As documented by Chapman [ 154, 155] some patients will present a loss, possibly a subtle loss, of coherence in verbal production.
Varanda (2011) did a research to assess ten subjects diagnosed with autism in syntactic awareness, central coherence, non-verbal intelligence, social and communicative development, and patterns of behavior and interests to verify the probable relationship among these variables and to detect probable linguistic profiles related to syntactic awareness.
These two studies had the aim to test the previous hypothesis that there would be a relationship between syntactic awareness and central coherence, non-verbal intelligence, social and communicative development, as well as development of behaviors and interests and to test the hypothesis that there would be varied linguistic profiles concerning syntax among subjects with autism.
It was proposed that visual explanations would be more effective than verbal explanations because they encourage completeness and coherence, are more explicit, and are typically multimodal.
Rules for community coherence Sharing of the same archetype and verbal interactions, on site, between actors involved.
Latent semantic analysis (LSA) of language-based communication such as design documentation corpora and verbal communication reveals, from the local co-occurrence of vocabulary, coherence of thought and the formation of a socially held representation of the designed artefact.
An assessment of verbal fluency was associated with Factor 6 (Articulation) and CCC – coherence 9y (p<0.001).
Participants started with a practice session with initial coherence level of 70 90% (see 'Results' section for details) and a verbal explanation.
There are several notable differences between visual and verbal explanations; visual explanations map thought more directly than words and provide checks for completeness and coherence as well as a platform for inference, notably from structure to process.
