Patterns of linguistic and numerical performance in aphasia

Table 5 Dissociations in total (classical, strong) for poorer linguistic or numerical performance ( n =60)

P		NUMBERS VS. LETTERS			TG
AS	Cognitive functions	Tasks	Dissociations ¹
	Cognitive functions	Tasks	L < N	N < L
	Visual analysis	hidden objects	6 (4, 2)	1 (1,0)	I
	Automatized sequences ²	successor	29 (18, 11)	0
	Phonological working memory	forward	0	0
	Phonological working memory	backwards	0	0
			NUMBERS VS. WORDS
	Cognitive functions	Tasks	L < N	N < L
	Visual analysis	visual matching			II
		dots vs. pseudowords	15 (5, 10)	6 (2, 4)
		digits vs. pseudowords	14 (4, 10)	4 (1, 3)
	Automatized sequences ²	successor	16 (12, 4)	1 (0, 1)
	Automatized sequences ²	number words vs. months	16 (12, 4)	1 (0, 1)
	Repetition ²	number words vs. adjectives	3 (0, 3)	0
	Reading ²	Arabic vs. number words	3 (3, 0)	12 (4, 8)
	Reading ²	number words vs. words	8 (6, 2)	10 (5, 5)
	Morpho-lexical knowledge	grammatical number vs. grammatical gender	9 (4, 5)	29 (3, 26)
S	Semantic classification	parity vs. biological gender	19 (15, 4)	9 (2, 7)	III
	Semantic comparison ³	Arabic digits vs. number words	3 (2, 1)	3 (1, 2)
		number words vs. animals	8 (7, 1)	3 (2, 1)
		Arabic digits vs. animal	6 (5, 1)	3 (2, 1)
	Fact retrieval	arithmetic vs. semantic	6 (6, 0)	26 (16, 10)
	Fact retrieval	arithmetic vs. phonological	7 (5, 2)	20 (12, 8)

Note. L < N: numerical advantage, N < L: linguistic advantage; ¹dissociations were only determined for accuracy according to Crawford single case approach for tasks with available control group data (patients’ efficiency was expected to be lower than healthy participants’ efficiency); otherwise ²Fisher’s exact test (cf. [58], chapter 3); ³patient group: n = 33 (due to later inclusion of Arabic digits comparison).

ISSN: 1744-9081