Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
This study examined the effects of supplemental cues on the intelligibility of unrelated sentences and related sentences (narratives) produced by 4 women with severe dysarthria secondary to cerebral palsy. Visual images containing alphabet, topic, combined (alphabet and topic together), and no cues were imposed in real time on audio speech samples and presented to 72 nondisabled listeners. Statistical results showed that cue conditions had similar effects on unrelated and on related sentence intelligibility. Combined cues resulted in higher intelligibility scores than any other cue condition, no cues resulted in lower intelligibility scores than any other cue condition, and alphabet cues yielded higher intelligibility scores than topic cues. Intelligibility of related and unrelated sentences differed only for alphabet cues where related sentences had greater intelligibility than unrelated sentences. Results are discussed relative to the quantity and type of cues.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2001/039) | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!