Face-to-Face Communication in Aphasia: The Influence of Conversation Partner Familiarity on a Collaborative Communication Task
Doedens, W., Bose, A., Lambert, L., & Meteyard, L. (2021). Face-to-Face Communication in Aphasia: The Influence of Conversation Partner Familiarity on a Collaborative Communication Task. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 90.
A proof of principle study into functional communication in Aphasia. We wanted to know if we could use existing empirical methods (language games / collaborative communication tasks) to study and quantify functional communication for People with Aphasia. Little is known about the influence of environmental factors on everyday communication for people with aphasia (PWA). It is generally assumed that for PWA speaking to a familiar person (i.e. with shared experiences and knowledge) is easier than speaking to a stranger (Howard, Swinburn, and Porter). This assumption is in line with existing psycholinguistic theories of common ground (Clark, 1996), but there is little empirical data to support this assumption. The current study investigated whether PWA benefit from conversation partner (CP) familiarity during goal-directed communication, and how this effect compared to a group of neurologically healthy controls (NHC). Sixteen PWA with mild to severe aphasia, sixteen matched NHC, plus self-selected familiar CPs participated. Pairs were videotaped while completing a collaborative communication task. Pairs faced identical Playmobile rooms: the view of the other’s room was blocked. Listeners attempted to replicate the 5-item set-up in the instructor’s room. Roles were swapped for each trial. For the unfamiliar condition, participants were paired with another participant’s CP. The outcomes were canonical measures of communicative efficiency (i.e. accuracy, time to complete, etc.). Results show that conversation partner familiarity significantly affected communication for PWA dyads on a familiar task. PWA showed practice effects on the communication task, with quicker trial times for unfamiliar NHC (who they worked with second). In the instructor role, PWA showed faster trial times with the unfamiliar partner, but similar accuracy scores in both conditions. NHC, on the other hand, showed similar trial times across CPs, but higher accuracy scores with the unfamiliar partner. In the listener role, PWA showed a pattern more similar to NHC: equal trial times across conditions, and an improvement in accuracy scores with the unfamiliar partner.
Best practice guidance for linear mixed-effects models in psychological science
Meteyard, L., & Davies, R. A. (2020). Best practice guidance for linear mixed-effects models in psychological science. Journal of Memory and Language, 112, 104092. DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2020.104092
The culmination of 5 years' work, with Rob Davies (Lancaster, UK). The use of Linear Mixed-effects Models (LMMs) is set to dominate statistical analyses in psychological science and may become the default approach to analyzing quantitative data. We examined the diversity in how LMMs are used and applied using two methods – a survey of researchers (n = 163) and a quasi-systematic review of papers using LMMs (n = 400). The survey revealed substantive concerns among psychologists using or planning to use LMMs and an absence of agreed standards. The review of papers complemented the survey. Most worryingly, we found huge variation in how models were reported, making meta-analysis or replication near impossible. Using these data as our departure point, we present a set of best practice guidance focusing on the reporting of LMMs. We review and discuss current best practice approaches, and provide easy to read summaries (in a table and in bullet points), and example tables for reporting model comparisons and results.