ライフサイエンスコーパス: fluent

1 Participants included English-fluent adults (21 years or older), without prior MBT or

2 ur diverse US centers with patients (English-fluent, aged >=70 years, CKD stages 4-5, nondialysis) fr

3 imary progressive aphasia and 10 had the non-fluent agrammatic variant of primary progressive aphasia

4 has a clear neuroanatomical profile, the non-fluent/agrammatic and logopenic variants are difficult t

5 rticularly for the non-fluent/agrammatic non-fluent/agrammatic and logopenic variants.

6 ias, with three main variants: semantic, non-fluent/agrammatic and logopenic.

7 at these are noisy, particularly for the non-fluent/agrammatic non-fluent/agrammatic and logopenic va

8 morphometry longitudinal analysis on 34 non-fluent/agrammatic patients.

9 variant (n = 14, age = 61 +/- 9 years), non-fluent/agrammatic variant (n = 12, age = 71 +/- 8 years)

10 rontal aslant tract of patients with the non-fluent/agrammatic variant and in the uncinate fasciculus

11 The non-fluent/agrammatic variant demonstrated diverse associati

12 The non-fluent/agrammatic variant of primary progressive aphasia

13 longitudinal grey matter changes in the non-fluent/agrammatic variant of primary progressive aphasia

14 longitudinal atrophy progression in the non-fluent/agrammatic variant of primary progressive aphasia

15 The syndrome-specific epicentre of the non-fluent/agrammatic variant of primary progressive aphasia

16 s an essential supporting feature of the non-fluent/agrammatic variant of primary progressive aphasia

17 The non-fluent/agrammatic variant of primary progressive aphasia

18 clinical spectrum, traditionally termed non-fluent/agrammatic variant primary progressive aphasia (n

19 main subtypes: behavioural-variant FTD, non-fluent/agrammatic variant primary progressive aphasia an

20 t longitudinal progression of atrophy in non-fluent/agrammatic variant primary progressive aphasia sp

21 yndromes of primary progressive aphasia (non-fluent/agrammatic variant primary progressive aphasia; s

22 a (eight with semantic variant, six with non-fluent/agrammatic variant, and four with logopenic varia

23 rior frontal cortex in patients with the non-fluent/agrammatic variant, and within the left temporo-p

24 ts representing all major PPA syndromes (non-fluent/agrammatic variant, nfvPPA; logopenic variant, lv

25 ixed associations with the logopenic and non-fluent/agrammatic variants.

26 ical presentations, including logopenic, non-fluent/agrammatic, and semantic variants.

27 l three main variants (semantic, n = 94; non-fluent/agrammatic, n = 109; logopenic, n = 51) and indiv

28 ataset of 66 patients (semantic, n = 37; non-fluent/agrammatic, n = 29) from the ARTFL LEFFTDS Longit

29 that encompasses three major phenotypes: non-fluent/agrammatic, semantic and logopenic.

30 we argue that highly efficient skills (i.e., fluent and highly accurate, "automatic," performance) ca

31 The aphasic presentations include both fluent and non-fluent aphasic syndromes.

32 otypical adults, patients with aphasia, both fluent and non-fluent, showed reduction in the quantity

33 se competencies are implicit and permit more fluent and nuanced behavior than explicit models.

34 poral dementia (FTD) (behavioural-bvFTD, non-fluent and semantic) and healthy controls.

35 Significant deficits in the non-fluent and the semantic variant remained after partialli

36 vioural variant frontotemporal dementia, non-fluent, and semantic variants of primary progressive aph

37 s disease (45% of cases) and progressive non-fluent aphasia (25% of cases).

38 c dementia (SD) and six with progressive non-fluent aphasia (PA), as compared to 28 individuals with

39 totemporal dementia (bvFTD), progressive non-fluent aphasia (PNFA) (or a mixed aphasia) and semantic

40 ontotemporal dementia (FTD), progressive non-fluent aphasia (PNFA) and semantic dementia.

41 The speech of patients with progressive non-fluent aphasia (PNFA) has often been described clinicall

42 Progressive non-fluent aphasia (PNFA) is a syndrome in which patients lo

43 D and the other in a case of progressive non-fluent aphasia (PNFA) without any apparent family histor

44 combination of word comprehension deficits, fluent aphasia and a particularly severe anomia.

45 atively modality specific in progressive non-fluent aphasia and part of a more severe generic semanti

46 processing occurred in both progressive non-fluent aphasia and semantic dementia, and deficits of se

47 tical auditory processing in progressive non-fluent aphasia and semantic dementia, respectively.

48 All patients developed a progressive non-fluent aphasia culminating in some cases in complete mut

49 tegories based on the traditional fluent/non-fluent aphasia distinction.

50 Non-fluent aphasia implies a relatively straightforward neur

51 impairment that was either a progressive non-fluent aphasia or decreased speech output consistent wit

52 rpersonal functioning, and patients with non-fluent aphasia overestimated emotional and interpersonal

53 f ARHGAP35 and SERPINA1 with progressive non-fluent aphasia point towards a potential role of the str

54 ral technique that enables patients with non-fluent aphasia to speak fluently.

55 Progressive non-fluent aphasia was most commonly associated with tau pat

56 tia and, with one exception, progressive non-fluent aphasia were associated with transactive response

57 Patients with progressive non-fluent aphasia were more likely to show severe auditory

58 , corticobasal syndrome, and progressive non-fluent aphasia) localize to different disease-specific b

59 iant FTD, semantic dementia, progressive non-fluent aphasia, and FTD overlapping with motor neuron di

60 with frontotemporal dementia, including non-fluent aphasia, apathy and impulsivity.

61 analysis were more common in progressive non-fluent aphasia, deficits of apperceptive processing occu

62 In patients with progressive non-fluent aphasia, recent work has emphasized an impairment

63 ith frontotemporal dementia, progressive non-fluent aphasia, semantic dementia or mixture of these sy

64 sions in areas typically associated with non-fluent aphasia, such as the superior longitudinal fascic

65 a clearer picture of cortical damage in non-fluent aphasia, the current study examined brain damage

66 continuous variation within progressive non-fluent aphasia.

67 speech entrainment for rehabilitation of non-fluent aphasia.

68 ntrainment varies among individuals with non-fluent aphasia.

69 d ARHGAP35 and SERPINA1 with progressive non-fluent aphasia.

70 al aphasia, the two most common kinds of non-fluent aphasia.

71 tical lesion location that gives rise to non-fluent aphasia.

72 ontal features and three had progressive non-fluent aphasia.

73 progressive aphasia [12 with progressive non-fluent aphasia; eight with semantic dementia].

74 ent aphasic speech; when they are undamaged, fluent aphasias result.

75 ) whose clinical profile did not include non-fluent aphasic features.

76 put, damage to those regions results in non-fluent aphasic speech; when they are undamaged, fluent a

77 ic presentations include both fluent and non-fluent aphasic syndromes.

78 ional neuroimaging work with progressive non-fluent aphasics, compared directly to non-aphasic patien

79 The increasingly fluent application of novel rule representations was cha

80 he rapid transformation of instructions into fluent behaviour.

81 tin-positive, tau-negative inclusions in the fluent cases (8 of 15).

82 interventions that help every child become a fluent, comprehending reader.

83 of the attunement process that enables such fluent comprehension.

84 rly engaged with the quantity and quality of fluent connected speech production while controlling for

85 LLMs are prone to produce hallucinations, or fluent content that appears reasonable and genuine but t

86 strengthening sensory feedback to allow more fluent control.

87 est that chunking is a prerequisite for more fluent counting which influences automatic processing (<

88 ile human translation is still rated as more fluent, CUBBITT is shown to be substantially more fluent

89 BioGPT on biomedical literature to generate fluent descriptions for biomedical terms.

90 tected between groups when all subjects were fluent-during both language formulation and non-linguist

91 older, less than 30 weeks' gestation, and a fluent English or Spanish speaker.

92 The device was simulated in Ansys Fluent for five cycles at pumping rates of 60, 80, 100 a

93 his profile is different to that seen in the fluent form of primary progressive aphasia (fPPA), a neu

94 Language models can produce fluent, grammatical text.

95 Lastly, the non-fluent group showed no increase in learning disability o

96 rization processing and extended (in the non-fluent group) to brainstem effector pathways.

97 inguishing feature of Broca's aphasia is non-fluent halting speech typically involving one to three w

98 been dichotomized simply as 'fluent' or 'non-fluent', however fluency is a multidimensional construct

99 infarction, oriented, mentally competent and fluent in Arabic.

100 visual acuity and hearing preinjury, and are fluent in either English or Spanish.

101 six 10th-grade high school students who were fluent in English and free of chronic illnesses.

102 s at 1 year after bariatric surgery who were fluent in English and had access to a telephone and the

103 nal study included adults with acne who were fluent in English and treated at an outpatient clinic at

104 in catchment areas with a biological parent fluent in English or Spanish were enrolled from January

105 ' gestation, not using fertility treatments, fluent in English or Spanish, and available for telephon

106 All participants had normal hearing, were fluent in English, and had access to the operating rooms

107 atients age >/= 65 years with a solid tumor, fluent in English, and who were scheduled to receive a n

108 Participants were aged 18 to 70 years, fluent in English, had computer access, started treatmen

109 current UK resident, aged 18 years or older, fluent in English, purchased supermarket sandwiches and

110 d a self-reported history of self-harm, were fluent in English, were medically fit to interview, and

111 played at least 6 months per year, and were fluent in English.

112 r access to a web-connected device, and were fluent in English.

113 ts (aged >=18 years) with psoriasis who were fluent in English.

114 t-caregiver dyads were 18 years or older and fluent in English.

115 PLHIV were fluent in French and sequentially included during routin

116 ents, compared to 91% of their parents, were fluent in indigenous languages, while the trends in key

117 e to women in remote villages; women who are fluent in Spanish are also more likely to present tricho

118 where the screenings were done and had to be fluent in that community's predominant language.

119 Students become fluent in the universal language of data analysis as the

120 , understand its pathophysiology, and become fluent in treatment options available.

121 sked bilingual research participants, people fluent in two languages (12 language pairs) which differ

122 FoxP2 in the basal ganglia is vital for the fluent initiation and termination of birdsong, as well a

123 ition of song syllables, thus also impairing fluent initiation and termination of birdsong.

124 and a greater likelihood of having achieved fluent language (i.e., regular use of complex sentences)

125 VDG, equipped with fluent language knowledge and being model agnostic, can

126 In the light of current theories of fluent language production, the findings offer anatomica

127 movements and data-efficient recognition of fluent lip language based on wearable motion capture and

128 ndividuals (n = 7) for actual continuous and fluent lip speech recognition for 93 English sentences,

129 dness of Maori-like nonwords just as well as fluent Maori speakers.

130 s (CFD) simulations were performed using the Fluent module embedded within ANSYS, employing the Renor

131 a (n = 77) and the semantic (n = 45) and non-fluent (n = 39) variants of primary progressive aphasia.

132 The study included logopenic (n = 48), non-fluent (n = 54) and semantic (n = 96) variant primary pr

133 criteria divide PPA into three variants: non-fluent (nfvPPA), semantic (svPPA) and logopenic (lvPPA).

134 n tensor imaging in 48 individuals: nine non-fluent, nine semantic, nine logopenic and 21 age-matched

135 Consequently, the networks of more fluent non-native speakers looked more like those of nat

136 60% for categories based on the traditional fluent/non-fluent aphasia distinction.

137 The speech output in PPA can be fluent or nonfluent.

138 were classified as logopenic, agrammatic/non-fluent or semantic by quantitative algorithms.

139 hasia has often been dichotomized simply as 'fluent' or 'non-fluent', however fluency is a multidimen

140 lus double IT arm did, however, exhibit less fluent output and were less effective at modulating thei

141 the metrical structure of sound to construct fluent output, with both being a function of higher-orde

142 of diffusion tensor metrics alterations: non-fluent patients showed the greatest changes in fractiona

143 ges were found in the dorsal pathways in non-fluent patients, in the two ventral pathways and the tem

144 1, P < 0.001) compared with semantic and non-fluent populations.

145 Patients with fluent PPA showed the opposite pattern for both word cla

146 n = 15), fluent primary progressive aphasia (fluent PPA; n = 7), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis wi

147 progressive aphasia (nonfluent PPA; n = 15), fluent primary progressive aphasia (fluent PPA; n = 7),

148 zheimer's disease, semantic dementia and non-fluent primary progressive aphasia (n = 9 each) were con

149 frontal operculum and caudate nucleus in non-fluent primary progressive aphasia (the corticobasal deg

150 1 year follow-up, all participants with non-fluent primary progressive aphasia had evolved either co

151 ration (behavioral variant, semantic and non-fluent primary progressive aphasia) along with associate

152 d behaviorally, early training produced more fluent processing of these stimuli than the same trainin

153 The fluent production of a signed language requires exquisit

154 Fluent reading depends on a complex set of cognitive pro

155 localizes to the regions of the brain where fluent reading occurs, and RNA interference studies show

156 Fluent reading requires the brain to precisely encode th

157 ity is a brain-based difficulty in acquiring fluent reading skills that affects significant numbers o

158 ovea and parafovea simultaneously to support fluent reading.

159 Fluent retrieval and execution of movement sequences is

160 stutter and 32 individuals who are typically fluent revealed significant group differences in maps of

161 /or language, and can be classified into non-fluent, semantic and logopenic variants based on motor s

162 e computational mechanisms allow skilled and fluent sensorimotor behavior.

163 , patients with aphasia, both fluent and non-fluent, showed reduction in the quantity of verbal produ

164 duction, language produced with the hands by fluent signers appears effortless but reflects the preci

165 (n = 33, 4-12 years old) and adult (n = 36) fluent signers of American Sign Language (ASL), and char

166 ment at frontal sites is reduced relative to fluent signers.

167 configurations were simulated by using Ansys Fluent software to quantify the implications on the outd

168 guage, using electroencephalography (EEG) in fluent speakers of American Sign Language (ASL) as they

169 Even verbally fluent speakers with ASD display distinctive qualities i

170 ariant sense to denote a subtype of PPA with fluent speech and impaired comprehension, even in the ab

171 nd insular atrophy; (2) SD, characterized by fluent speech and semantic memory deficits, was associat

172 peech entrainment allows patients to produce fluent speech by providing an external gating mechanism

173 osed that the acquisition and maintenance of fluent speech depend on the rapid temporal integration o

174 provides insight into the mechanisms of non-fluent speech in aphasia and has potential implications

175 The rehabilitation of non-fluent speech in aphasia is particularly challenging as

176 sual speech stimuli enabling them to produce fluent speech in real time.

177 Non-fluent speech is one of the most common impairments in p

178 ng and execution processes needed to achieve fluent speech motor control.

179 Hearing one's own voice is critical for fluent speech production as it allows for the detection

180 terior brain regions and may thus facilitate fluent speech production in individuals who stutter.

181 ic responses over neural regions integral to fluent speech production including inferior frontal gyru

182 The ability to express thoughts through fluent speech production is a most human faculty, one th

183 Fluent speech production is mediated by serially orderin

184 d execution of motor sequences necessary for fluent speech production.

185 ents are rarely able to produce and practice fluent speech production.

186 Production of fluent speech requires the precise, coordinated movement

187 achieve online large-vocabulary intelligible fluent speech synthesis personalized to the participant'

188 By contrasting stuttering with fluent speech using positron emission tomography combine

189 ry-verbal comprehension and repetition, plus fluent speech with jargon.

190 m structures are more likely to achieve more fluent speech with the aid of speech entrainment compare

191 uage acquisition, segmentation of words from fluent speech, can be accomplished by 8-month-old infant

192 five participants were characterized by non-fluent speech, executive dysfunction and dysarthria with

193 a predator, playing the piano, or producing fluent speech.

194 tions for the acquisition and maintenance of fluent speech.

195 ory comprehension with intact repetition and fluent speech.

196 g and production processes characteristic of fluent spelling in non-autistic typists.

197 deoff decisions, numeric information is more fluent than non-numeric information.

198 t, CUBBITT is shown to be substantially more fluent than previous state-of-the-art systems.

199 dynamics simulations were conducted in ANSYS Fluent to optimize the spoiler's height and angle for en

200 specific role for the cerebellum in enabling fluent utterances in persons who stutter.

201 ate a specific role of the cerebellum in the fluent utterances of persons who stutter.

202 shold discriminated Alzheimer's disease, non-fluent variant and logopenic variant primary progressive

203 The semantic and non-fluent variant groups additionally showed complex profil

204 While the non-fluent variant is clinically characterized by a motor sp

205 is may indicate the co-occurrence in the non-fluent variant of a deficit in working memory for audito

206 d cardiac (all syndromes) and pupillary (non-fluent variant only) reactivity.

207 ents including 50 bvFTD, 32 svPPA and 30 non-fluent variant PPA (nfvPPA) cases, and 110 healthy contr

208 ), 20 behavioural variant FTD (bvFTD), 7 non-fluent variant PPA (nfvPPA), 6 semantic variant PPA (svP

209 had language impairments consistent with non-fluent variant PPA while patients with behavioural varia

210 nt frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD n=64), non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia (nfvPPA n=36)

211 primary progressive aphasia (svPPA), 14 non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia (nfvPPA) and

212 We derived the biomarker cascades in non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia (nfvPPA) and

213 primary progressive aphasia (svPPA), (4) non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia (nfvPPA) or (

214 y progressive aphasia (svPPA), five with non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia (nfvPPA)) and

215 our female; 66.9 (7.0) years], nine with non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia [five female;

216 otemporal dementia, semantic variant and non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia, and 46 healt

217 vioural variant frontotemporal dementia, non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia, or semantic

218 Patients with the non-fluent variant showed the most pronounced deficits at th

219 Speech samples in patients with the non-fluent variant were characterized by slow rate, distorti

220 ith the semantic variant and 10 with the non-fluent variant), 28 of whom underwent both 18F-AV-1451 a

221 antic variant, anterior temporal cortex; non-fluent variant, frontal operculum).

222 ctic errors were less common than in the non-fluent variant, while lexical access was less impaired t

223 pecifically in bvFTD, while semantic and non-fluent variants exhibited more focal alterations in limb

224 We asked native speakers of Chinese fluent with English to indicate whether or not pairs of

225 ed deficits including inaccurate and/or less fluent word recognition and poor decoding abilities.

226 terized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition, spelling and decoding abilities