cometadata/datacite-titles-descriptions-related-identifiers huggingface dataset:
DOI: 10.23641/asha.21809772.v1
title: Prosody perception in hearing loss (Karimi-Boroujeni et al., 2023)

description: <strong>Purpose: </strong>Prosody perception is an essential component of speech communication and social interaction through which both linguistic and emotional information are conveyed. Considering the importance of the auditory system in processing prosody-related acoustic features, the aim of this review article is to review the effects of hearing impairment on prosody perception in children and adults. It also assesses the performance of hearing assistive devices in restoring prosodic perception. <strong>Method:</strong> Following a comprehensive online database search, two lines of inquiry were targeted. The first summarizes recent attempts toward determining the effects of hearing loss and interacting factors such as age and cognitive resources on prosody perception. The second analyzes studies reporting beneficial or detrimental impacts of hearing aids, cochlear implants, and bimodal stimulation on prosodic abilities in people with hearing loss. <strong>Results: </strong>The reviewed studies indicate that hearing-impaired individuals vary widely in perceiving affective and linguistic prosody, depending on factors such as hearing loss severity, chronological age, and cognitive status. In addition, most of the emerging information points to limitations of hearing assistive devices in processing and transmitting the acoustic features of prosody. <strong>Conclusions: </strong>The existing literature is incomplete in several respects, including the lack of a consensus on how and to what extent hearing prostheses affect prosody perception, especially the linguistic function of prosody, and a gap in assessing prosody under challenging listening situations such as noise. This review article proposes directions that future research could follow to provide a better understanding of prosody processing in those with hearing impairment, which may help health care professionals and designers of assistive technology to develop innovative diagnostic and rehabilitation tools. <strong>Supplemental Material S1.</strong> Features of the assessment tools evaluating prosody perception. <strong>Supplemental Material S2.</strong> Summary of studies focused on prosody perception in hearing aid and cochlear implant users. Karimi-Boroujeni, M., Dajani, H. R., & Giguère, C. (2023). Perception of prosody in hearing-impaired individuals and users of hearing assistive devices: An overview of recent advances. <em>Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 66</em>(2), 775–789. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_JSLHR-22-00125
DOI: 10.23641/asha.22044095
title: Speech errors in children with cleft palate (Lien et al., 2023)

description: <strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to describe the frequency of speech production errors in children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip (CP±L) and explore characteristics related to speech production errors. <strong>Method: </strong>Fifty-six children with nonsyndromic CP±L between the ages of 4;0 and 7;11 (years;months) were included in this study. The children’s audio-recorded production of a sentence repetition task was transcribed using narrow transcription and coded for speech error type. <strong>Results: </strong>Children used, on average, 18 speech errors during the sentence repetition task that sampled 59 phoneme targets. On average, phonological errors were used most frequently, with nine errors per sample, followed by anterior oral speech errors at four errors per sample, and non-oral compensatory errors at three errors per sample. Individual-level characteristics including age and cleft type were related to frequency of phonological errors and anterior oral speech errors, respectively. One treatment-level characteristic, hypernasality, was related to use of non-oral compensatory errors and passive speech errors. <strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study identified the most frequent speech production errors as phonological errors, followed by anterior oral speech errors and non-oral compensatory errors. Individual-level and treatment-level characteristics were related to speech production errors. Future research should explore additional characteristics that may influence use of speech production errors. Clinically, this study adds information regarding speech error types that should be monitored throughout cleft care, including phonological errors that were most prevalent among this sample. <strong>Supplemental Material S1.</strong> Articulation disorder status and associated speech error frequency. Lien, K. M., Scherer, N. J., Cordero, K. N., & Sitzman, T. J. (2023). Speech production errors in children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip. <em>Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 66</em>(3), 849–862. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_JSLHR-22-00264
DOI: 10.23641/asha.22141829
title: Predicting outcomes of language rehabilitation (Kristinsson et al., 2023)

description: <strong>Background: </strong>Aphasia therapy is an effective approach to improve language function in chronic aphasia. However, it remains unclear what prognostic factors facilitate therapy response at the individual level. Here, we utilized data from the POLAR (Predicting Outcomes of Language Rehabilitation in Aphasia) trial to (a) determine therapy-induced change in confrontation naming and long-term maintenance of naming gains and (b) examine the extent to which aphasia severity, age, education, time postonset, and cognitive reserve predict naming gains at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months posttherapy. <strong>Method: </strong>A total of 107 participants with chronic (≥ 12 months poststroke) aphasia underwent extensive case history, cognitive–linguistic testing, and a neuroimaging workup prior to receiving 6 weeks of impairment-based language therapy. Therapy-induced change in naming performance (measured as raw change on the 175-item Philadelphia Naming Test [PNT]) was assessed 1 week after therapy and at follow-up time points 1 month and 6 months after therapy completion. Change in naming performance over time was evaluated using paired <em>t</em> tests, and linear mixed-effects models were constructed to examine the association between prognostic factors and therapy outcomes. <strong>Results: </strong>Naming performance was improved by 5.9 PNT items (Cohen’s <em>d</em> = 0.56, <em>p</em> &lt; .001) 1 week after therapy and by 6.4 (<em>d</em> = 0.66,<em> p</em> &lt; .001) and 7.5 (<em>d</em> = 0.65, <em>p</em> &lt; .001) PNT items at 1 month and 6 months after therapy completion, respectively. Aphasia severity emerged as the strongest predictor of naming improvement recovery across time points; mild (ß = 5.85–9.02) and moderate (ß = 9.65–11.54) impairment predicted better recovery than severe (ß = 1.31–3.37) and very severe (ß = 0.20–0.32) aphasia. Age was an emergent prognostic factor for recovery 1 month (ß = −0.14) and 6 months (ß = −0.20) after therapy, and time postonset (ß = −0.05) was associated with retention of naming gains at 6 months posttherapy. <strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results suggest that therapy-induced naming improvement is predictable based on several easily measurable prognostic factors. Broadly speaking, these results suggest that prognostication procedures in aphasia therapy can be improved and indicate that personalization of therapy is a realistic goal in the near future. <strong>Supplemental Material S1. </strong>Participants’ cognitive-linguistic test scores. Kristinsson, S., Basilakos, A., den Ouden, D. B., Cassarly, C., Spell, L. A., Bonilha, L., Rorden, C., Hillis, A. E., Hickok, G., Johnson, L., Busby, N., Walker, G. M., McLain, A., & Fridriksson, J. (2023). Predicting outcomes of language rehabilitation: Prognostic factors for immediate and long-term outcomes after aphasia therapy. <em>Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 66</em>(3), 1068–1084. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_JSLHR-22-00347
DOI: 10.13026/21mx-7p04
title: CogWear: Can we detect cognitive effort with consumer-grade wearables?

description: The CogWear database consists of two datasets: pilot and survey gamification
experiment. The pilot dataset includes physiological signals from 11
volunteers captured by three wearable devices (Empatica E4 watch, Samsung
Galaxy Watch4 and Muse S EEG headband) during cognitively demanding task
(Stroop test) and baseline condition (no engagement in any activity). The
pilot dataset was collected to evaluate the experimental setup and the signal
captured by the wearables. In particular, can we detect when people perform a
cognitively demanding task using data from consumer-grade smartwatches. The
survey gamification experiment dataset includes physiological signal collected
from 13 volunteers by three wearable devices (Empatica E4 watch, Samsung
Galaxy Watch4 and Muse S EEG headband) during two sessions. In both sessions
participants, as in the pilot study, engaged in a cognitively demanding task
then rested and did not perform any tasks and finally filled in four mobile
surveys related to work and wellbeing (GRIT, PANAS, HAPPINES and NFR). The
mobile surveys were either gamified or not.  The volunteers were divided into
two groups: group 1 filled in gamified surveys in the first session and non-
gamified surveys in the second session, group 2 had the opposite order. There
was a two-week break time between the sessions. This dataset was captured to
investigate whether simple gamification has an impact on the cognitive burden
of filling in the surveys [13].
DOI: 10.13026/5f6t-b637
title: CogWear: Can we detect cognitive effort with consumer-grade wearables?

description: The CogWear database consists of two datasets: pilot and survey gamification
experiment. The pilot dataset includes physiological signals from 11
volunteers captured by three wearable devices (Empatica E4 watch, Samsung
Galaxy Watch4 and Muse S EEG headband) during cognitively demanding task
(Stroop test) and baseline condition (no engagement in any activity). The
pilot dataset was collected to evaluate the experimental setup and the signal
captured by the wearables. In particular, can we detect when people perform a
cognitively demanding task using data from consumer-grade smartwatches. The
survey gamification experiment dataset includes physiological signal collected
from 13 volunteers by three wearable devices (Empatica E4 watch, Samsung
Galaxy Watch4 and Muse S EEG headband) during two sessions. In both sessions
participants, as in the pilot study, engaged in a cognitively demanding task
then rested and did not perform any tasks and finally filled in four mobile
surveys related to work and wellbeing (GRIT, PANAS, HAPPINES and NFR). The
mobile surveys were either gamified or not.  The volunteers were divided into
two groups: group 1 filled in gamified surveys in the first session and non-
gamified surveys in the second session, group 2 had the opposite order. There
was a two-week break time between the sessions. This dataset was captured to
investigate whether simple gamification has an impact on the cognitive burden
of filling in the surveys [13].
DOI: 10.13026/0mb3-4c08
title: SCG-RHC: Wearable Seismocardiogram Signal and Right Heart Catheter Database

description: We are providing an open access dataset of 73 patients to study better ways to
monitor changes in pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP) and pulmonary capillary
wedge pressure (PCWP) using a small, non-invasive, chest-worn wearable patch.
The ground truth PAP and PCWP were measured using pulmonary artery wedge
catheter during the standard Right Heart Catheter (RHC) procedure, and they
were modulated by infusing systemic vasodilators. The wearable data including
electrocardiogram (ECG) and tri-axial seismocardiogram (SCG) were also
measured simultaneously and time synchronized to the ground truth data.
Besides waveform records, this dataset also contains demographic data such as
sex, age, weight, height, heart failure status, etc.) and other RHC values
such as right atrial pressure, right ventricular pressure, stroke volume, and
cardiac output.
DOI: 10.13026/133d-pk11
title: SCG-RHC: Wearable Seismocardiogram Signal and Right Heart Catheter Database

description: We are providing an open access dataset of 73 patients to study better ways to
monitor changes in pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP) and pulmonary capillary
wedge pressure (PCWP) using a small, non-invasive, chest-worn wearable patch.
The ground truth PAP and PCWP were measured using pulmonary artery wedge
catheter during the standard Right Heart Catheter (RHC) procedure, and they
were modulated by infusing systemic vasodilators. The wearable data including
electrocardiogram (ECG) and tri-axial seismocardiogram (SCG) were also
measured simultaneously and time synchronized to the ground truth data.
Besides waveform records, this dataset also contains demographic data such as
sex, age, weight, height, heart failure status, etc.) and other RHC values
such as right atrial pressure, right ventricular pressure, stroke volume, and
cardiac output.
DOI: 10.23641/asha.21498618
title: Evaluating different scoring systems (Hendricks et al., 2023)

description: <strong>Purpose:</strong> Measures of grammatical accuracy are effective measures of children’s language skills. However, many measures, such as percent grammatical utterances, were developed for children who speak General American English (GAE) and, therefore, may not be appropriate for students who speak other dialects. This study examines different scoring systems for a picture description task to explore the impact of different systems for children who speak African American English (AAE). <strong>Method: </strong>Eighteen preschool-age children who speak AAE completed a play-based language sample and a picture description task. The Index of Productive Syntax (IPSyn) was calculated for the play-based language samples and used as the reference measure. The picture description task was scored using four scoring systems: an expansive AAE scoring system, a GAE scoring system, and two strategic scoring systems. Scores were compared for each scoring system, and correlations between IPSyn scores and picture description scores were conducted. <strong>Results:</strong> Scores on the picture description task were highest in the expansive AAE scoring system, followed by scores in the strategic scoring systems, all of which were higher than scores in the GAE scoring system. There was a significant correlation between IPSyn scores and picture description scores when using the GAE scoring system and the strategic scoring systems, but not when using the expansive AAE scoring system. <strong>Conclusions:</strong> Different scoring systems affect AAE-speaking preschoolers’ scores on measures of grammatical accuracy, and the use of an expansive AAE scoring system, based on lists of nonmainstream features, may diminish the ability to differentiate between children with different ability levels. Future research is needed to refine scoring systems and to explore the validity of different scoring systems for detecting differences between preschoolers who speak AAE, with and without developmental language disorder. <strong>Supplemental Material S1. </strong>Dialect density for each child in the play-based sample and the picture description task. Hendricks, A. E., Jerard, J., & Guo, L.-Y. (2023). Evaluating different scoring systems for a picture description task among preschool children who speak African American English. <em>Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 54</em>(1), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_LSHSS-21-00189
DOI: 10.23641/asha.21498618.v2
title: Evaluating different scoring systems (Hendricks et al., 2023)

description: <strong>Purpose:</strong> Measures of grammatical accuracy are effective measures of children’s language skills. However, many measures, such as percent grammatical utterances, were developed for children who speak General American English (GAE) and, therefore, may not be appropriate for students who speak other dialects. This study examines different scoring systems for a picture description task to explore the impact of different systems for children who speak African American English (AAE). <strong>Method: </strong>Eighteen preschool-age children who speak AAE completed a play-based language sample and a picture description task. The Index of Productive Syntax (IPSyn) was calculated for the play-based language samples and used as the reference measure. The picture description task was scored using four scoring systems: an expansive AAE scoring system, a GAE scoring system, and two strategic scoring systems. Scores were compared for each scoring system, and correlations between IPSyn scores and picture description scores were conducted. <strong>Results:</strong> Scores on the picture description task were highest in the expansive AAE scoring system, followed by scores in the strategic scoring systems, all of which were higher than scores in the GAE scoring system. There was a significant correlation between IPSyn scores and picture description scores when using the GAE scoring system and the strategic scoring systems, but not when using the expansive AAE scoring system. <strong>Conclusions:</strong> Different scoring systems affect AAE-speaking preschoolers’ scores on measures of grammatical accuracy, and the use of an expansive AAE scoring system, based on lists of nonmainstream features, may diminish the ability to differentiate between children with different ability levels. Future research is needed to refine scoring systems and to explore the validity of different scoring systems for detecting differences between preschoolers who speak AAE, with and without developmental language disorder. <strong>Supplemental Material S1. </strong>Dialect density for each child in the play-based sample and the picture description task. Hendricks, A. E., Jerard, J., & Guo, L.-Y. (2023). Evaluating different scoring systems for a picture description task among preschool children who speak African American English. <em>Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 54</em>(1), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_LSHSS-21-00189
DOI: 10.23641/asha.21498618.v1
title: Evaluating different scoring systems (Hendricks et al., 2022)

description: <strong>Purpose:</strong> Measures of grammatical accuracy are effective measures of children’s language skills. However, many measures, such as percent grammatical utterances, were developed for children who speak General American English (GAE) and, therefore, may not be appropriate for students who speak other dialects. This study examines different scoring systems for a picture description task to explore the impact of different systems for children who speak African American English (AAE). <strong>Method: </strong>Eighteen preschool-age children who speak AAE completed a play-based language sample and a picture description task. The Index of Productive Syntax (IPSyn) was calculated for the play-based language samples and used as the reference measure. The picture description task was scored using four scoring systems: an expansive AAE scoring system, a GAE scoring system, and two strategic scoring systems. Scores were compared for each scoring system, and correlations between IPSyn scores and picture description scores were conducted. <strong>Results:</strong> Scores on the picture description task were highest in the expansive AAE scoring system, followed by scores in the strategic scoring systems, all of which were higher than scores in the GAE scoring system. There was a significant correlation between IPSyn scores and picture description scores when using the GAE scoring system and the strategic scoring systems, but not when using the expansive AAE scoring system. <strong>Conclusions:</strong> Different scoring systems affect AAE-speaking preschoolers’ scores on measures of grammatical accuracy, and the use of an expansive AAE scoring system, based on lists of nonmainstream features, may diminish the ability to differentiate between children with different ability levels. Future research is needed to refine scoring systems and to explore the validity of different scoring systems for detecting differences between preschoolers who speak AAE, with and without developmental language disorder. <strong>Supplemental Material S1. </strong>Dialect density for each child in the play-based sample and the picture description task. Hendricks, A. E., Jerard, J., & Guo, L.-Y. (2022). Evaluating different scoring systems for a picture description task among preschool children who speak African American English. <em>Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools</em>. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_LSHSS-21-00189
DOI: 10.23641/asha.21644846
title: Caregiver experiences with oral bilingualism (Benítez-Barrera et al., 2023)

description: <strong>Purpose: </strong>Best practices recommend promoting the use of the home language and allowing caregivers to choose the language(s) that they want to use with their child who is deaf or hard of hearing (DHH). We examined whether Spanish-speaking caregivers of children who are DHH receive professional recommendations on oral bilingualism that follow best practices. We also assessed whether professional recommendations, caregiver beliefs, and language practices had an impact on child language(s) proficiency. <strong>Method: </strong>Sixty caregivers completed a questionnaire on demographic questions, language(s) use and recommendations, beliefs on bilingualism, and child language proficiency measures in English, Spanish, and American Sign Language (ASL). Professional recommendations on oral bilingualism were reported descriptively, and linear regression was used to identify the predictors of child language(s) proficiency. <strong>Results: </strong>We found that only 23.3% of the caregivers were actively encouraged to raise their child orally bilingual. Language practices predicted child proficiency in each language (English, Spanish, and ASL), but professional recommendations and caregiver beliefs did not. <strong>Conclusions:</strong> Our results revealed that most caregivers received recommendations that do not follow current best practices. Professional training is still needed to promote bilingualism and increase cultural competence when providing services to caregivers who speak languages different from English. <strong>Supplemental Material S1.</strong> Survey items and response scoring. Benítez-Barrera, C., Reiss, L., Majid, M., Chau, T., Wilson, J., Rico, E. F., Bunta, F., Raphael, R. M., & de Diego-Lázaro, B. (2023). Caregiver experiences with oral bilingualism in children who are deaf and hard of hearing in the United States: Impact on child language proficiency. <em>Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 54</em>(1), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_LSHSS-22-00095