Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35318784›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of language & communication disorders2022

Verbal fluency difficulties in aphasia: A combination of lexical and executive control deficits.

Arpita Bose, Abhijeet Patra, Georgia Eleftheria Antoniou, Rachael C Stickland, Eva Belke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of language & communication disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Lexical Search and Retrieval in Aphasia: A Computational Analysis of Semantic Fluency.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Rapid Lexical Retrieval and Executive Functioning in Very Mild Aphasia.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Optimizing Detection of Very Mild Aphasia With Letter Fluency Tests.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Verbal fluency difficulties in aphasia: A combination of lexical and executive control deficits.International journal of language & communication disorders · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Arpita BoseSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0193-5292
Abhijeet PatraSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2569-100X
Georgia Eleftheria AntoniouSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK.
Rachael C SticklandSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK.
Eva BelkeRuhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVerbal fluency tasks are routinely used in clinical assessment and research studies of aphasia. People with aphasia produce fewer items in verbal fluency tasks. It remains unclear if their output is limited solely by their lexical difficulties and/or has a basis in their executive control abilities. Recent research has illustrated that detailed characterization of verbal fluency performance using temporal characteristics of words retrieved, clustering and switching, and pause durations, along with separate measures of executive control stands to inform our understanding of the lexical and cognitive underpinnings of verbal fluency in aphasia.

aimsTo determine the locus of the verbal fluency difficulties in aphasia, we compared semantic and letter fluency trials between people with aphasia and healthy control participants using a wide range of variables to capture the performance between the two groups. The groups were also tested on separate measures of executive control to determine the relationship amongst these tasks and fluency performance. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Semantic (animal) and letter (F, A, S) fluency data for 60s trials were collected from 14 people with aphasia (PWA) and 24 healthy adult controls (HC). Variables, such as number of correct responses, clustering and switching analyses, were performed along with temporal measures of the retrieved words (response latencies) and pause durations. Participants performed executive control tasks to measure inhibitory control, mental-set shifting and memory span. OUTCOMES &

resultsCompared with HC, PWA produced fewer correct responses, showed greater difficulty with the letter fluency condition, were slower in getting started with the trials, showed slower retrieval times as noted in within- and between-cluster pause durations, and switched less often. Despite these retrieval difficulties, PWA showed a similar decline in the rate of recall to HC, and had similar cluster size. Executive control measures correlated primarily with the letter fluency variables: mostly for PWA and in one instance for HC. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Poorer performance for PWA is a combination of difficulties in both the lexical and executive components of the verbal fluency task. Our findings highlight the importance of detailed characterization of fluency performance in deciphering the underlying mechanism of retrieval difficulties in aphasia, and illustrate the importance of using letter fluency trials to tap into executive control processes. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject PWA typically show impaired performance in verbal fluency tasks. It is debated whether this impaired performance is a result of their lexical difficulties or executive control difficulties, or a combination of both. This debate continues because previous studies have mostly used semantic fluency condition without including letter fluency condition; used a limited range of variables (e.g., number of correct responses); and not included separate executive control measures to explain the performance pattern in aphasia. This research addresses these outstanding issues to determine the specific contribution of lexical and executive control processes in verbal fluency in aphasia by including: both semantic and letter fluency conditions; a wide range of variables to identify the relative contribution of lexical and executive control mechanisms; and independent measures of executive control. What this paper adds to existing knowledge Using the multidimensional analysis approach for verbal fluency performance from both semantic and letter fluency conditions, this is the first study to systematically demonstrate that PWA had difficulties in both lexical and executive control components of the task. At the individual level, PWA had greater difficulty on the letter fluency condition compared with semantic fluency. We observed significant correlations between the executive control measures and verbal fluency measures primarily for the letter fluency condition. This research makes a significant contribution to our understanding of lexical and executive control aspects in word production in aphasia. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? From a clinical perspective, this research highlights the importance of using a full range of verbal fluency and executive control measures to tap into the lexical as well as executive control abilities of PWA, and also the utility of using letter fluency to tap into the executive control processes in PWA.

Indexed as

AphasiaExecutive FunctionHumansMemoryMental RecallNeuropsychological TestsSemanticsaphasiaclustersexecutive controlletter fluencysemantic fluencyswitchestiming

Identifiers

PMID35318784
PMCPMC9314833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.