Predictors of object naming in aphasia: does cognitive control mediate the effects of psycholinguistic variables?

Figures & data

Table 1. Psycholinguistic variables and the three suggested stages of spoken picture naming.

(1) (Visual) object recognition	(2a) Semantic/conceptual activation	(2b) Lexical access/selection and phonological encoding	(3) Articulatory- motor stage
Visual complexity (Humphreys et al., 1988)	AoA (Brown & Watson, 1987; Morrison & Ellis, 1995)	AoA (Alario et al., 2004)	Word length (Alario et al., 2004; Graves et al., 2007)
Name agreement (i.e., incorrect naming) (Vitkovich & Tyrrell, 1995)	Name agreement (i.e., activation of competing concepts) (Vitkovich & Tyrrell, 1995)	Name agreement (i.e., competing names) (Vitkovich & Tyrrell, 1995
Image agreement (Alario et al., 2004; Cheng et al., 2010)	Imageability (Ghasisin et al., 2014)	Word frequency (Alario et al., 2004)
	Conceptual familiarity (Ghasisin et al., 2014)

Table 2. Participants’ clinico-demographic details and performance scores on the tasks.

Number	Gender	Age	Education	Fluency	MPO	Hand	Lesion site	QASA score	Picture naming, accuracy	Picture naming, %	Auditory attention, accuracy	Rule finding, accuracy	AQ
1	m	65	8	NF	55	r	L CVA	35%	69	30%	30	2	105.6
2	m	54	14	F	12	r	L CVA & L frontal	48%	205	90%	46	14	143.5
3	f	64	19	NF	23	r	L fronto-parietal	51%	128	56%	0	4	154
4	m	43	10	NF	30	r	L CVA	56%	198	86%	0	12	167
5	m	51	15	NF	17	r	L temporo-occipital & R frontal & R temporo-occipital	56%	149	65%	0	8	167.5
6	f	56	13	F	18	r	L parieto-temporal	57%	111	48%	52	1	172
7	m	59	18	F	6	r	L CVA	61%	140	75%	46	11	182
8	f	64	13	NF	26	r	L fronto-parietal & R fronto-parietal	62%	200	87%	49	3	187
9	m	45	16	NF	52	r	L fronto-parietal & R cerebellum	63%	190	83%	49	12	187.5
10	m	62	19	NF	11	r	L parieto-temporal	64%	199	87%	46	5	192
11	m	66	14	F	52	amb	L temporal	66%	217	95%	54	10	197
12	m	68	15	F	11	r	L CVA	67%	225	98%	54	10	200
13	f	66	15	F	39	r	L temporal	67%	179	78%	44	8	201.5
14	f	70	14	F	16	r	L temporo-occipital & R temporal osteoma	71%	185	81%	38	7	213
15	m	55	12	NF	18	r	L fronto-temporal	72%	181	79%	47	12	214.5
16	m	58	17	F	12	r	L temporo-occipital & R frontal angioma	72%	60	41%	54	10	215
17	m	54	15	NF	23	r	L fronto-temporal	73%	228	100%	54	14	220
18	m	68	11	F	50	r	L VCA	77%	219	96%	52	13	230
19	f	67	13	NF	12	r	L temporal hemorrhage + L thalamus	79%	190	83%	34	0	237
20	f	70	15	NF	8	r	L occipital & L fronto-parietal & R fronto-parietal	79%	207	90%	43	6
21	m	59	17	F	5	r	L CVA	80%	221	97%	54	12	240
22	m	40	15	NF	120	r	L fronto-temporal & L thalamus	80%	162	71%	38	1	240.5
23	m	50	13	F	4	r	Brainstem	83%	220	96%	53	5	249
24	m	58	13	NF	10	r	L CVA	84%	207	90%	47	8	250.5
25	f	70	18	F	6	r	L fronto-parietal	84%	209	91%	53	11	250.5
26	m	57	11	NF	4	r	L frontal	84%	214	93%	37	9	253
27	m	44	13	NF	9	r	L CVA	86%	224	98%	45	10	259
28	m	62	16	F	19	r	L temporal	88%	214	93%	50	7	264
29	m	62	14	NF	4	amb	L CVA	90%	200	87%	43	9	269
30	m	67	15	F	36	r	L frontal	92%	191	83%	42	13	276
31	f	69	19	F	33	r	L temporal hemorrhage	94%	217	95%	54	13	282

Note. NF = nonfluent; F = fluent; MPO = months post onset; AQ = aphasia quotient according to QASA (max. total score is 300).

Table 3. Spearman correlation coefficients between the psycholinguistic variables.

	NA	CF	AOA	IM	NS
CF	.04
AOA	−.21**	−.51***
IM	.13*	.82***	−.48***
NS	−.06	−.05	.20**	−.03
WF	.09	.45***	−.42***	.38***	−.23***

Note. NA = name agreement, CF = conceptual familiarity, AOA = age of acquisition, IM = imageability, NS = number of syllables, WF = word frequency.

Table 4. Summary of the final mixed-effect linear regression model of oral picture-naming accuracy in PWA.

Effects	Estimate	Std. Error	z-value	p-value
(Intercept)	2.12	0.20	10.46	0.000
Age of acquisition	−0.28	0.04	−7.68	0.000
Word frequency, log	0.59	0.04	13.07	0.000
Cognitive control	1.05	0.26	4.06	0.000
Word frequency, log * Cognitive control	0.16	0.05	3.56	0.000
sd_(Intercept).patient	1.09	NA	NA	NA

Humphreys, G. W., Riddoch, M. J., & Quinlan, P. T. (1988). Cascade processes in picture identification. Cogn. Neuropsychol.5, 67–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643298808252927

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brown, G. & Watson, F. (1987). First in, first out: Word learning age and spoken word frequency as predictors of word familiarity and word naming latency. Memory & Cognition, 15(3), 208–216. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197718

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Morrison, C. M., & Ellis, A. W. (1995). Roles of word frequency and age of acquisition in word naming and lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.116

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Alario, F. X., Ferrand, L., Laganaro, M., New, B., Frauenfelder, U. H., & Segui, J. (2004). Predictors of picture naming speed. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(1), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195559

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Graves, W. W., Grabowski, T. J., Mehta, S., & Gordon, J. K. (2007). A neural signature of phonological access: distinguishing the effects of word frequency from familiarity and length in overt picture naming. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 19, 617–631. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00255

 Google Scholar

Vitkovitch, M., & Tyrrell, L. (1995). Sources of disagreement in object naming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 48A(4), 822–848. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749508401419

 Google Scholar

Cheng, X., Schafer, G., & Akyürek, E. G. (2010). Name agreement in picture naming: An ERP study. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 76(3), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2010.03.003

 Google Scholar

Ghasisin, L., Yadegari, F., Rahgozar, M., Nazari, M. A., Rastegarianzade, N. (2014). A new set of 272 pictures for psycholinguistic studies: Persian norms for name agreement, image agreement, conceptual familiarity, visual complexity, and age of acquisition. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4),1148–1158. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0537-0

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar