Skip to main content

Table 11 Frequencies of patients with and without dissociations regarding magnitude comparison

From: Patterns of linguistic and numerical performance in aphasia

Dissociation patterns a-b-c

Sum of patients

CFA

Z

p

0-0-0

19a

3.597

< .00185

0-0-N

0

−2.444

ns

0-0-L

0

−1.355

ns

0-N-0

2

−1.810

ns

0-N-N

5a

3.630

< .00185

0-N-L

0

−0.141

ns

0-L-0

0

−1.555

ns

0-L-N

0

0.089

ns

0-L-L

1

0.625

ns

N-0-0

1

0.054

ns

N-0-N

1

0.247

ns

N-0-L

0

0.786

ns

N-N-0

0

−0.045

ns

N-N-N

0

1.045

ns

N-N-L

0

1.721

ns

N-L-0

1

0.717

ns

N-L-N

0

2.054

ns

N-L-L

0b

3.044

< .00185

L-0-0

0

−1.132

ns

L-0-N

0

0.247

ns

L-0-L

1

0.786

ns

L-N-0

1

−0.045

ns

L-N-N

0

1.045

ns

L-N-L

0

1.721

ns

L-L-0

0

0.717

ns

L-L-N

0

2.054

ns

L-L-L

1a

3.044

< .00185

  1. Note. Dissociation pattern a-b-c: a = direction of dissociation between magnitude comparison of Arabic digits and number words, b = direction of dissociation between magnitude comparison of number words and animals, c = direction of dissociation between magnitude comparison of Arabic digits and animals; 0 = no dissociation, N = dissociation with better numerical performance, L = dissociation with better linguistic performance; note that n = 33 due to later inclusion of Arabic digits comparison; apattern revealed as type or bantitype according to CFA [64], for types and antitypes all p < .0018519 (Bonferroni-adjusted α).