RESUMO
There is a rich tradition of research on the neuroanatomical correlates of spoken language production in aphasia using constrained tasks (e.g., picture naming), which offer controlled insights into the distinct processes that govern speech and language (i.e., lexical-semantic access, morphosyntactic construction, phonological encoding, speech motor programming/execution). Yet these tasks do not necessarily reflect everyday language use. In contrast, naturalistic language production (also referred to as connected speech or discourse) more closely approximates typical processing demands, requiring the dynamic integration of all aspects of speech and language. The brain bases of naturalistic language production remain relatively unknown, however, in part because of the difficulty in deriving features that are salient, quantifiable, and interpretable relative to both speech-language processes and the extant literature. The present cross-sectional observational study seeks to address these challenges by leveraging a validated and comprehensive auditory-perceptual measurement system that yields four explanatory dimensions of performance-Paraphasia (misselection of words and sounds), Logopenia (paucity of words), Agrammatism (grammatical omissions), and Motor speech (impaired speech motor programming/execution). We used this system to characterize naturalistic language production in a large and representative sample of individuals with acute post-stroke aphasia (n = 118). Scores on each of the four dimensions were correlated with lesion metrics, and multivariate associations among the dimensions and brain regions were then explored. Our findings revealed distinct yet overlapping neuroanatomical correlates throughout the left-hemisphere language network. Paraphasia and Logopenia were associated primarily with posterior regions, spanning both dorsal and ventral streams, which are critical for lexical-semantic access and phonological encoding. In contrast, Agrammatism and Motor speech were associated primarily with anterior regions of the dorsal stream that are involved in morphosyntactic construction and speech motor planning/execution respectively. Collectively, we view these results as constituting a brain-behavior model of naturalistic language production in aphasia, aligning with both historical and contemporary accounts of the neurobiology of spoken language production.
RESUMO
Purpose: One manifestation of systemic inequities in communication sciences and disorders (CSD) is the chronic underreporting and underrepresentation of sex, gender, race, and ethnicity in research. The present study characterized recent demographic reporting practices and representation of participants across CSD research. Methods: We systematically reviewed and extracted key reporting and participant data from empirical studies conducted in the United States (US) with human participants published in the year 2020 in journals by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA; k = 407 articles comprising a total n = 80,058 research participants, search completed November 2021). Sex, gender, race, and ethnicity were operationalized per National Institutes of Health guidelines (National Institutes of Health, 2015a, 2015b). Results: Sex or gender was reported in 85.5% of included studies; race was reported in 33.7%; and ethnicity was reported in 13.8%. Sex and gender were clearly differentiated in 3.4% of relevant studies. Where reported, median proportions for race and ethnicity were significantly different from the US population, with underrepresentation noted for all non-White racial groups and Hispanic participants. Moreover, 64.7% of studies that reported sex or gender and 67.2% of studies that reported race or ethnicity did not consider these respective variables in analyses or discussion. Conclusion: At present, research published in ASHA journals frequently fails to report key demographic data summarizing the characteristics of participants. Moreover, apparent gaps in representation of minoritized racial and ethnic groups threaten the external validity of CSD research and broader health care equity endeavors in the US. Although our study is limited to a single year and publisher, our results point to several steps for readers that may bring greater accountability, consistency, and diversity to the discipline.