ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2021
Exploring the Complexity of Aphasia With Network Analysis.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lexical Search and Retrieval in Aphasia: A Computational Analysis of Semantic Fluency.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- Comparing the Clique Percolation algorithm to other overlapping community detection algorithms in psychological networks: A Monte Carlo simulation study.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Defining aphasia: Content analysis of six aphasia diagnostic batteries.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2023Article
- The Resilience of the Phonological Network May Have Implications for Developmental and Acquired Disorders.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Complexity of Participation Post-Stroke: Longitudinal Assessment of Community Participation, Positive Affect, Social Support and Functional Independence.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose Aphasia is a complex, neurogenic language disorder, with different aphasia syndromes hallmarked by impairment in fluency, auditory comprehension, naming, and/or repetition. Broad, standardized assessments of language domains and specific language and cognitive assessments provide a holistic impairment profile of a person with aphasia. While many recognize the correlations between assessments, there remains a need to continue understanding the complexity of relationships between assessments for the purpose of better characterization of language impairment profiles of persons with aphasia. We explored the use of network analysis to identify the complex relationships between a variety of language assessments. Method We computed a regularized partial correlation network and a directed acyclic graph network to estimate the relations between different aphasia assessments in 128 persons with aphasia. Results Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Comprehension subtest was the most central assessment in the aphasia symptom network, whereas the Philadelphia Naming Test had the most putative causal influence on other assessments. Additionally, the language assessments segregated into three empirically derived communities denoting phonology, semantics, and syntax. Furthermore, several assessments, including the Philadelphia Naming Test, belonged to multiple communities, suggesting that certain assessments may capture multiple language impairments. Conclusion We discuss the implications of using a network analysis approach for clinical intervention and driving forward novel questions in the field of clinical aphasiology. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16620229.
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.