ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2022
Effect of Working Memory Load and Typicality on Semantic Processing in Aphasia.
Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- What electrodes can be used to measure mu rhythm (de)synchronization in the context of speech comprehension studies? An insight from theoretical analysis.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- One Size Does Not Fit All: Examining the Effects of Working Memory Capacity on Spoken Word Recognition in Older Adults Using Eye Tracking.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Treatment of the Linguistic and Temporal Components of Lexical Activation to Improve Word Retrieval in Aphasia.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluated the effects of a linguistic characteristic, typicality, and a processing variable, working memory on the abilities of people with aphasia (PWA) and neurologically intact adults to process semantic representations. This was accomplished using a newly developed assessment task, the Category Typicality Test, which was created for the Temple Assessment of Language and Short-Term Memory in Aphasia.
methodA post hoc quasi-experimental design was used. Participants included 27 PWA and 14 neurologically intact adults who completed the picture and word versions of the Category Typicality Test, which required them to determine if two items are in the same category. Memory load was altered by increasing the number of items to be compared, and the typicality of items was altered to increase linguistic complexity.
resultsA four-way mixed analysis of covariance was conducted. There was a significant interaction between working memory load and category typicality with performance accuracy decreasing as working memory load increased and category typicality decreased. There was also a significant interaction for typicality and stimuli with better performance in the picture condition and a significant interaction for working memory and group with lower performance accuracy for PWA. Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed differences between memory load, typicality, stimuli conditions, and group. PWA also showed greater magnitude of change than neurologically intact adults when comparing high and low working memory load conditions, but not typicality conditions. DISCUSSION: Increasing working memory load had the most substantial impact on the accuracy of category judgments in PWA, but the interaction between increased working memory load and decreased category typicality of items to be compared resulted in reduced accuracy in both groups. These findings suggest that manipulation of processing and linguistic variables in assessment will provide insight into the nature of linguistic breakdown in aphasia. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14781996.
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.