2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107651
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Naming errors and dysfunctional tissue metrics predict language recovery after acute left hemisphere stroke

Abstract: Language recovery following acute left hemisphere (LH) stroke is notoriously difficult to predict. Global language measures (e.g., overall aphasia severity) and gross lesion metrics (e.g., size) provide incomplete recovery predictions. In this study, we test the hypothesis that the types of naming errors patients produce, combined with dysfunctional brain tissue metrics, can provide additional insight into recovery following acute LH stroke. One hundred forty-eight individuals who were hospitalized with a new … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 80 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To note, we included <10% of patients with prior chronic stroke because our primary aim was to understand the recovery mechanisms after acute stroke damage and with these limited subject inclusions, prior stroke history is not a significant factor accounting for language recovery. 43 The control group consisted of 13 non-brain damaged participants (three male, 11 right-handed) with normal cognitive ability (Mini-Mental State Examination Scores > 26) 44 matched in age and education with the patient group (| t |’s < 1.77; p’ s > 0.08). Mean age and education were 55 (SD = 14, range = 37–78) and 16 (SD = 3; range = 12–22) years, respectively.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To note, we included <10% of patients with prior chronic stroke because our primary aim was to understand the recovery mechanisms after acute stroke damage and with these limited subject inclusions, prior stroke history is not a significant factor accounting for language recovery. 43 The control group consisted of 13 non-brain damaged participants (three male, 11 right-handed) with normal cognitive ability (Mini-Mental State Examination Scores > 26) 44 matched in age and education with the patient group (| t |’s < 1.77; p’ s > 0.08). Mean age and education were 55 (SD = 14, range = 37–78) and 16 (SD = 3; range = 12–22) years, respectively.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The final sample included 29 patients (13 women; mean age: 60.76 ± 12.65 years). Different data from some participants were included in recent publications (Goldberg et al, 2021 ; Keator et al, 2020 ; Keser et al, 2020 , 2021 ; Meier et al, 2020 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We believe language summary z-scores are a good general reflection of overall language deficits regardless of the battery used. Such summary scores have been employed with success in recent work [29,61,62].…”
Section: Plos Onementioning
confidence: 99%