ライフサイエンスコーパス: fluent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30 Non-fluent aphasia implies a relatively straightforward neur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

46 continuous variation within progressive non-fluent aphasia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

53 he rapid transformation of instructions into fluent behaviour.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

82 1, P < 0.001) compared with semantic and non-fluent populations.

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

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

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

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

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

88 1 year follow-up, all participants with non-fluent primary progressive aphasia had evolved either co

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

90 Fluent reading depends on a complex set of cognitive pro

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

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

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

94 e computational mechanisms allow skilled and fluent sensorimotor behavior.

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

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

97 Even verbally fluent speakers with ASD display distinctive qualities i

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

108 Production of fluent speech requires the precise, coordinated movement

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

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

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

112 ory comprehension with intact repetition and fluent speech.

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

114 tions for the acquisition and maintenance of fluent speech.

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

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

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

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

119 ), 20 behavioural variant FTD (bvFTD), 7 non-fluent variant PPA (nfvPPA), 6 semantic variant PPA (svP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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