An evaluation of measures to dissociate language and communication disorders from healthy controls using machine learning techniques

Reliably distinguishing patients with verbal impairment due to brain damage, e.g. aphasia, cognitive communication disorder (CCD), from healthy subjects is an important challenge in clinical practice. A widely-used method is the application of word generation tasks, using the number of correct responses as a performance measure. Though clinically well-established, its analytical and explanatory power is limited. In this paper, we explore whether additional features extracted from task performance can be used to distinguish healthy subjects from aphasics or CCD patients. We considered temporal, lexical, and sublexical features and used machine learning techniques to obtain a model that minimizes the empirical risk of classifying participants incorrectly. Depending on the type of word generation task considered, the exploitation of features with state-of-the-art machine learning techniques outperformed the predictive accuracy of the clinical standard method (number of correct responses). Our analyses confirmed that number of correct responses is an adequate measure for distinguishing aphasics from healthy subjects. However, our additional features outperformed the traditional clinical measure in distinguishing patients with CCD from healthy subjects: The best classification performance was achieved by excluding number of correct responses. Overall, our work contributes to the challenging goal of distinguishing patients with verbal impairments from healthy subjects.

[1]  Pat Langley,et al.  Estimating Continuous Distributions in Bayesian Classifiers , 1995, UAI.

[2]  G. Winocur,et al.  Clustering and switching as two components of verbal fluency: evidence from younger and older healthy adults. , 1997, Neuropsychology.

[3]  Eibe Frank,et al.  Logistic Model Trees , 2003, ECML.

[4]  S. Hyakin,et al.  Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation , 1994 .

[5]  D. Howard,et al.  Aphasic naming: What matters? , 1995, Neuropsychologia.

[6]  E. Agranov,et al.  Which verbal fluency measure is most useful in demonstrating executive deficits after traumatic brain injury? , 2011, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[7]  Andrew W. Ellis,et al.  Wernicke's aphasia and normal language processing: A case study in cognitive neuropsychology , 1983, Cognition.

[8]  R. Engle,et al.  The role of working memory capacity in retrieval. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[9]  E. Kaplan,et al.  The assessment of aphasia and related disorders , 1972 .

[10]  Klaus W. Lange,et al.  Regensburger Wortflüssigkeits-Test (RWT) , 2004 .

[11]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  The WEKA data mining software: an update , 2009, SKDD.

[12]  David W. Aha,et al.  Instance-Based Learning Algorithms , 1991, Machine Learning.

[13]  Antti Järvelin,et al.  Comparison of Three Neural Network Classifiers for Aphasic and Non-Aphasic Naming Data , 2008, HEALTHINF.

[14]  G. Prigatano,et al.  Neuropsychological Rehabilitation After Brain Injury , 1985 .

[15]  Lars-Göran Nilsson,et al.  Age Effects on Semantic Coherence: Latent Semantic Analysis Applied to Letter Fluency Data , 2009, 2009 Third International Conference on Advances in Semantic Processing.

[16]  D. Abwender,et al.  Qualitative Analysis of Verbal Fluency Output: Review and Comparison of Several Scoring Methods , 2001, Assessment.

[17]  T. Landauer,et al.  Indexing by Latent Semantic Analysis , 1990 .

[18]  Simon Haykin,et al.  Neural networks , 1994 .

[19]  M. Duff,et al.  Mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI): assessment and treatment procedures used by speech-language pathologists (SLPs) , 2002, Brain injury.

[20]  Skye McDonald,et al.  Weak coherence, no theory of mind, or executive dysfunction? Solving the puzzle of pragmatic language disorders , 2003, Brain and Language.

[21]  John C. Platt,et al.  Fast training of support vector machines using sequential minimal optimization, advances in kernel methods , 1999 .

[22]  S. Crowe,et al.  The relationship between naming difficulty and FAS performance following traumatic brain injury , 2006, Brain injury.

[23]  Louise Cummings,et al.  Pragmatics and adult language disorders: past achievements and future directions. , 2007, Seminars in speech and language.

[24]  J. Testa,et al.  Influences of clustering and switching on the verbal fluency performance of patients with alzheimer's disease. , 1997, Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition.

[25]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Statistical Pattern Recognition: A Review , 2000, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[26]  D. Howard,et al.  Dissociating Effects of Number of Phonemes, Number of Syllables, and Syllabic Complexity on Word Production in Aphasia: It's the Number of Phonemes that Counts , 2004, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[27]  Igor Kononenko,et al.  Estimating Attributes: Analysis and Extensions of RELIEF , 1994, ECML.

[28]  F DeRuyter,et al.  Treatment efficacy: cognitive-communicative disorders resulting from traumatic brain injury in adults. , 1996, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[29]  David P. Salmon,et al.  Cortical and subcortical influences on clustering and switching in the performance of verbal fluency tasks , 1998, Neuropsychologia.

[30]  Thomas G. Dietterich What is machine learning? , 2020, Archives of Disease in Childhood.

[31]  Anna Basso,et al.  Semantic category and initial letter word fluency in left‐brain‐damaged patients , 1997 .

[32]  Donald Holbert,et al.  Can within-category naming identify subtle cognitive deficits in the mild traumatic brain-injured patient? , 2003, The Journal of trauma.

[33]  Evgeniy Gabrilovich,et al.  Computing Semantic Relatedness Using Wikipedia-based Explicit Semantic Analysis , 2007, IJCAI.