Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36336090›Full record

ArticleNeuropsychologia2022

Attention to attention in aphasia - elucidating impairment patterns, modality differences and neural correlates.

Rahel Schumacher, Ajay D Halai, Matthew A Lambon Ralph

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuropsychologia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A Review of Auditory Attention: Neural Mechanisms, Theories, and Affective Disorders.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Rahel SchumacherMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, 3010, Bern, Switzerland. Electronic address: rahel.schumacher@dbmr.unibe.ch.
Ajay D HalaiMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Matthew A Lambon RalphMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Electronic address: matt.lambon-ralph@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk.
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit · GBUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00005/18Medical Research Council MC_UU_00030/9Medical Research Council MR/R023883/1Medical Research Council MR/V031481/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is increasingly acknowledged that patients with aphasia following a left-hemisphere stroke often have difficulties in other cognitive domains. One of these domains is attention, the very fundamental ability to detect, select, and react to the abundance of stimuli present in the environment. Basic and more complex attentional functions are usually distinguished, and a variety of tests has been developed to assess attentional performance at a behavioural level. Attentional performance in aphasia has been investigated previously, but often only one specific task, stimulus modality, or type of measure was considered and usually only group-level analyses or data based on experimental tasks were presented. Also, information on brain-behaviour relationships for this cognitive domain and patient group is scarce. We report detailed analyses on a comprehensive dataset including patients' performance on various subtests of two well-known, standardised neuropsychological test batteries assessing attention. These tasks allowed us to explore: 1) how many patients show impaired performance in comparison to normative data, in which tasks and on what measure; 2) how the different tasks and measures relate to each other and to patients' language abilities; 3) the neural correlates associated with attentional performance. Up to 32 patients with varying aphasia severity were assessed with subtests from the Test of Attentional Performance (TAP) as well as the Test of Everyday Attention (TEA). Performance was compared to normative data, relationships between attention measures and other background data were explored with principal component analyses and correlations, and brain-behaviour relationships were assessed by means of voxel-based correlational methodology. Depending on the task and measure, between 3 and 53 percent of the patients showed impaired performance compared to normative data. The highest proportion of impaired performance was noted for complex attention tasks involving auditory stimuli. Patients differed in their patterns of performance and only the performance in the divided attention tests was (weakly) associated with their overall language impairment. Principal components analyses yielded four underlying factors, each being associated with distinct neural correlates. We thus extend previous research in characterizing different aspects of attentional performance within one sample of patients with chronic post stroke aphasia. Performance on a broad range of attention tasks and measures was variable and largely independent of patients' language abilities, which underlines the importance of assessing this cognitive domain in aphasic patients. Notably, a considerable proportion of patients showed difficulties with attention allocation to auditory stimuli. The reasons for these potentially modality-specific difficulties are currently not well understood and warrant additional investigations.

Indexed as

AphasiaStrokeBrainBrain MappingHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeuropsychological TestsAphasiaAttentionAuditoryStrokeVisual

Identifiers

PMID36336090
PMCPMC7614452
OpenAlexW4308068451

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.