Observational studySao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina2026
Multilevel auditory and cognitive processing in post-stroke aphasia: associations with language performance using ABR, LLR, and P300: a cross-sectional observational study.
Observational study in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAphasia following stroke is primarily characterized by language impairment; however, accumulating evidence suggests that deficits in auditory and cognitive processing may also contribute to impaired language function. Auditory evoked potentials provide objective markers of neural processing across subcortical, cortical, and cognitive levels and may help clarify the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying post-stroke aphasia.
objectivesTo investigate multilevel auditory processing and its relationship with language performance in individuals with post-stroke aphasia using Auditory Brainstem Responses (ABR), Late Latency Responses (LLR), and P300 potentials. DESIGN AND
settingCross-sectional observational study conducted at a university hospital in Türkiye.
methodsTwenty-nine individuals with post-stroke aphasia and 33 age-matched healthy controls were included. Language performance was assessed using the Aphasia Language Assessment Test and a standardized naming task. Auditory processing was evaluated using ABR, LLR (P1, N1, P2, N2), and P300 potentials recorded according to standard electrophysiological protocols. Group comparisons were performed for latency and amplitude measures, and correlation analyses were conducted to examine associations between electrophysiological parameters and language performance.
resultsCompared with healthy controls, individuals with aphasia demonstrated significantly prolonged latencies in ABR waves and interpeak intervals, as well as in all LLR and P300 components (p < 0.05). No significant group differences were observed in amplitude measures. Naming performance was significantly lower in the aphasia group. Although correlations between language performance and electrophysiological measures did not reach statistical significance, moderate negative trends were observed between naming scores and N2 and P300 latencies.
conclusionPost-stroke aphasia is associated with delayed auditory processing across subcortical, cortical, and cognitive levels, reflecting generalized slowing rather than reduced neural recruitment. Latency-based auditory evoked potential measures may complement behavioral language assessments and support a multilevel auditory-cognitive framework for aphasia evaluation and rehabilitation.
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.