Verbal and nonverbal cognitive control functions in post-stroke nonfluent aphasia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cognitive control skills, including working memory updating and resisting interference are often impaired in people with aphasia (PWA), however, the results from nonverbal tasks are inconsistent. This is in part because the groups of PWA in most studies are heterogeneous, including different subtypes of aphasia, and cognitive control is often measured with tasks that target multiple functions simultaneously.Aims Our objective was to systematically examine working memory updating and resisting interference in PWA, with stroke without aphasia and neurotypical controls using both verbal- and nonverbal tasks to determine whether the weaknesses in cognitive control are influenced more by the language disorder or the stroke itself.Methods This research employed a mixed quasi-experimental design (4 x 2 x 2) to examine group differences in speed of processing. Participants (N = 47; 40–70 years) included individuals with Broca’s aphasia (n = 9), with transcortical motor aphasia (TMA; n = 13), with stroke without aphasia (n = 12), and neurotypical controls (n = 13). Computerized verbal and nonverbal cue-based retrieval tasks were used to examine working memory updating and interference control. Mixed-effects modelling was used to analyse the data with fixed and random effects. We ran increasingly complex models, removing predictors that did not improve model fit at each step. Baseline conditions were used as references to experimental (cue) conditions.Results Participants with Broca’s aphasia showed significantly slower processing in both verbal and nonverbal tasks than the other groups (Verbal CRP: Group: (F(3, 49.1) = 6.35, p < .001; Nonverbal CRP: Group: (F(3, 47.6) = 6.36, p < .01). In contrast, individuals with TMA performed similar to the group with stroke without aphasia. Both groups showed an overall slowness compared to the neurotypical controls, but were faster and exhibited more efficient resistance to interference than the group with Broca’s aphasia.Conclusions Cognitive control and language show a strong relationship; the more severe the language disorder, the slower the speed of processing in working memory updating and interference control. In addition to the language problems, the stroke itself also contributed to slower performance on cognitive control tasks. Individuals with Broca’s aphasia showed both aphasia- and stroke-specific effects in cognitive control, whereas individuals with TMA showed a stroke-related slowness with relatively good interference control.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it