A comparative analysis of executive functions in Broca’s aphasia and healthy adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive deficits can be present in people with aphasia and may affect their language abilities. Neuroimaging research suggests a correlation between the activation of brain regions responsible for executive functions and language recovery in aphasia. Considering the critical role of executive functions in language rehabilitation and the inconsistencies reported in previous findings, the present study aimed to characterize the executive function profiles of individuals with Broca's aphasia. Thirty individuals with Broca's aphasia and 30 healthy controls were examined using the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) and the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS). D-KEFS subtests, including Trail Making, Design Fluency, Sorting, Tower, and Proverb, were used were used to assess problem-solving, creativity, inhibition, concept formation, cognitive shifting, spatial planning, rule learning, and cognitive set maintenance. Individuals with Broca's aphasia performed significantly lower than healthy controls on all tests, demonstrating greater difficulty in specific executive function domains. These results indicate a strong correlation between Broca's aphasia and executive functions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".