Hesitations and repair in German

The occurrence of pauses and hesitations in spontaneous speech has been shown to occur systematically, for example, "between sentences, after discourse markers and conjunctions and before accented content words." (Hansson [15]) This is certainly plausible in English, where pauses and hesitations can and often do occur before content words such as nominals, for example, "uh, there's a … man." (Chafe [8]) However, if hesitations are, in fact, evidence of "deciding what to talk about next," (Chafe [8]) then the complex grammatical system of German should render this pausing position precarious, since pre-modifiers must account for the gender of the nominals they modify.In this paper, I present data to test the hypothesis that pre-nominal hesitation patterns in German are dissimilar to those in English. Hesitations in German will be shown, in fact, to occur within noun phrase units. Nevertheless, native speakers most often succeed in supplying a nominal which conforms to the gender indicated by the determiner or pre-modifier. Corrections, or repairs, of infelicitous pre-modifiers indicate that the speaker was unable to supply a nominal of the same gender which the choice of pre-modifier had committed him/her to. The frequency of such repairs is shown to vary according to task, with fewest repairs occurring in elicited speech which allows for linguistic freedom and therefore is most like spontaneous speech. The data sets indicate that among German native speakers, hesitations occurring before noun phrase units (pre-NPU hesitations) indicate deliberation of what to say, while hesitations within or before the head of the noun phrase (pre-NPH hesitations) indicate deliberation of how to say what has already been decided (cf. Chafe [8]).

Testing common nonlinear features in vector nonlinear autoregressive models

This paper studies a special class of vector smooth-transition autoregressive (VSTAR) models that contains common nonlinear features (CNFs), for which we proposed a triangular representation and developed a procedure of testing CNFs in a VSTAR model. We first test a unit root against a stable STAR process for each individual time series and then examine whether CNFs exist in the system by Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test if unit root is rejected in the first step. The LM test has standard Chi-squared asymptotic distribution. The critical values of our unit root tests and small-sample properties of the F form of our LM test are studied by Monte Carlo simulations. We illustrate how to test and model CNFs using the monthly growth of consumption and income data of United States (1985:1 to 2011:11).

Analysis of tapping test results in a test battery for advanced PD patients

Objective: To compare results from various tapping tests with diary responses in advanced PD. Background: A home environment test battery for assessing patient state in advanced PD, consisting of diary assessments and motor tests was constructed for a hand computer with touch screen and mobile communication. The diary questions: 1. walking, 2. time in off , on and dyskinetic states, 3. off at worst, 4. dyskinetic at worst, 5. cramps, and 6. satisfied with function, relate to the recent past. Question 7, self-assessment, allows seven steps from -3 ( very off ) to +3 ( very dyskinetic ) and relate to right now. Tapping tests outline: 8. Alternately tapping two fields (un-cued) with right hand 9. Same as 8 but using left hand 10. Tapping an active field (out of two) following a system-generated rhythm (increasing speed) with the dominant hand 11. Tapping an active field (out of four) that randomly changes location when tapped using the dominant hand Methods: 65 patients (currently on Duodopa, or candidates for this treatment) entered diary responses and performed tapping tests four times per day during one to six periods of seven days length. In total there were 224 test periods and 6039 test occasions. Speed for tapping test 10 was discardedand tests 8 and 9 were combined by taking means. Descriptive statistics were used to present the variation of the test variables in relation to self assessment (question 7). Pearson correlation coefficients between speed and accuracy (percent correct) in tapping tests and diary responses were calculated. Results: Mean compliance (percentage completed test occasions per test period) was 83% and the median was 93%. There were large differences in both mean tapping speed and accuracy between the different self-assessed states. Correlations between diary responses and tapping results were small (-0.2 to 0.3, negative values for off-time and dyskinetic-time that had opposite scale directions). Correlations between tapping results were all positive (0.1 to 0.6). Conclusions: The diary responses and tapping results provided different information. The low correlations can partly be explained by the fact that questions related to the past and by random variability, which could be reduced by taking means over test periods. Both tapping speed and accuracy reflect the motor function of the patient to a large extent.

Self-reported symptoms and motor tests via telemetry in a 36-month levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel infusion trial

Objective To investigate if a home environment test battery can be used to measure effects of Parkinson’s disease (PD) treatment intervention and disease progression. Background Seventy-seven patients diagnosed with advanced PD were recruited in an open longitudinal 36-month study at 10 clinics in Sweden and Norway; 40 of them were treated with levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG) and 37 patients were candidates for switching from oral PD treatment to LCIG. They utilized a mobile device test battery, consisting of self-assessments of symptoms and objective measures of motor function through a set of fine motor tests (tapping and spiral drawings), in their homes. Both the LCIG-naïve and LCIG-non-naïve patients used the test battery four times per day during week-long test periods. Methods Assessments The LCIG-naïve patients used the test battery at baseline (before LCIG), month 0 (first visit; at least 3 months after intraduodenal LCIG), and thereafter quarterly for the first year and biannually for the second and third years. The LCIG-non-naïve patients used the test battery from the first visit, i.e. month 0. Out of the 77 patients, only 65 utilized the test battery; 35 were LCIG-non-naïve and 30 LCIG-naïve. In 20 of the LCIG-naïve patients, assessments with the test battery were available during oral treatment and at least one test period after having started infusion treatment. Three LCIG-naïve patients did not use the test battery at baseline but had at least one test period of assessments thereafter. Hence, n=23 in the LCIG-naïve group. In total, symptom assessments in the full sample (including both patient groups) were collected during 379 test periods and 10079 test occasions. For 369 of these test periods, clinical assessments including UPDRS and PDQ-39 were performed in afternoons at the start of the test periods. The repeated measurements of the test battery were processed and summarized into scores representing patients’ symptom severities over a test period, using statistical methods. Six conceptual dimensions were defined; four subjectively-reported: ‘walking’, ‘satisfied’, ‘dyskinesia’, and ‘off’ and two objectively-measured: ‘tapping’ and ‘spiral’. In addition, an ‘overall test score’ (OTS) was defined to represent the global health condition of the patient during a test period. Statistical methods Change in the test battery scores over time, that is at baseline and follow-up test periods, was assessed with linear mixed-effects models with patient ID as a random effect and test period as a fixed effect of interest. The within-patient variability of OTS was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), for the two patient groups. Correlations between clinical rating scores and test battery scores were assessed using Spearman’s rank correlations (rho). Results In LCIG-naïve patients, mean OTS compared to baseline was significantly improved from the first test period on LCIG treatment until month 24. However, there were no significant changes in mean OTS scores of LCIG-non-naïve patients, except for worse mean OTS at month 36 (p<0.01, n=16). The mean scores of all subjectively-reported dimensions improved significantly throughout the course of the study, except ‘walking’ at month 36 (p=0.41, n=4). However, there were no significant differences in mean scores of objectively-measured dimensions between baseline and other test periods, except improved ‘tapping’ at month 6 and month 36, and ‘spiral’ at month 3 (p<0.05). The LCIG-naïve patients had a higher within-subject variability in their OTS scores (ICC=0.67) compared to LCIG-non-naïve patients (ICC=0.71). The OTS correlated adequately with total UPDRS (rho=0.59) and total PDQ-39 (rho=0.59). Conclusions In this 3-year follow-up study of advanced PD patients treated with LCIG we found that it is possible to monitor PD progression over time using a home environment test battery. The significant improvements in the mean OTS scores indicate that the test battery is able to measure functional improvement with LCIG sustained over at least 24 months.