Home › Research › Digital health tools
Empty speech in Alzheimer's disease and fluent aphasia
Nicholas M, Obler LK, Albert ML, Helm-Estabrooks N.. Journal of speech and hearing research, 1985-09-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Fourteen measures of empty speech during a picture description task were examined in four subject groups--patients with Alzheimer's dementia, Wernicke's aphasias, anomic aphasias, and normal controls--to discover if these groups could be distinguished on the basis of their discourse. Patients with Alzheimer's dementia were distinguished from patients with Wernicke's aphasia by producing more empty phrases and conjunctions, whereas patients with Wernicke's aphasia produced more neologisms, and verbal and literal paraphasias. The demented patients shared many empty speech characteristics with patients with anomic aphasia. Naming deficits, as measured by confrontation naming tasks, did not correlate with empty discourse production. Our findings may be useful clinically for distinguishing these different patient groups.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Nicholas, M., Obler, L. K., Albert, M. L., & Helm-Estabrooks, N. (1985). Empty speech in Alzheimer's disease and fluent aphasia. Journal of speech and hearing research. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.2803.405
Vancouver
Nicholas M, Obler LK, Albert ML, Helm-Estabrooks N. Empty speech in Alzheimer's disease and fluent aphasia. Journal of speech and hearing research. 1985. doi:10.1044/jshr.2803.405. PMID: 4046581.
BibTeX
@article{nicholas1985-4046581,
author = {Nicholas, M. and Obler, L. K. and Albert, M. L. and Helm-Estabrooks, N.},
title = {{Empty speech in Alzheimer's disease and fluent aphasia}},
journal = {Journal of speech and hearing research},
year = {1985},
doi = {10.1044/jshr.2803.405},
pmid = {4046581},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.2803.405}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Our findings may be useful clinically for distinguishing these different patient groups.
Why it matters
This study compared empty speech during picture description in patients with Alzheimer's dementia, Wernicke's aphasia, anomic aphasia, and normal controls, finding that Alzheimer's patients produced more empty phrases and conjunctions than Wernicke's patients. The findings are described as potentially useful clinically for distinguishing patient groups, not for treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, so that was left out: it earned 39 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of speech and hearing research) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 1985 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 6 / 7 | Cited 305 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 2 / 5 | 7.1 citations a year over 43 year(s) since 1985 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 4.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 2 / 6 | Cited by 6 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 2 / 4 | Cited 34 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Nancy Helm‐Estabrooks: h-index 31 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | Boston University: institution h-index 1,456 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 4046581) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 39 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Later studies that cite this one
6 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.
Related studies in Digital health tools
Also in Digital health tools
178 studies in the library are filed under Digital health tools with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Digital health tools hub.