ArticleBrain communications2020
The verbal, non-verbal and structural bases of functional communication abilities in aphasia.
Article in Brain communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uncovering hidden pathways: structural brain networks under connected speech in post-stroke aphasia.Brain communications · 2026Article
- Clinical and Linguistic Correlates of Functional Communication Abilities After Stroke: A Longitudinal Study.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Effective neural connectivity deficits during speech auditory feedback processing in post-stroke aphasia: An fMRI study.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2025Article
- Early subacute frontal callosal microstructure and language outcomes after stroke.Brain communications · 2025Article
- Evidence from aphasia suggests a bidirectional relationship between inner speech and executive function.Neuropsychologia · 2024Article
- The Adaptation of the Communicative Effectiveness Index (CETI) into Greek: A Reliability and Validity Study.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- The role of cognitive control and naming in aphasia.Biologia futura · 2024Article
- Validation of a Cantonese Version of the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (CANELT): A functional approach.PloS one · 2024Article
- Attention to attention in aphasia - elucidating impairment patterns, modality differences and neural correlates.Neuropsychologia · 2022Article
- Adaptation of The Scenario Test for Greek-speaking people with aphasia: A reliability and validity study.International journal of language & communication disorders · 2022Article
- Assessing executive functions in post-stroke aphasia-utility of verbally based tests.Brain communications · 2022Article
- Estimating the cost and value of functional changes in communication ability following telepractice treatment for aphasia.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The ability to communicate, functionally, after stroke or other types of acquired brain injury is crucial for the person involved and the people around them. Accordingly, assessment of functional communication is increasingly used in large-scale randomized controlled trials as the primary outcome measure. Despite the importance of functional communication abilities to everyday life and their centrality to the measured efficacy of aphasia interventions, there is little knowledge about how commonly used measures of functional communication relate to each other, whether they capture and grade the full range of patients' remaining communication skills and how these abilities relate to the patients' verbal and non-verbal impairments as well as the underpinning lesions. Going beyond language-only factors is essential given that non-verbal abilities can play a crucial role in an individual's ability to communicate effectively. This study, based on a large sample of patients covering the full range and types of post-stroke aphasia, addressed these important, open questions. The investigation combined data from three established measures of functional communication with a thorough assessment of verbal and non-verbal cognition as well as structural neuroimaging. The key findings included: (i) due to floor or ceiling effects, the full range of patients' functional communication abilities was not captured by a single assessment alone, limiting the utility of adopting individual tests as outcome measures in randomized controlled trials; (ii) phonological abilities were most strongly related to all measures of functional communication and (iii) non-verbal cognition was particularly crucial when language production was relatively impaired and other modes of communication were allowed, when patients rated their own communication abilities, and when carers rated patients' basic communication abilities. Finally, in addition to lesion load being significantly related to all measures of functional communication, lesion analyses showed partially overlapping clusters in language regions for the functional communication tests. Moreover, mirroring the findings from the regression analyses, additional regions previously associated with non-verbal cognition emerged for the Scenario Test and for the Patient Communication Outcome after Stroke rating scale. In conclusion, our findings elucidated the cognitive and neural bases of functional communication abilities, which may inform future clinical practice regarding assessments and therapy. In particular, it is necessary to use more than one measure to capture the full range and multifaceted nature of patients' functional communication abilities and a therapeutic focus on non-verbal cognition might have positive effects on this important aspect of activity and participation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.