ArticlePloS one2022
Grammar in 'agrammatical' aphasia: What's intact?
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterizing Verb Argument Structure in Aphasia Using Dependency Parsers.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- The Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Phoneme Encoding in Aging and Aphasia.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- A reconceptualization of sentence production in post-stroke agrammatic aphasia: the synergistic processing bottleneck model.Frontiers in language sciences · 2023Article
- The Influence of Aphasia Type and Severity on Sentence Comprehension after Left Hemisphere Stroke.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAphasia following cerebro-vascular accidents has been a primary source of insight for models of language in the brain. However, deviant language patterns in aphasia may reflect processing limitations and cognitive impairment more than language impairment per se.
aimsWe sought to obtain new evidence from spontaneous speech in Broca's aphasia (BA) for the intactness of grammatical knowledge, operationalized as the preservation of the basic hierarchical structure of syntactic projections. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Speech obtained with the AphasiaBank protocol from 20 people with BA, which were independently rated as also being agrammatic, was analyzed and compared to 20 matched non-brain-damaged controls. We quantified (i) marking of Aspect, Tense, and Modality (A-T-M), which are located at specific (high) layers of the syntactic hierarchy and ordered in relation to one another ([M…[T…[A…]]]); (ii) hierarchies of clausal units ([C…[C]]); (iii) discourse markers embedding clauses, located at the highest layer of the hierarchy; and (iv) attachment of adjuncts at different heights of a given hierarchical syntactic structure. Supplementary evidence was obtained from a typology of errors and from pauses subcategorized according to their hierarchical syntactic position. OUTCOMES &
resultsGroups did not quantitatively differ on rates of either Aspect or Modality but underproduced T and embedded clauses. Evidence for compensatory effects was seen in both of the latter two cases. While all adjunct types were underproduced in BA, and pauses overproduced, both showed the same relative proportions within both groups. Errors were largely restricted to omissions, of a kind that would also be expected in condensed neurotypical speech.
conclusionsOverall, these patterns support the hypothesis of intactness of grammatical knowledge in BA clinically rated as agrammatic, questioning it as a disease model of language impairment.
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.