{"title":"打字与手写:失语症患者书写输出中的模态效应初探","authors":"Jaime B Lee, Laura E Kinsey, Leora R Cherney","doi":"10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Handwriting and typing have different cognitive and motor demands; however, questions remain as to whether performance in people with aphasia varies based on modality. This study compares written discourse production across handwritten and onscreen typed modalities for a large sample of people with aphasia. We also aimed to explore potential variables that predict the number of written words generated by participants and determine if modality differences emerge when these variables are included as predictors.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Writing samples, via handwriting and onscreen typing, elicited in a picture description task were collected from 52 participants with chronic aphasia and coded for number of words. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to model the data. Aphasia type, severity of aphasia, writing severity, and use of nondominant hand for writing or onscreen typing were included as predictor variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences between the number of words generated in the typed modality versus handwritten modality for the sample. Of the predictor variables examined, Western Aphasia Battery-Revised writing scores significantly predicted the number of words produced (<i>p</i> < .001). However, the interaction of writing severity with modality was not significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This preliminary study suggests that there was no effect of modality on one measure of written production, number of words. Future research is needed to evaluate if there are meaningful differences between modalities when additional measures, such as writing informativeness, are considered.</p><p><strong>Supplemental material: </strong>https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.26506144.</p>","PeriodicalId":49240,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Typing Versus Handwriting: A Preliminary Investigation of Modality Effects in the Writing Output of People With Aphasia.\",\"authors\":\"Jaime B Lee, Laura E Kinsey, Leora R Cherney\",\"doi\":\"10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00344\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Handwriting and typing have different cognitive and motor demands; however, questions remain as to whether performance in people with aphasia varies based on modality. This study compares written discourse production across handwritten and onscreen typed modalities for a large sample of people with aphasia. We also aimed to explore potential variables that predict the number of written words generated by participants and determine if modality differences emerge when these variables are included as predictors.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Writing samples, via handwriting and onscreen typing, elicited in a picture description task were collected from 52 participants with chronic aphasia and coded for number of words. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to model the data. Aphasia type, severity of aphasia, writing severity, and use of nondominant hand for writing or onscreen typing were included as predictor variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences between the number of words generated in the typed modality versus handwritten modality for the sample. Of the predictor variables examined, Western Aphasia Battery-Revised writing scores significantly predicted the number of words produced (<i>p</i> < .001). However, the interaction of writing severity with modality was not significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This preliminary study suggests that there was no effect of modality on one measure of written production, number of words. Future research is needed to evaluate if there are meaningful differences between modalities when additional measures, such as writing informativeness, are considered.</p><p><strong>Supplemental material: </strong>https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.26506144.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00344\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00344","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Typing Versus Handwriting: A Preliminary Investigation of Modality Effects in the Writing Output of People With Aphasia.
Purpose: Handwriting and typing have different cognitive and motor demands; however, questions remain as to whether performance in people with aphasia varies based on modality. This study compares written discourse production across handwritten and onscreen typed modalities for a large sample of people with aphasia. We also aimed to explore potential variables that predict the number of written words generated by participants and determine if modality differences emerge when these variables are included as predictors.
Method: Writing samples, via handwriting and onscreen typing, elicited in a picture description task were collected from 52 participants with chronic aphasia and coded for number of words. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to model the data. Aphasia type, severity of aphasia, writing severity, and use of nondominant hand for writing or onscreen typing were included as predictor variables.
Results: There were no significant differences between the number of words generated in the typed modality versus handwritten modality for the sample. Of the predictor variables examined, Western Aphasia Battery-Revised writing scores significantly predicted the number of words produced (p < .001). However, the interaction of writing severity with modality was not significant.
Conclusions: This preliminary study suggests that there was no effect of modality on one measure of written production, number of words. Future research is needed to evaluate if there are meaningful differences between modalities when additional measures, such as writing informativeness, are considered.
期刊介绍:
Mission: AJSLP publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles on all aspects of clinical practice in speech-language pathology. The journal is an international outlet for clinical research pertaining to screening, detection, diagnosis, management, and outcomes of communication and swallowing disorders across the lifespan as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. Because of its clinical orientation, the journal disseminates research findings applicable to diverse aspects of clinical practice in speech-language pathology. AJSLP seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work.
Scope: The broad field of speech-language pathology, including aphasia; apraxia of speech and childhood apraxia of speech; aural rehabilitation; augmentative and alternative communication; cognitive impairment; craniofacial disorders; dysarthria; fluency disorders; language disorders in children; speech sound disorders; swallowing, dysphagia, and feeding disorders; and voice disorders.