Anomia in left hemisphere stroke, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease – a comparative study

Figures & data

Table 1. Participants.

		MSAS Stroke, moderate to severe anomia (n = 19)				MAS Stroke, mild anomia (n = 22)				PD Parkinson’s disease (n = 19)				MS Multiple sclerosis (n = 27)			Sig.
Gender	Women		9				11				8				23		p = .006^k
	Men		10				11				11				4
		M	Min–Max	Med	SD	M	Min–Max	Med	SD	M	Min–Max	Med	SD	M	Min–Max	Med	SD
Age		68.3	54–82	69.0	7.1	71.0	53–88	72.5	8.9	72.3	53–83	72.0	7.7	54.1	30–72	56.0	11.3	p<0.001
Formal education in years		12.5	8–25	12.0	4.3	13.0	7–19	13.5	3.7	13.5	6–18	14.0	3.2	13.7	9–19	14.0	2.6	p = 0.393
Disease duration (years since diagnosis)		8.1	1–26	5.5	6.0	9.1	1–32	6.0	8.4	8.1	1–33	5.0	8.7	14.4	2–32	15.0	9.7	p=0.035
	Disease severity									H&Y^a2.5	1.0–4.0	3.0	0.9	EDSS^b 4.3	0–7.5	4.0	2.3
Trail Making Test^c (TMT)
TMT A		101.8	31–282	75.0	70.2	69.9	26–144	65.0	33.3	58.1	29–213	34.0	48.8	48.3	17–200	34.0	40.3	p<0.001
TMT B^c		167.4	18–257	184.0	66.2	162.3	47–247	188.0	65.5	134.1	37–268	114.0	71.4	96.2	40–189	78.0	47.1	p=0.001
Total (0–300)		269.3	114–300	300.0	51.4	232.2	73–300	270.0	80.7	192.2	67–300	166.0	89.4	144.5	57–300	119.0	75.6	p<0.001
DKEFS^e Design Fluency Task
Total Correct Designs		15.4	2–27	15.0	7.1	16.4	8–30	16.0	5.4	16.9	2–29	17.0	7.5	23.2	7–43	23.5	7.9	p=0.003
Composite Scaled Score		7.6	2–12	8.0	2.9	8.0	3–15	8.0	2.4	8.6	3–14	9.0	3.1	9.8	5–18	10.0	3.2	p=0.103
Contrast Scaled Score		9.8	4–15	10.0	2.7	9.4	4–15	9.0	2.6	9.2	2–14	10.0	3.9	10.7	7–13	11.0	1.5	p = 0.251
Total Number of Designs		20.2	6–30	20.0	6.3	20.4	10–35	19.0	6.6	21.1	7–32	23.0	7.5	27.4	12–61	26.0	10.6	p=0.014
Percent Design Accuracy		72.0	33–90	78.3	16.6	81.1	53–100	83.3	11.6	78.6	29–100	86.7	20.9	86.3	58–100	93.9	13.1	p=0.016
Accuracy Scaled Score		6.4	1–10	8.0	3.5	8.4	2–14	9.0	2.8	8.7	1–13	10.0	4.0	9.5	3–13	10.5	3.3	p=0.012
Number repetition^d
Forward		3.1	0–9	3.0	2.2	6.6	2–10	7.0	1.8	8.6	6–12	8.0	1.8	8.0	4–12	8.0	1.8	p<0.001
Backward		1.2	0–5	1.0	1.3	3.4	1–6	3.5	1.2	5.4	3–11	5.0	1.9	5.3	2–9	5.0	1.8	p<0.001
Total		4.3	0–11	3.0	3.3	10.0	3–15	10.0	2.7	14.1	9–21	13.0	3.2	13.3	8–20	12.0	3.3	p<0.001
MoCA^f		n.a.				n.a.				22.6	14–29	23.0	4.2	25.7	15–30	27.0	3.5	p=0.005
SAQOL-39^g (0–5)		3.6	2.2–4.7	3.6	0.7	3.6	2.8–4.7	3.5	0.6	n.a.				n.a.				p = 0.814
Total mean		3.8	0.1–4.9	4.2	1.3	3.9	2.9–5.0	3.8	0.6									p=0.906
Physical		3.0	1.6–4–4	3.1	0.8	3.5	0.1–4.9	3.3	1.1									p=0.099
Communication		3.8	2.4–4.9	3.8	0.8	3.4	2.1–5.0	3.1	0.9									p=0.102
Psychosocial Energy		3.3	2.0–5.0	2.8	1.0	2.7	1.5–4–3	2.8	0.7									p=0.137
SASCI-Q^h		n.a.				n.a.				n = 17				n = 25
Present state (0–29)										13.5	6.0–25.0	13.0	5.4	13.8	4.0–27.0	14.0	6.4	p = 0.979
Difference from earlier ([-96]–[+96])										15.9	+5.0– +30.0	14.0	7.7	19.1	–3.0–+37.0	20.0	11.0	p = 0.214
Physical (0–2)										0.88	0–2	1.0	0.81	0.56	0–2	.0	0.77	p = 0.317
Psycho-social (0–4)										0.56	0–2	0.50	0.63	0.48	0–3	.0	0.77	p = 0.421
Energy (0–2)										1.1	0–2	1.0	0.50	0.76	0–2	1.0	0.66	p=0.072
Self-rated current state of health^i (0–10)		6.5	1.5–10	7.0	2.7	6.8	3–10	7.0	2.2	6.3	2.5–8	6.5	1.5	5.8	1–10	6.0	2.3	p = 0.499
Self-reported anomia^j (0–7)		5.3	2–7	6.0	1.5	3.8	1–7	4.0	2.1	3.4	1–6	3.0	1.7	4.0	1–7	4.0	2.3	p=0.019 MAS-PD

^a Hoehn and Yahr [82] 5-stage scale of the progression of Parkinson’s disease. ^bExpanded Disability Status Scale (0–10) [83]. ^cNote that the TMT is discontinued after 5 min, meaning that the result on TMT B must be viewed in relation to that on TMT A and to the total time. ^dFrom CELF-4 [84]. ^eFrom the Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System [85]. ^fNasreddine, Phillips [86]. ^gStroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 [79]; a higher score equals less problems. ^hSahlgrenska Academy Self-Reported Cognitive Impairment Questionnaire [87]; a lower score equals less problems. ⁱA higher score equals a better state of health. ^jA higher score equals more frequent anomia. ^kFisher’s exact test.

Table 2. Scores on assessments.

	MSAS Stroke, moderate-severe anomia (n = 19)				MAS Stroke, mild anomia (n = 22)				PD Parkinson’s disease (n = 19)				MS Multiple sclerosis (n = 27)
	M	Min-Max	Med	SD	M	Min-Max	Med	SD	M	Min-Max	Med	SD	M	Min-Max	Med	SD
OANB % correct	48%	0–81%	53%	26.5	93%	84–100%	93%	4.9	93%	45–100%	96%	12.0	98%	83–100%	99%	3.6
BNT % correct	8%	0–30%	5%	0.1	43%	5–75%	40%	0.2	52%	20–75%	55%	0.2	62%	30–90%	65%	0.1
FAS	5.7	0–26	3	7.2	13.6	1–49	12.5	10.8	37.7	1–70	35	15.8	34.9	14–70	35	12.7
Animals	3.7	0–11	3	3.3	10.7	4–22	11	5.1	17.2	5–35	16	6.8	20.2	7–31	20	5.7
Verbs	2.2	0–7	2	2.2	7.1	4–22	4.5	6.4	14.2	4–34	14	7.1	15.4	2–29	16	6.0
COSEF	2.5	2–3	2.5	0.7	7.1	1–24	6	5.7	11.9	4–27	12	5.6	14.6	4–25	15	5.5
Main concept score (MC)	22.0%	0–45%	23.3%	13.7	53.1%	16–87%	53.5%	21.9	69.6%	40–92%	74.4%	15.6	78.6%	39–96%	84.4%	18.9
CPIB total score (0–30)	11.5	0–21	11.0	6.5	14.1	5–25	12.0	6.1	14.6	6–26	14.0	5.5	16.4	6–24	16.5	5.1
OANB response time (RT) s/item	4.4	2.2–8.5	3.9	1.7	2.6	1.1–4.0	2.6	0.9	2.1	0.9–7.3	1.6	1.4	1.7	0.8–7.2	1.2	1.4
BNT response time (RT) s/item	4.1	1.8–6.9	3.3	1.7	4.1	2.3–8.1	4.0	1.5	3.4	1.8–6.5	3.2	1.0	3.5	1.7–7.1	3.3	1.3
% correctly named nouns	51.4%	0–90%	55.0%	30.3	93.9%	82–100%	95.0%	6.0	95.4%	30–100%	97.0%	15.4	99.0%	93–100%	100%	1.7
% correctly named verbs	44.4%	0–75%	50.0%	23.9	92.0%	83–100%	92.0%	4.5	90.8%	30–100%	93.0%	15,4	96.3%	72–100%	98.0%	6.0
Inadequate responses
No or abandoned responses	10.2	0–40	6.0	11.0	2.6	0–10	2.0	3.1	1.4	0–8	.0	2.2	1.1	0–6	.0	2.0
Single phonologic paraphasia	3.0	0–10	2.0	3.5	3.1	0–16	2.0	4.1	.7	0–4	.0	1.4	1.3	0–10	.0	2.3
Multiple phonologic paraphasia	5.3	0–22	4.0	6.2	2.9	0–14	2.0	3.9	.7	0–6	.0	1.7	.4	0–2	.0	.8
Related semantic paraphasia	5.5	0–17	6.0	4.0	4.1	0–13	3.5	3.0	4.4	1–9	4.0	2.3	3.1	0–7	2.0	2.3
Unrelated semantic paraphasia	3.7	0–21	3.0	4.6	.6	0–3	.0	1.1	.8	0–4	1.0	1.0	.1	0–2	.0	.4
Adequate circumlocution/association	4.5	0–18	3.0	4.8	3.2	0–10	3.0	2.5	3.1	0–7	3.0	1.8	1.9	0–13	1.0	2.7
Inadequate circumlocution/association	7.8	0–39	4.0	9.5	2.8	0–9	2.0	2.9	1.0	0–3	1.0	1.1	.5	0–2	.0	.6
Visual misinterpretation	2.1	0–5	2.0	1.4	2.1	0–7	1.0	2.0	3.2	0–10	2.0	2.8	1.3	0–9	1.0	1.8
Main concepts:
% accurate and complete (AC)	10.1%	0–32%	10.0%	9.3	43.6%	7–83%	41.4%	23.7	60.1%	33–90%	63.3%	18.0	67.0%	21–89%	73.3%	18.9
% accurate but incomplete (AI)	13.3%	0–27%	13.3%	7.1	17.6%	0–60%	16.7%	11.8	9.1%	0–30%	6.7%	7.3	13.4%	0–32%	13.3%	7.7
% incorrect (IN)	9.0%	0–23%	6.7%	8.5	7.5%	0–23%	6.7%	7.5	4.9%	0–33%	3.3%	7.4	5.1%	0–18%	3.6%	4.5
% absent (AB)	67.6%	33–100%	66.7%	19.5	33.5%	0–77%	32.1%	20.1	24.6%	7–57%	21.7%	14.8	15.1%	0–47%	6.7%	14.8

Animals: semantic fluency; BNT: the Boston Naming Test; COSEF: Complex oral semantic verbal fluency; CPIB: short form Communicative Participation Item Bank; FAS: phonologic/letter fluency; MAS: Mild anomia in stroke; MC: Main concept score; MS: Multiple sclerosis; MSAS: Moderate-severe anomia in stroke; OANB: The Action Naming Battery; PD: Parkinson’s disease; RT: Response time; Verbs: verb fluency.

Table 3. Group comparisons on quantitative aspects of word-finding difficulties.

	OANB % correct		BNT % correct		FAS		Animals		Verbs		COSEF		MC total score		CPIB
	Sig.	Adj. sig.	Sig.	Adj. sig.	Sig.	Adj. sig.	Sig.	Adj. sig.	Sig.	Adj sig.	Sig.	Adj sig.	Sig.	Adj. sig.	p=0.099
MSAS-MAS	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.001	0.071	0.429	0.005	0.029	0.027	0.160	.295	1.000	0.001	0.008
MSAS-PD	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.032	0.191	<0.001	<0.001
MSAS-MS	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.005	0.033	<0.001	<0.001
MAS-PD	.468	1.000	0.243	1.000	<0.001	<0.001	0.012	0.075	0.003	0.015	0.011	0.063	0.078	0.468
MAS-MS	0.003	0.016	0.004	0.022	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.003
PD-MS	0.034	0.206	0.117	0.703	0.816	1.000	0.192	1.000	0.525	1.000	0.142	0.853	0.127	0.764

Significant results are in bold, the significance level is 0.05. Adj. sig: Adjusted by Bonferroni correction for multiple tests.

Animals: semantic fluency; BNT: the Boston Naming Test; COSEF: Complex oral semantic verbal fluency; CPIB: short form Communicative Participation Item Bank; FAS: phonologic/letter fluency; MAS: Mild anomia in stroke; MC: Main concept score; MS = Multiple sclerosis; MSAS: Moderate-severe anomia in stroke; OANB: The Action Naming Battery; PD: Parkinson’s disease; RT: Response time. Verbs: verb fluency.

Table 4. Group comparisons on qualitative aspects of word-finding difficulties.

	OANB RT		BNT RT		% Correctly named nouns		% Correctly named verbs		MC AC		MC AI		MC IN	MC AB
	Sig.	Adj. sig.	p=0.367		Sig.	Adj. sig.	Sig.	Adj. sig.	Sig.	Adj sig.	Sig.	Adj sig.	p=0.313	Sig.	Adj sig.
MSAS-MAS	0.010	0.058			<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.002	0.227	1.000		0.001	0.003
MSAS-PD	<0.001	<0.001			<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.032	0.190		<0.001	<0.001
MSAS-MS	<0.001	<0.001			<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.884	1.000		<0.001	<0.001
MAS-PD	0.105	0.605			0.615	1.000	0.412	1.000	0.073	0.439	0.001	0.004		0.259	1.000
MAS-MS	0.001	0.004			0.006	0.035	0.005	0.031	0.003	0.020	0.142	0.852		0.003	0.015
PD-MS	0.116	0.698			0.034	0.203	0.069	0.412	0.347	1.000	0.029	0.175		0.087	0.522
Inadequate responses	No or abandoned		Single phon.	Multiple phonologic paraphasia		Related semantic paraphasia		Unrelated		Inadequate		Adequate		Visual misinterpretation
	Sig.	Adj. sig.	p=0.106	Sig.	Adj. sig.	Sig.	Adj. sig.	Sig.	Adj sig.	Sig.	Adj sig.	p = 0.090		Sig.	Adj sig.
MSAS-MAS	0.041	0.248		0.952	1.000	0.160	0.957	0.002	0.010	0.352	1.000			0.104	.625
MSAS-PD	0.003	0.018		0.009	0.056	0.001	0.007	0.036	0.217	0.036	0.215			0.002	0.010
MSAS-MS	0.001	0.006		0.004	0.025	<0.001	0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.009	0.054			0.026	0.154
MAS-PD	0.299	1.000		0.006	0.035	0.048	0.288	0.337	1.000	0.214	1.000			0.103	0.621
MAS-MS	0.228	1.000		0.002	0.014	0.015	0.091	0.086	0.516	0.088	0.527			0.579	1.000
PD-MS	0.944	1.000		0.967	1.000	0.793	1.000	0.008	0.048	0.736	1.000			0.242	1.000

Significant results in bold, significance level is 0.05. Adj. sig: Adjusted by Bonferroni correction for multiple tests.

Animals: semantic fluency; BNT: the Boston Naming Test; COSEF: Complex oral semantic verbal fluency; CPIB: short form Communicative Participation Item Bank; FAS: phonologic/letter fluency; MAS: Mild anomia in stroke; MC: Main concept score; Accurate Complete (AC), Accurate Incomplete (AI), Incorrect (IN) or Absent (AB) ; MS: Multiple sclerosis; MSAS: Moderate-severe anomia in stroke; OANB: The Action Naming Battery; PD: Parkinson’s disease; RT: Response time; Verbs: verb fluency.

Figure 1. Confrontation-naming accuracy (in per cent) for high-frequency nouns and verbs (OANB, top left) and low-frequency nouns (BNT, top right). OANB: Object and Action Naming Battery; BNT: Boston Naming Test; MSAS: Moderate to severe anomia in stroke; MAS: Mild anomia in stroke; PD: Parkinson’s disease; MS: Multiple sclerosis.

Box plots demonstrating significantly lower confrontation naming accuracy in the MSAS-group compared to the other groups for both low (BNT) and high frequency (OANB) words. The other groups have similar high OANB-scores. The BNT-results are wide-ranging and overlapping from low to high, in order MSAS, MAS, PD and MS.

Figure 2. Scores on the oral verbal-fluency tasks. MSAS: Moderate to severe anomia in stroke; MAS: Mild anomia in stroke; PD: Parkinson’s disease; MS: Multiple sclerosis; COSEF: complex oral semantic verbal fluency.

Box plots indicating impaired oral fluency in the FAS, verb, animal and COSEF tasks, across all groups. The scores of both stroke groups are significantly lower than the PD and MS groups.

Figure 3. Total scores (percentages) on the re-telling task, based on main-concept analysis (MCA). MSAS: Moderate to severe anomia in stroke. MAS: Mild anomia in stroke; PD: Parkinson’s disease; MS: Multiple sclerosis.

Box plots showing results in the re-telling task, increasing across the groups in the order MSAS, MAS, PD and MS.

Figure 4. Self-perceived communicative participation as reported in the 10 –item short-form Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB), where interference with communicative participation were rated from 3 (“not at all”) to 0 (“very much”). MSAS: Moderate to severe anomia in stroke; MAS: Mild anomia in stroke; PD: Parkinson’s disease; MS: Multiple sclerosis.

Box plots showing that all four groups had similar CPIB ratings.

Figure 5. Response time (RT) in seconds per item in confrontation naming of high-frequency nouns and verbs (OANB) and low-frequency nouns (BNT). OANB: Object and Action Naming Battery (high-frequency items); BNT: Boston Naming Test (low-frequency items); MSAS: Moderate to severe anomia in stroke; MAS: Mild anomia in stroke; PD: Parkinson’s disease; MS: Multiple sclerosis.

Box plots on naming response time decreasing in the order MSAS, MAS, PD and MS for high frequency OANB items while similar between all groups for low frequency BNT items.

Figure 6. Categories of inadequate responses in confrontation naming, as proportions (top) and as mean numbers of cases (bottom). MSAS: Moderate to severe anomia in stroke. MAS: Mild anomia in stroke; PD: Parkinson’s disease; MS: Multiple sclerosis.

Column and pie charts on inaccurate response types across the groups, both phonological and semantic in the stroke groups while predominately semantic in the PD and MS groups.

Figure 7. Percentages of correctly named nouns and verbs in OANB confrontation naming. MSAS: Moderate to severe anomia in stroke. MAS: Mild anomia in stroke; PD: Parkinson’s disease; MS: Multiple sclerosis.

Chart, box and whisker chart. Naming accuracy of verbs are marginally lower than that of nouns in all groups except the MAS group, where both word classes are equally impaired. The results of the MSAS group are significantly lower than the other groups.

Figure 8. Results from the main-concept analysis (MCA) of the re-telling task: percentages of accurate and compete (AC), accurate but incomplete (AI), incorrect (IN) and absent (AB) main concepts. MSAS: Moderate to severe anomia in stroke. MAS: Mild anomia in stroke; PD: Parkinson’s disease; MS: Multiple sclerosis. The corresponding proportions in a reference group were 82.7% AC, 5.7% AI, 2.0% IN and 9.6% AB.

Box plots showing the percentage of main concepts conveyed in an accurate and complete, accurate but incomplete or an incorrect manner, as well as percentage absent main concepts. The latter category is most common in the MSAS group.

Table 5. Correlations between self-reports and formal assessments.

Anomia

OANB

OANB RT

BNT

BNT RT

FAS

Animals

Verbs

COSEF

MC

Age

Education

CPIB

MSAS

−0.19

0.31

−0.01

0.01

−0.39

0.49^b

0.18

0.28

−1.00

0.61^a

0.13

0.50^b

MAS

−0.56^a

0.14

−0.58^a

−0.05

−0.10

0.53^b

0.52^b

0.19

0.54^b

0.14

0.24

−0.07

PD

−0.16

0.74^a

−0.47^b

0.14

−0.24

0.39

0.35

0.50 ^b

−0.03

0.09

0.10

0.17

MS

−0.35

−0.11

−0.15

0.08

−0.34

0.22

0.19

−0.02

−0.10

0.35

−0.16

0.16

Anomia

MSAS

−0.26

−0.14

−0.10

0.06

−0.73^a

−0.31

−0.33

1.00

−0.24

0.02

0.36

MAS

−0.01

0.29

−0.15

0.06

−0.32

−0.10

−0.01

−0.48^b

0.14

−0.37

−0.18

PD

−0.13

0.02

−0.01

−0.14

0.00

0.09

0.15

−0.06

−0.27

0.05

0.12

MS

0.11

0.41^b

−0.23

0.22

0.00

−0.19

−0.14

0.06

−0.32

0.41^b

0.17

OANB

MSAS

−0.46

0.76^a

0.40

0.29

0.75^a

0.51^b

1.00

0.64^a

0.26

−0.23

MAS

−0.62^a

0.76^a

−0.01

0.53^b

0.45^b

0.70^a

0.66^a

0.34

−0.55^a

0.31

PD

−0.81^a

0.28

−0.62^a

0.58^a

0.62^a

0.82^a

0.22

0.48^b

−0.23

0.33

MS

−0.12

0.34

−0.21

0.40^b

0.27

0.36

0.38^b

0.14

0.12

0.27

OANB

MSAS

−0.61^a

−0.16

0.29

−0.30

0.19

−1.00

−0.26

−0.17

0.30

RT

MAS

−0.48^b

0.33

−0.55^a

−0.39

−0.62^a

−0.70^a

−0.33

0.02

−0.13

PD

−0.36

0.54^b

−0.36

−0.60^a

−0.74^a

−0.10

−0.32

0.32

−0.21

MS

−0.21

0.35

−0.52^a

−0.46^b

−0.56^a

−0.41^b

−0.54^a

0.10

−0.27

BNT

MSAS

0.47

0.08

0.62^a

0.36

1.00

0.35

−0.09

−0.44

MAS

−0.20

0.28

0.23

0.48^b

0.37

0.12

−0.36

0.42

PD

−0.54^b

0.48^b

0.52^b

0.39

0.35

0.41

−0.29

0.28

MS

−0.02

0.19

0.46^b

0.14

0.17

−0.05

−0.20

0.06

BNT

MSAS

0.00

−0.05

0.06

1.00

0.15

0.39

−0.61^b

RT

MAS

0.02

0.16

−0.13

−0.10

−0.27

−0.32

−0.03

PD

−0.53^b

−0.53^b

−0.63^a

−0.15

−0.34

0.15

−0.64^a

MS

−0.26

−0.22

−0.45^b

−0.19

−0.35

−0.05

0.01

FAS

MSAS

0.42

0.67^a

−1.00

0.57^b

−0.04

−0.11

MAS

0.44^b

0.69^a

0.61^a

0.47^b

0.13

0.07

PD

0.46^b

0.69^a

0.26

0.68^a

−0.27

0.48^b

MS

0.51^a

0.63^a

0.51^a

0.23

0.18

0.58^a

Animals

MSAS

0.60^a

1.00

0.62^a

−0.14

−0.14

MAS

0.52^b

0.51^b

0.37

−0.27

0.37

PD

0.79^a

0.43

0.48^b

−0.38

0.37

MS

0.48^b

0.33

0.35

−0.21

0.39^b

Verbs

MSAS

1.00

0.56^b

−0.02

−0.08

MAS

0.47^b

0.62^a

−0.15

0.37

PD

0.30

0.56^b

−0.27

0.44

MS

0.43^b

0.32

−0.09

0.43^b

COSEF

MSAS

−1.00

1.00

−1.00

MAS

0.43

−0.07

0.29

PD

0.51^b

−0.18

0.21

MS

0.32

−0.09

0.32

MC

MSAS

0.22

0.11

MAS

0.04

0.29

PD

−0.62^a

0.25

MS

−0.23

0.49^b

Age

MSAS

−0.26

MAS

−0.16

PD

−0.27

MS

−0.07

Correlations between self-reported communicative participation (CPIB) and self-perceived occurrence of anomia (Anomia), results from formal assessment and the potentially confounding factors of age and level of education. OANB: Accuracy on the Object and Action Naming Battery; BNT: Accuracy on the Boston Naming Test; RT: Response time; FAS, Animals, Verbs and COSEF (complex oral semantic verbal fluency): Accuracy on verbal-fluency tasks; MC: Main-concept score on a re-telling task; MSAS: Moderate to severe anomia in stroke; MAS: Mild anomia in stroke; PD: Parkinson’s disease. MS: Multiple sclerosis.

^a Correlation significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

^b Correlation significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

Table Appendix 1. Results when the PD participant with extreme value in the confrontation naming task was excluded.

	OANB % correct		BNT % correct		FAS		Animals		Verbs		COSEF		MC total score		CPIB
	Sig.	Adj. sig.	Sig.	Adj. sig.	Sig.	Adj. sig.	Sig.	Adj. sig.	Sig..	Adj sig.	Sig..	Adj sig.	Sig.	Adj. sig.	p=0.089
MSAS-MAS	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.001	0.069	0.414	0.006	0.033	0.028	0.167	0.295	<0.001	0.002	0.010
MSAS-PD	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.031	0.186	<0.001	<0.001
MSAS-MS	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.006	0.035	<0.001	<0.001
MAS-PD	0.468	1.000	0.169	1.000	<0.001	<0.001	0.006	0.037	0.002	0.010	0.011	0.064	0.061	0.365
MAS-MS	0.003	0.015	0.003	0.021	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.003
PD-MS	0.034	0.421	0.185	1.000	0.729	1.000	0.306	1.000	0.675	1.000	0.173	1.000	0.171	1.000
	OANB RT		BNT RT		% correctly named nouns		% correctly named verbs		MC AC		MC AI		MC IN	MC AB
	Sig.	Adj. sig.	p=0.316		Sig.	Adj. sig.	Sig.	Adj. sig.	Sig.	Adj sig.	Sig.	Adj sig.	p=0.171	Sig.	Adj sig.
MSAS-MAS	0.009	0.055			<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.002	223	1.000		0.001	0.003
MSAS-PD	<0.001	<0.001			<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.042	0.253		<0.001	<0.001
MSAS-MS	<0.001	<0.001			<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.891	1.000		<0.001	<0.001
MAS-PD	0.048	0.288			0.443	1.000	.261	1.000	0.055	0.332	0.001	0.006		0.267	1.000
MAS-MS	0.001	0.003			0.005	0.031	0.005	0.028	0.003	0.020	0.141	0.846		0.003	0.017
PD-MS	0.226	1.000			0.066	0.398	0.135	0.812	0.443	1.000	0.039	0.235		0.097	0.579
Inadequate responses	No or abandoned		Multiple phonologic		Related		Unrelated		Inadequate		Adequate		Visual misinterpretation
	Sig.	Adj. sig.	Sig.	Adj. sig.	Sig.	Adj. sig.	Sig.	Adj sig.	Sig.	Adj sig.	p=0.097		Sig.	Adj sig.
MSAS-MAS	0.041	0.248	0.946	1.000	0.164	.986	0.002	0.011	0.355	1.000			0.101	0.608
MSAS-PD	0.002	0.011	0.005	0.028	0.001	0.007	0.031	0.184	0.042	0.251			0.003	0.018
MSAS-MS	0.001	0.006	0.004	0.025	<0.001	0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.090	0.541			0.026	0.155
MAS-PD	0.227	1.000	0.003	0.016	0.047	0.280	0.398	1.000	0.232	1.000			0.145	0.870
MAS-MS	0.222	1.000	0.002	0.013	0.015	0.091	0.088	0.525	0.009	0.057			0.592	1.000
PD-MS	0.912	1.000	0.807	1.000	0.831	1.000	0.013	0.076	0.725	1.000			0.310	1.000

One single result was altered regarding statistically significant differences excluding the PD participant who had extreme values on the OANB. There was a significant difference (p=0.037) between the PD and the MAS groups in the Animal verbal fluency task (in bold, italics and underlined). All absolute values that were altered are in italics. All significant differences are in bold.

Animals: semantic fluency; BNT: the Boston Naming Test; COSEF: Complex oral semantic verbal fluency; CPIB: short form Communicative Participation Item Bank; FAS: phonologic/letter fluency; MAS: Mild anomia in stroke; MC: Main concept score; Accurate Complete (AC), Accurate Incomplete (AI), Incorrect (IN) or Absent (AB); MS: Multiple sclerosis; MSAS: Moderate-severe anomia in stroke; OANB: The Action Naming Battery; PD: Parkinson’s disease; RT: Response time; Verbs: verb fluency.

Hoehn MM, Yahr MD. Parkinsonism: onset, progression and mortality. Neurology. 1967;17(5):427–442.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983;33(11):1444–1452.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Semel E, Wiig EH, Secord WA. Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals. 4th ed. Toronto: The Psychological Corporation/A Harcourt Assessment Company; 2003.

 Google Scholar

Delis DC, Kaplan E, Kramer JH. Delis-Kaplan executive function system. 2001.

 Google Scholar

Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bedirian V, et al. The Montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–699.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hilari K, Byng S, Lamping DL, et al. Stroke and aphasia quality of life scale-39 (SAQOL-39): evaluation of acceptability, reliability, and validity. Stroke. 2003;34(8):1944–1950.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Eckerström M, Skoogh J, Rolstad S, et al. Sahlgrenska academy self-reported cognitive impairment questionnaire (SASCI-Q) – a research tool discriminating between subjectively cognitively impaired patients and healthy controls. Int Psychogeriatr. 2013;25(3):420–430.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar