Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 1991 Feb;40(2):231-65.
doi: 10.1016/0093-934x(91)90126-l.

A maximum likelihood procedure for the analysis of group and individual data in aphasia research

E Bates  1 , J McDonald, B MacWhinney, M Appelbaum
Affiliations
Comparative Study

A maximum likelihood procedure for the analysis of group and individual data in aphasia research

E Bates et al. Brain Lang. 1991 Feb.

Abstract

The limitations inherent in group versus case studies appear to lie in a complementary distribution, underscoring the importance of combining both strategies within a single research program. However, this compromise approach requires analytic tools that permit us to combine and evaluate individual and group data in a common format. Maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) belongs to a family of procedures for determining goodness of fit. MLE can be used in conjunction with a linear or nonlinear model of the way that sources of information combine to determine a given behavioral outcome; such models can be used to estimate the distance between two groups, the degree to which an individual case deviates from a given empirically or theoretically defined group profile, and the degree to which one individual case resembles another. We offer a demonstration of how MLE can be used to evaluate group and individual profiles, in a cross-linguistic study of sentence comprehension in nonfluent aphasic speakers of English, Italian, and German. This includes a demonstration in which the MLE models for each language are "lesioned" to simulate several competing accounts of receptive agrammatism.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Hypothetical distribution for two patients against measures with markedly different standard deviations.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Hypothetical linear and nonlinear distributions between performance and capacity.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Main effect for type of aphasia model.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
Patient language by aphasia model interaction.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Badecker W, & Caramazza A 1985. On considerations of method and theory governing the use of clinical categories in neurolinguistics and cognitive neuropsychology: The case against agrammatism. Cognition, 20, 97–125. - PubMed
    1. Badecker W, & Caramazza A 1986. A final brief in the case against agrammatism: The role of theory in the selection of data. Cognition, 24, 277–282. - PubMed
    1. Basso A, Capitani E, Laiacona M, & Luzzatti C 1980. Sex differences in recovery from aphasia. Cortex, 16, 631–636. - PubMed
    1. Basso A, Capitani E, & Vignolo L 1979. Influence of rehabilitation on language skills in aphasic patients: A controlled study. Archives of Neurology, 36, 190–196. - PubMed
    1. Bates E, Friederici A, & Wulfeck B 1987. Comprehension in aphasia: A crosslinguistic study. Brain and Language, 32, 19–67. - PubMed

Publication types