俄英双语者语义流利度的图论分析。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Vidushi Sinha, Frances Lissemore, Alan J Lerner
{"title":"俄英双语者语义流利度的图论分析。","authors":"Vidushi Sinha, Frances Lissemore, Alan J Lerner","doi":"10.1097/WNN.0000000000000312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Semantic category fluency is a widely used task involving language, memory, and executive function. Previous studies of bilingual semantic fluency have shown only small differences between languages. Graph theory analyzes complex relationships in networks, including node and edge number, clustering coefficient, average path length, average number of direct neighbors, and scale-free and small-world properties.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To shed light on whether the underlying neural processes involved in semantic category fluency testing yield substantially different networks in different languages.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We compared languages and methods using both network analysis and conventional analysis of word production. We administered the animal naming task to 51 Russian-English bilinguals in each language. We constructed network graphs using three methods: (a) simple association of unique co-occurring neighbors, (b) corrected associations between consecutive words occurring beyond chance, and (c) a network community approach using planar maximally filtered graphs. We compared the resultant network analytics as well as their scale-free and small-world properties.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants produced more words in Russian than in English. Small-worldness metrics were variable between Russian and English but were consistent across the three graph theory analytical methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The networks had similar graph theory properties in both languages. The optimal methodology for creating networks from semantic category fluency remains to be determined.</p>","PeriodicalId":50671,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10154949/pdf/nihms-1814366.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Graph Theory Analysis of Semantic Fluency in Russian-English Bilinguals.\",\"authors\":\"Vidushi Sinha, Frances Lissemore, Alan J Lerner\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/WNN.0000000000000312\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Semantic category fluency is a widely used task involving language, memory, and executive function. Previous studies of bilingual semantic fluency have shown only small differences between languages. Graph theory analyzes complex relationships in networks, including node and edge number, clustering coefficient, average path length, average number of direct neighbors, and scale-free and small-world properties.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To shed light on whether the underlying neural processes involved in semantic category fluency testing yield substantially different networks in different languages.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We compared languages and methods using both network analysis and conventional analysis of word production. We administered the animal naming task to 51 Russian-English bilinguals in each language. We constructed network graphs using three methods: (a) simple association of unique co-occurring neighbors, (b) corrected associations between consecutive words occurring beyond chance, and (c) a network community approach using planar maximally filtered graphs. We compared the resultant network analytics as well as their scale-free and small-world properties.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants produced more words in Russian than in English. Small-worldness metrics were variable between Russian and English but were consistent across the three graph theory analytical methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The networks had similar graph theory properties in both languages. The optimal methodology for creating networks from semantic category fluency remains to be determined.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50671,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10154949/pdf/nihms-1814366.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/WNN.0000000000000312\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WNN.0000000000000312","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:语义范畴流利性是一项广泛使用的任务,涉及语言、记忆和执行功能。先前对双语语义流利性的研究表明,语言之间的差异很小。图论分析网络中的复杂关系,包括节点数和边数、聚类系数、平均路径长度、平均直接邻居数以及无标度和小世界性质。目的:阐明语义类别流利性测试中涉及的潜在神经过程在不同语言中是否产生显著不同的网络。方法:我们使用网络分析和传统的造词分析来比较语言和方法。我们对每种语言的51名俄英双语者进行了动物命名任务。我们使用三种方法构建了网络图:(a)唯一共存邻居的简单关联,(b)偶然出现的连续单词之间的校正关联,以及(c)使用平面最大滤波图的网络社区方法。我们比较了由此产生的网络分析以及它们的无标度和小世界特性。结果:参与者产生的俄语单词比英语单词多。俄语和英语之间的小世界度指标是可变的,但在三种图论分析方法中是一致的。结论:网络在两种语言中具有相似的图论性质。根据语义类别流畅度创建网络的最佳方法仍有待确定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Graph Theory Analysis of Semantic Fluency in Russian-English Bilinguals.

Background: Semantic category fluency is a widely used task involving language, memory, and executive function. Previous studies of bilingual semantic fluency have shown only small differences between languages. Graph theory analyzes complex relationships in networks, including node and edge number, clustering coefficient, average path length, average number of direct neighbors, and scale-free and small-world properties.

Objective: To shed light on whether the underlying neural processes involved in semantic category fluency testing yield substantially different networks in different languages.

Method: We compared languages and methods using both network analysis and conventional analysis of word production. We administered the animal naming task to 51 Russian-English bilinguals in each language. We constructed network graphs using three methods: (a) simple association of unique co-occurring neighbors, (b) corrected associations between consecutive words occurring beyond chance, and (c) a network community approach using planar maximally filtered graphs. We compared the resultant network analytics as well as their scale-free and small-world properties.

Results: Participants produced more words in Russian than in English. Small-worldness metrics were variable between Russian and English but were consistent across the three graph theory analytical methods.

Conclusion: The networks had similar graph theory properties in both languages. The optimal methodology for creating networks from semantic category fluency remains to be determined.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
68
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology (CBN) is a forum for advances in the neurologic understanding and possible treatment of human disorders that affect thinking, learning, memory, communication, and behavior. As an incubator for innovations in these fields, CBN helps transform theory into practice. The journal serves clinical research, patient care, education, and professional advancement. The journal welcomes contributions from neurology, cognitive neuroscience, neuropsychology, neuropsychiatry, and other relevant fields. The editors particularly encourage review articles (including reviews of clinical practice), experimental and observational case reports, instructional articles for interested students and professionals in other fields, and innovative articles that do not fit neatly into any category. Also welcome are therapeutic trials and other experimental and observational studies, brief reports, first-person accounts of neurologic experiences, position papers, hypotheses, opinion papers, commentaries, historical perspectives, and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信