Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38421595›Full record

ArticleBiologia futura2024

The role of cognitive control and naming in aphasia.

Annamária Kiss, Valéria Csépe

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Biologia futura, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

Annamária KissMultilingualism Doctoral School, University of Pannonia, Veszprém, Hungary.
Valéria CsépeMultilingualism Doctoral School, University of Pannonia, Veszprém, Hungary. csepe.valeria@ttk.hu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5021-6024

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The classical aphasia literature has placed considerable emphasis on the language-centered understanding of aphasia and failed to consider the role of executive functions (EFs) regarding different aspects of patients' performance. Many current studies suggest deficits in EFs in individuals with aphasia, however, the available data is still limited. Here, our aim was to investigate the impairment of EFs and its potential negative effects on naming (slower performance, increased reaction time and/or decreased accuracy). We sought to determine whether the poor performance observed in word fluency task correlated with similar outcomes in naming. Our study involved five Hungarian post stroke aphasic patients (2 males and 3 females) between the ages of 60 and 70, as well as a control group matched for age and gender. The participants were diagnosed with different types of aphasia (global, Wernicke's, anomic and conduction). This study employed various neuropsychological and linguistic batteries. By comparing the patients' performance to that of the control group, we aimed to investigate the impacts of stroke. Within the aphasia group, we observed difficulties in following complex commands and a connection between general slowness and reduced accuracy in naming. We concluded that impairment of executive functions may have a negative impact on naming, comprehension, and fluency. Therefore, it is important to consider functional variations in neural networks, and to base our interpretations on the available psychophysiological data in literature. Our findings provide an alternative perspective to the traditional assessment of aphasia and highlight the importance of considering the role of executive functions.

Indexed as

AphasiaExecutive FunctionAgedCognitionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsAphasiaMultiple case studyNaming fluencyWorking memory

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.