ArticleAphasiology2023
Switching attention deficits in post-stroke individuals with different aphasia types.
Article in Aphasiology, 2023. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Attentional shifting as a potential explanatory variable in aphasic anomia.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Unveiling Cognitive Interference: fNIRS Insights Into Poststroke Aphasia During Stroop Tasks.Neural plasticity · 2025Article
- Modality-specific sustained attention deficits in aphasia: task performance and lesion analysis.Brain communications · 2025Article
- Attention to attention in aphasia - elucidating impairment patterns, modality differences and neural correlates.Neuropsychologia · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have shown that individuals with aphasia have impairments in switching attention compared to healthy controls. However, there is insufficient information about the characteristics of switching attention within one task and whether attention deficits vary depending on aphasia type and lesion location. We aimed to address these knowledge gaps by investigating characteristics of switching attention within one type of task in participants with different types of aphasia and distinct lesion sites. Method: Forty individuals with post-stroke aphasia (20 with non-fluent aphasia and frontal lobe damage, and 20 with fluent aphasia and temporal lobe damage) and 20 neurologically healthy age-matched individuals performed an attention switching task. They listened to sequences of high-pitched and low-pitched tones that were presented to them one by one, tallied them separately, and, at the end of each sequence, had to say how many high- and low-pitched tones they had heard. Results: Participants with aphasia performed significantly worse on the task compared to healthy controls, and the performance of two aphasia groups also differed. Specifically, individuals with both aphasia types made more errors than healthy individuals, and the participants with non-fluent aphasia responded more slowly than controls, while reaction times of the participants with fluent aphasia did not differ significantly from those of controls. Also, the two groups of participants with aphasia differed significantly in accuracy, with individuals in the non-fluent group making more errors. Conclusions: The data demonstrated that people with different types of aphasia have distinct impairments in switching attention. Since cognitive deficits impact language performance, this information is important for differentially addressing their language problems and selecting more specific and optimal rehabilitation programs that target different underlying mechanisms.
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.