does not display the prosodic features associated with emotions such as joy, sadness, anger or surprise; |
| Does not respond to emotional prosody (UEIP) |
Participant is unable to use prosodic cues to identify emotions such as joy, sadness, anger or surprise in the speech of the examiner; |
| Number of metaphors provided by examiner (MP) |
The number of metaphors used by the examiner during the conversation. |
Age-related differences in conversational discourse abilities A comparative study