Lexical and Cognitive Underpinnings of Verbal Fluency: Evidence from Bengali-English Bilingual Aphasia
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. The Current Investigation, Research Questions, and Predictions
- To determine differences in verbal fluency performance (quantitative, time-course, as well as clustering and switching analysis) between BWA and BHC.
- 2.
- To establish the relationship between verbal fluency performance and executive control abilities for BWA and BHC.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Background Measures
2.2.1. Bilingualism measures
2.2.2. Executive Control Measures
2.3. Verbal Fluency Measures
2.3.1. Trials and Procedures
2.3.2. Data Coding and Analysis
- Number of correct responses (CR): Total number of responses produced in one-minute after excluding the errors. In semantic fluency, errors were repetition of same words, words from different semantic category (e.g., camel as a response for fruits and vegetables), and words from non-target language. In letter fluency, errors were repetition of same words, words beginning with a different letter (e.g., potato as a response for letter A), proper nouns (e.g., Australia as a response for letter A), same word with different endings (e.g., fast, faster, fastest were counted as single CR), and words from a non-target language.
- Fluency Difference Score (FDS): FDS was calculated by subtracting the CR in letter fluency from CR in semantic fluency and dividing the remainder with CR in semantic fluency (Equation (3)).
- First-RT (1st RT) and Subsequent-RT (Sub-RT): 1st RT is the time interval from the onset of the trial to the onset of the first response. 1st RT has been linked to the preparation time required to begin a task [38]. Sub-RT is the mean value of the time intervals from the 1st RT to the onset of each subsequent response. As mentioned earlier in the Introduction, Sub-RT provide estimation of mean retrieval latency and is associated with the declining rate of recall. A faster Sub-RT in conjunction with fewer CR indicates structural loss to the mental lexicon [38].
- Clustering and Switching: We derived four parameters to characterize the clustering and switching abilities of our participants—cluster size, number of switches, within-cluster pauses, between-cluster pauses. Following Troyer et al. [19], words that shared the same semantic subcategory constituted the semantic fluency cluster. Letter fluency cluster was determined when any one of these following criteria was met: Words that begin with same first two letters (fan and fat), words that differ only by a vowel sound (son and sun), rhyming words (stool and school), and homonyms (fair—legitimate, fare—money one has to pay in a public transport). Cluster size was calculated beginning with the second word in each cluster. Cluster size of zero was given for a single word (e.g., cat), cluster size of one was given for two words cluster (e.g., cat, dog belong to pet animal cluster and cluster size of one), and so on. Number of switches was the number of transitions between clusters. For example, cat, dog; leopard, cheetah; donkey, pig contain two switches—before leopard and after cheetah. For a detail description of clustering and switching analysis refer to Patra et al. [6].
- Within-cluster pause: Within-cluster pause was the mean time difference between successive words within a cluster. For example, cat, dog is a pet cluster, and onset time of cat is 3 sec and onset time of dog is 4 sec. Within-cluster pause for this cluster will be one second (i.e., 4 -3). A three-word cluster example can be pig, cow, horse, and with the onset time for pig, cow, and horse 5, 7, and 8, respectively. Within-cluster pause for this farm animal cluster will be ({(7 − 5) + (8 − 7)} / 2 = 1.5 sec).
- Between-cluster pauses: Between-cluster pauses refer to the time difference between the onset time of the last word of a cluster and first word of the consecutive cluster. An example of two consecutive clusters are cat, dog, and pig, cow, horse. The pause time between these clusters will be the difference between the onset time of dog and pig that is (5 − 4) = 1 sec.
3. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Group Differences in Verbal Fluency Performance
4.2. Verbal Fluency Performance at the Individual Level.
4.3. Verbal Fluency Performance and Executive Control Measures
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Subtests of WAB | BWA1 | BWA2 | BWA3 | BWA4 | BWA5 | BWA6 | BWA7 | BWA8 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | E | B | E | B | E | B | E | B | E | B | E | B | E | B | E | |
Spontaneous speech | ||||||||||||||||
Information content 1 | 7 | 7 | 8 | CT 19 | CT 19 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | CT 19 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 7 | CT 19 |
Fluency 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||||
Score 3 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 6 | 12 | 12 | 11 | ||||
Auditory verbal comprehension | ||||||||||||||||
Yes/No questions 4 | 60 | 54 | 60 | CT 19 | CT 19 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | CT 19 | 54 | 60 | 60 | 60 | CT 19 |
Auditory word recognition 5 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 | 56 | 60 | 60 | 60 | ||||
Sequential commands 6 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 66 | 80 | 80 | 80 | ||||
Total 7 | 200 | 194 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 176 | 200 | 200 | 200 | ||||
Score 8 | 10 | 9.7 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 8.8 | 10 | 10 | 10 | ||||
Repetition | ||||||||||||||||
Repetition 9 | 64 | 49 | 65 | CT 19 | CT 19 | 77 | 100 | 90 | 78 | 76 | CT 19 | 30 | 78 | 76 | 65 | CT 19 |
Score 10 | 6.4 | 4.9 | 6.5 | 7.7 | 10 | 9 | 7.8 | 7.6 | 3 | 7.8 | 7.6 | 6.5 | ||||
Naming | ||||||||||||||||
Object naming 11 | 42 | 38 | 54 | CT 19 | CT 19 | 42 | 57 | 54 | 57 | 48 | CT 19 | 45 | 57 | 57 | 45 | CT 19 |
Fluency 12 | 10 | 16 | 7 | 11 | 12 | 16 | 10 | 11 | 5 | 12 | 13 | 8 | ||||
Sentence completion 13 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 8 | 8 | ||||
Responsive speech 14 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 10 | 8 | 8 | ||||
Total 15 | 69 | 66 | 75 | 65 | 88 | 89 | 86 | 75 | 62 | 88 | 86 | 69 | ||||
Score 16 | 6.9 | 6.6 | 7.5 | 6.5 | 8.8 | 8.9 | 8.6 | 7.5 | 6.2 | 8.8 | 8.6 | 6.9 | ||||
AQ 17 | 68.6 | 64.4 | 75 | 74.4 | 83.6 | 79.8 | 76.8 | 74.2 | 48 | 77.2 | 76.4 | 68.6 | ||||
Type 18 | BA | BA | BA | BA | TCM | TCM | BA | BA | BA | BA | BA | BA |
BWA1 | BWA2 | BWA3 | BWA4 | BWA5 | BWA6 | BWA7 | BWA8 | BWA (N = 8) | BHC (N = 8) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | Statistical Analysis 4 | |||||||||
Croft’s test battery 1 | |||||||||||||
Naming 2 | |||||||||||||
Bengali | 28(93.3%) | 23(76.7%) | 15(50%) | 29(96.7%) | 29(96.7%) | 10(33.3%) | 29(96.7%) | 22(73.3%) | 23.1(77%) | 7.2(24.1%) | 30(100%) | t(7) = 2.7, p = 0.03 | |
English | 22(73.3%) | 2(6.7%) | 26(86.7%) | 29(96.7%) | 24(80%) | 23(76.7%) | 29(96.7%) | 15(50%) | 21.1(70%) | 8.9(29.8%) | 30(100%) | t(7) = 2.7, p = 0.03 | |
Difference 3 | p = 0.39 | p < 0.001 | p = 0.08 | p = 1 | p = 0.49 | p = 0.02 | p = 1 | p = 0.24 | p = 0.63 | p = 1 | |||
Repetition 2 | |||||||||||||
Bengali | 21(70%) | 27(90%) | 22(73.3%) | 30(100%) | 27(90%) | 20(66.7%) | 30(100%) | 30(100%) | 25.9(86.3%) | 4.3(14.1%) | 30(100%) | t(7) = 2.7, p = 0.03 | |
English | 22(73.3%) | CNP5 | 26(86.7%) | 28(93.3%) | 30(100%) | 24(80%) | 30(100%) | 30(100%) | 27.1(90.5%) | 3.2(10.8%) | 30(100%) | t(6) = 2.3, p= 0.06 | |
Difference 3 | p = 0.88 | p = 0.56 | p = 0.79 | p = 0.69 | p = 0.54 | p = 1 | p = 1 | p = 0.15 | p = 1 | ||||
Word to picture matching 2 | |||||||||||||
Bengali | 30(100%) | 30 (100%) | 30(100%) | 30(100%) | 30(100%) | 30(100%) | 30(100%) | 30(100%) | 30(100%) | 30(100%) | p = 1 | ||
English | 30(100%) | 30(100%) | 30(100%) | 30(100%) | 30(100%) | 30(100%) | 30(100%) | 30(100%) | 30(100%) | 30(100%) | p = 1 | ||
Difference 3 | p = 1 | P = 1 | p = 1 | p = 1 | p = 1 | p = 1 | p = 1 | p = 1 | p = 1 | p = 1 | |||
Reading Aloud 2 | |||||||||||||
Bengali | 23(76.7%) | 16(53.3%) | CNP5 | 29(96.7%) | 28(93.3%) | 12(40%) | 24(80%) | 30(100%) | 23.1(87.1%) | 6.8(21.9%) | 30(100%) | t(6) = 2.6, p = 0.04 | |
English | 19(63.3%) | CNP5 | 27(90%) | 29(96.7%) | 29(96.7%) | 24(80%) | 30(100%) | CNP5 | 26.3(87.8%) | 4.2(13.9%) | 30(100%) | t(5) = 2.1, p = 0.08 | |
Difference 3 | p = 0.53 | p = 1 | p = 0.89 | p = 0.04 | p = 0.41 | p = 0.18 | p = 1 |
Measures | Statistical Analysis (Group, Language, Condition) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group (G) | Lang (L) | Cond (C) | G x L | G x C | C x L | G x L x C | |
CR 1 | F(1,14) = 32.2, p < 0.001, = 0.70 | F(1,14) = 0.73, p = 0.41, = 0.05 | F(1,14) = 35.5, p = 0.009, = 0.72 | F(1,14) = 0.27, p = 0.61, = 0.02 | F(1,14) = 0.65, p = 0.43, = 0.04 | F(1,14) = 27.1, p < 0.001, = 0.66 | F(1,14) = 15.5, p < 0.001, = 0.53 |
Semantic | |||||||
Letter | |||||||
FDS 2 | F(1,14) = 8.9, p = 0.01,= 0.39 | F(1,14 ) = 4.2, p = 0.06, = 0.23 | NA | F(1,14) = 8, p = 0.01,= 0.36 | NA | NA | NA |
1st RT | F(1,14) = 6.54, p = 0.02, =0.32 | F(1,14) = 0.01, p = 0.92, = 0.001 | F(1,14) = 0.07, p = 0.79, = 0.005 | F(1,14) = 0.14, p = 0.72, = 0.01 | F(1,14) = 0.01, p = 0.94, = 0.001 | F(1,14) = 1.3, p = 0.28, = 0.08 | F(1,14) = 2.1, p = 0.17, = 0.13 |
Semantic | |||||||
Letter | |||||||
Sub-RT | F(1,14) = 3.2, p = 0.10, = 0.18 | F(1,14) = 0.21, p = 0.65, = 0.01 | F(1,14) = 4.1, p = 0.06, = 0.22 | F(1,14) = 0.28, p = 0.60, = 0.02 | F(1,14) = 0.88, p = 0.36, = 0.06 | F(1,14) = 0.62, p = 0.44, = 0.04 | F(1,14) = 2, p = 0.17, = 0.13 |
Semantic | |||||||
Letter | |||||||
Cluster size | F(1,14) = 3.1, p = 0.10, = 0.18 | F(1,14) = 1.5, p = 0.23, = 0.10 | F(1,14) = 18.7, p < 0.001,= 0.57 | F(1,14) = 1.7, p = 0.21, = 0.11 | F(1,14) = 2.3, p = 0.15, = 0.14 | F(1,14) = 2, p = 0.18, = 0.12 | F(1,14) = 0.08, p = 0.79, = 0.005 |
Semantic | |||||||
Letter | |||||||
Switches | F(1,14) = 24.9, p < 0.001, = 0.64 | F(1,14) = 0.27, p = 0.61, = 0.02 | F(1,14) = 9.7, p = 0.008, = 0.41 | F(1,14) = 0.61, p = 0.45, = 0.04 | F(1,14) = 0.01, p = 0.97, = 0.000 | F(1,14) = 10.6, p = 0.006,= 0.43 | F(1,14) = 13.4, p = 0.003,= 0.49 |
Semantic | |||||||
Letter | |||||||
WCP 3 | F(1,14) = 0.23, p = 0.64, = 0.02 | F(1,14) = 0.34, p = 0.57, = 0.02 | F(1,14) = 2, p = 0.17, = 0.13 | F(1,14) = 0.27, p = 0.61, = 0.02 | F(1,14) = 6.5, p = 0.02, = 0.32 | F(1,14) = 3.9, p = 0.07, = 0.22 | F(1,14) = 3.6, p = 0.08, = 0.21 |
Semantic | |||||||
Letter | |||||||
BCP 4 | F(1,14) = 10.9, p = 0.005, = 0.44 | F(1,14) = 2.8, p = 0.79, = 0.17 | F(1,14) = 0.08, p = 0.79, = 0.005 | F(1,14) = 1.6, p = 0.22, = 0.10 | F(1,14) = 0.14, p = 0.71, = 0.01 | F(1,14) = 0.16, p = 0.69, = 0.01 | F(1,14) = 0.33, p = 0.58, = 0.02 |
Semantic | |||||||
Letter |
CR | FDS | 1st RT | Sub-RT | Cluster Size | Number ofSwitches | WCP | BCP | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BWA (N = 8) | |||||||||
Stroop ratio | rs 1 | −0.88 | 0.35 | 0.95 | −0.52 | 0.02 | −0.86 | −0.71 | 0.55 |
p | 0.004 | 0.40 | <0.001 | 0.18 | 0.95 | 0.007 | 0.05 | 0.16 | |
TMT ratio | rs 1 | −0.76 | 0.39 | 0.57 | −0.67 | 0.17 | −0.71 | −0.83 | −0.79 |
p | 0.03 | 0.33 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.69 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.02 | |
Backward digit span | rs 1 | 0.28 | −0.60 | −0.48 | −0.09 | −0.16 | 0.48 | 0.25 | −0.13 |
p | 0.51 | 0.12 | 0.23 | 0.83 | 0.70 | 0.23 | 0.55 | 0.77 | |
BHC (N = 8) | |||||||||
Stroop ratio | rs 1 | −0.37 | 0.58 | 0.46 | −0.25 | 0.48 | −0.71 | 0.67 | 0.71 |
p | 0.41 | 0.13 | 0.25 | 0.55 | 0.23 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.05 | |
TMT ratio | rs 1 | −0.33 | 0.62 | 0.19 | −0.45 | 0.31 | −0.62 | 0.31 | 0.36 |
p | 0.42 | 0.10 | 0.65 | 0.26 | 0.45 | 0.10 | 0.46 | 0.38 | |
Backward digit span | rs 1 | 0.77 | 0.00 | −0.08 | 0.77 | 0.23 | 0.69 | −0.62 | −0.85 |
p | 0.02 | 1.00 | 0.89 | 0.02 | 0.58 | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.008 |
References
- Grosjean, F.; Li, P. The Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Bialystok, E.; Craik, F.I.M.; Luk, G. Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2012, 16, 240–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ansaldo, A.I.; Marcotte, K.; Scherer, L.; Raboyeau, G. Language therapy and bilingual aphasia: Clinical implications of psycholinguistic and neuroimaging research. J. Neurolinguistics 2008, 21, 539–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bittner, R.M.; Crowe, S.F. The relationship between working memory, processing speed, verbal comprehension and FAS performance following traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2007, 21, 709–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hughes, D.L.; Bryan, J. Adult Age Differences in Strategy Use During Verbal Fluency Performance. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 2002, 24, 642–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patra, A.; Bose, A.; Marinis, T. Performance difference in verbal fluency in bilingual and monolingual speakers. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 2019, 23, 204–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bose, A.; Wood, R.; Kiran, S. Semantic fluency in aphasia: Clustering and switching in the course of 1 minute. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2016, 52, 334–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henry, J.D.; Crawford, J.R. A Meta-Analytic Review of Verbal Fluency Performance in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury. Neuropsychology 2004, 18, 621–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Henry, J.D.; Crawford, J.R.; Phillips, L.H. Verbal fluency performance in dementia of the Alzheimer’s type: A meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia 2004, 42, 1212–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Troyer, A.K.; Moscovitch, M.; Winocur, G.; Leach, L.; Freedman, A.M. Clustering and switching on verbal fluency tests in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 1998, 4, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wauters, L.; Marquardt, T.; Muñoz, M.L. Verbal fluency in three Spanish-English bilingual speakers with TBI. J. Commun. Disord. 2020, 84, 105971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carpenter, E.; Rao, L.; Peñaloza, C.; Kiran, S. Verbal fluency as a measure of lexical access and cognitive control in bilingual persons with aphasia. Aphasiology 2020, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faroqi-Shah, Y.; Sampson, M.; Pranger, M.; Baughman, S. Cognitive control, word retrieval and bilingual aphasia: Is there a relationship? J. Neurolinguistics 2018, 45, 95–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, T.; Kiran, S. A Theoretical Account of Lexical and Semantic Naming Deficits in Bilingual Aphasia. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2013, 56, 1314–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kiran, S.; Balachandran, I.; Lucas, J. The Nature of Lexical-Semantic Access in Bilingual Aphasia. Behav. Neurol. 2014, 2014, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Roberts, P.M.; Le Dorze, G. Bilingual Aphasia: Semantic Organization, Strategy Use, and Productivity in Semantic Verbal Fluency. Brain Lang. 1998, 65, 287–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beveridge, M.E.L.; Bak, T.H. The languages of aphasia research: Bias and diversity. Aphasiology 2011, 25, 1451–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosen, V.M.; Sunderland, T.; Levy, J.; Harwell, A.; McGee, L.; Hammond, C.; Bhupali, D.; Putnam, K.; Bergeson, J.; Lefkowitz, C. Apolipoprotein E and category fluency: Evidence for reduced semantic access in healthy normal controls at risk for developing Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychologia 2005, 43, 647–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Troyer, A.K.; Moscovitch, M.; Winocur, G. Clustering and switching as two components of verbal fluency: Evidence from younger and older healthy adults. Neuropsychology 1997, 11, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tröster, A.I.; Fields, J.A.; A Testa, J.; Paul, R.H.; Blanco, C.R.; Hames, K.A.; Salmon, D.P.; Beatty, W.W. Cortical and subcortical influences on clustering and switching in the performance of verbal fluency tasks. Neuropsychologia 1998, 36, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raboutet, C.; Sauzéon, H.; Corsini, M.-M.; Rodrigues, J.; Langevin, S.; N’Kaoua, B. Performance on a semantic verbal fluency task across time: Dissociation between clustering, switching, and categorical exploitation processes. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 2009, 32, 268–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, R.M.; Wilshire, C.E. Lexical competition for production in a case of nonfluent aphasia: Converging evidence from four different tasks. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 2010, 27, 505–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stroop, J.R. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J. Exp. Psychol. 1935, 18, 643–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reitan, R.M.; Wolfson, D. The Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery. In The Neuropsychology Handbook: Behavioral and Clinical Perspectives; Springer Publishing Co: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 134–160. ISBN 978-0-8261-4650-2. [Google Scholar]
- Wechsler, D. WAiS-iii; Psychological Corporation: San Antonio, TX, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Gruenewald, P.J.; Lockhead, G.R. The free recall of category examples. J. Exp. Psychol. 1980, 6, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friesen, D.C.; Luo, L.; Luk, G.; Bialystok, E. Proficiency and control in verbal fluency performance across the lifespan for monolinguals and bilinguals. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 2014, 30, 238–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Luo, L.; Luk, G.; Bialystok, E. Effect of language proficiency and executive control on verbal fluency performance in bilinguals. Cognition 2010, 114, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baldo, J.V.; Schwartz, S.; Wilkins, D.P.; Dronkers, N.F. Role of frontal versus temporal cortex in verbal fluency as revealed by voxel-based lesion symptom mapping. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 2006, 12, 896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baldo, J.V.; Schwartz, S.; Wilkins, D.P.; Dronkers, N.F. Double dissociation of letter and category fluency following left frontal and temporal lobe lesions. Aphasiology 2010, 24, 1593–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shao, Z.; Janse, E.; Visser, K.; Meyer, A.S. What do verbal fluency tasks measure? Predictors of verbal fluency performance in older adults. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stuss, D.T.; Alexander, M.P.; Hamer, L.; Palumbo, C.; Dempster, R.; Binns, M.; Levine, B.; Izukawa, D. The effects of focal anterior and posterior brain lesions on verbal fluency. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 1998, 4, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thiele, K.; Quinting, J.; Stenneken, P. New ways to analyze word generation performance in brain injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis of additional performance measures. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 2016, 38, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, J.K.; Young, M.; Garcia, C. Why do older adults have difficulty with semantic fluency? Aging, Neuropsychol. Cogn. 2017, 25, 803–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Whiteside, D.M.; Kealey, T.; Semla, M.; Luu, H.; Rice, L.; Basso, M.R.; Roper, B. Verbal Fluency: Language or Executive Function Measure? Appl. Neuropsychol. Adult 2015, 23, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ljungberg, J.K.; Elbe, P.; Sörman, D.E. The bilingual effects of linguistic distances on episodic memory and verbal fluency. Scand. J. Psychol. 2019, 61, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandoval, T.C.; Gollan, T.H.; Ferreira, V.S.; Salmon, D.P. What causes the bilingual disadvantage in verbal fluency? The dual-task analogy. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 2010, 13, 231–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rohrer, D.; Wixted, J.T.; Salmon, D.P.; Butters, N. Retrieval from semantic memory and its implications for Alzheimer’s disease. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 1995, 21, 1127–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Piolat, A.; Barbier, M.-L.; Roussey, J.-Y. Fluency and Cognitive Effort During First- and Second-Language Notetaking and Writing by Undergraduate Students. Eur. Psychol. 2008, 13, 114–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miyake, A.; Friedman, N.P.; Emerson, M.J.; Witzki, A.H.; Howerter, A.; Wager, T.D. The Unity and Diversity of Executive Functions and Their Contributions to Complex “Frontal Lobe” Tasks: A Latent Variable Analysis. Cogn. Psychol. 2000, 41, 49–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lahiri, D.; Dubey, S.; Ardila, A.; Sawale, V.M.; Das, G.; Ray, B.K. Lesion-aphasia discordance in acute stroke among Bengali-speaking patients: Frequency, pattern, and effect on aphasia recovery. J. Neurolinguistics 2019, 52, 100859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lahiri, D.; Ardila, A.; Dubey, S.; Mukherjee, A.; Chatterjee, K.; Ray, B.K. Effect of bilingualism on aphasia recovery. Aphasiology 2020, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hernandez, A.E.; Meschyan, G. Executive function is necessary to enhance lexical processing in a less proficient L2: Evidence from fMRI during picture naming. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 2006, 9, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brysbaert, M. How Many Participants Do We Have to Include in Properly Powered Experiments? A Tutorial of Power Analysis with Reference Tables. J. Cogn. 2019, 2, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Western Aphasia Battery—Revised (WAB-R) | Pearson Assessment. Available online: https://www.pearsonclinical.co.uk/Psychology/AdultCognitionNeuropsychologyandLanguage/AdultLanguage/WesternAphasiaBattery-Revised(WAB-R)/WesternAphasiaBattery-Revised(WAB-R).aspx (accessed on 10 September 2020).
- Keshree, N.K.; Kumar, S.; Basu, S.; Chakrabarty, M.; Kishore, T. Adaptation of The Western Aphasia Battery in Bangla. Psychol. Lang. Commun. 2013, 17, 189–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- PALPA: Psycholinguistic Assessments of Language Processing in Aphasia. Available online: https://www.routledge.com/PALPA-Psycholinguistic-Assessments-of-Language-Processing-in-Aphasia/Kay-Coltheart-Lesser/p/book/9780863771668 (accessed on 10 September 2020).
- Croft, S.; Marshall, J.; Pring, T.; Hardwick, M. Therapy for naming difficulties in bilingual aphasia: Which language benefits? Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2010, 46, 48–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Muñoz, M.L.; Marquardt, T.P.; Copeland, G. A Comparison of the Codeswitching Patterns of Aphasic and Neurologically Normal Bilingual Speakers of English and Spanish. Brain Lang. 1999, 66, 249–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunn, A.L.; Tree, J.E.F. A quick, gradient Bilingual Dominance Scale*. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 2009, 12, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sánchez-Cubillo, I.; Periáñez, J.; Adrover-Roig, D.; Rodríguez-Sánchez, J.; Ríos-Lago, M.; Tirapu, J.; Barceló, F. Construct validity of the Trail Making Test: Role of task-switching, working memory, inhibition/interference control, and visuomotor abilities. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 2009, 15, 438–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Salthouse, T.A. What cognitive abilities are involved in trail-making performance? Intelligence 2011, 39, 222–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Crawford, J.R.; Howell, D.C. Comparing an Individual’s Test Score Against Norms Derived from Small Samples. Clin. Neuropsychol. 1998, 12, 482–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crawford, J.R.; Garthwaite, P.H. Investigation of the single case in neuropsychology: Confidence limits on the abnormality of test scores and test score differences. Neuropsychologia 2002, 40, 1196–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boersma, P.; Weenink, D. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [computer program]; Version 6.0.08. 2015. Available online: http://www.praat.org (accessed on 15 September 2015).
- Patra, A.; Bose, A.; Marinis, T. Verbal fluency in Bengali-English bilinguals with aphasia and bilingual healthy controls. Univ. Read. 2020, Dataset. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fabbro, F. The Bilingual Brain: Bilingual Aphasia. Brain Lang. 2001, 79, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Paradis, M. Bilingual and polyglot aphasia. In Handbook of Neuropsychology: Language and Aphasia, 2nd ed.; Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001; Volume 3, pp. 69–91. [Google Scholar]
- Chiou, H.S.; Kennedy, M.R.T. Switching in adults with aphasia. Aphasiology 2009, 23, 1065–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Helm-Estabrooks, N. Cognition and aphasia: A discussion and a study. J. Commun. Disord. 2002, 35, 171–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parameters | Description | Lexical Control | Executive Control |
---|---|---|---|
Quantitative analysis | |||
Number of correct responses (CR) | Number of words generated in 60-s excluding errors. Measures word retrieval abilities. | √ | √ |
Fluency difference score (FDS) 1 | Measures the ability to maintain the performance in the demanding condition (i.e., letter fluency). | √ | |
Time-course analysis2,3 | |||
1st RT | Time duration from the beginning of the trial to the onset of first response. Measures the preparation time. | √ | |
Sub-RT | Average of time intervals from the onset of first response to the onset of each subsequent response. Estimate for mean retrieval latency and represents the time point at which half of the total responses have been generated. | √ | |
Clustering & Switching analysis4 | |||
Cluster size | Strategic process that helps with generating words within a subcategory and utilizes the speaker’s ability to access words within subcategories. | √ | |
Number of switches | Strategic process to shift efficiently to a new subcategory when a subcategory is exhausted. | √ | |
Within-cluster pauses | Mean time differences between each successive word within the same cluster. | √ | |
Between-cluster pauses | Mean time difference between the onset time of the last word of a cluster and first word of the consecutive cluster. | √ |
Variables | BWA1 | BWA2 | BWA3 | BWA4 | BWA5 | BWA6 | BWA7 | BWA8 | BWA | BHC(N=8) | Statistical Results | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | ||||||||||
Age | 50 | 58 | 50 | 54 | 35 | 35 | 34 | 66 | 47.4 | 12.9 | 44.9 | 16.5 | t(14) = 0.67, p = 0.51 |
Sex | M | F | M | M | F | M | M | M | F(2) | M(6) | F(2) | M(6) | χ2(1)1)ele7) = 0.02, p = 0.971ses in ime course analysis, and qualitaitve h each other and whicj measure best predict the n the verbal = 0, p = 1 |
Years of education | 18 | 12 | 17 | 18 | 20 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16.6 | 2.5 | 16.8 | 1.8 | t(14) = −0.23, p = 0.82 |
Time post onset (months) | 17 | 58 | 19 | 12 | 27 | 40 | 22 | 27 | 27.8 | 14.8 | |||
Pre-stroke occupation | Accountant | Business | Marketing | General Manager | PhD student | Software Engineer | Marketing | Clerk | |||||
Aphasia type 1 | |||||||||||||
Bengali | Broca’s | Broca’s | CT 2 | TCM 3 | Broca’s | CT 2 | Broca’s | Broca’s | |||||
English | Broca’s | CT 2 | Broca’s | TCM 3 | Broca’s | Broca’s | Broca’s | CT 2 | |||||
Severity1 | |||||||||||||
Bengali | Moderate | Moderate | CT 2 | Mild | Mild | CT 2 | Mild | Moderate | |||||
English | Moderate | CT 2 | Moderate | Mild | Moderate | Severe | Mild | CT 2 | |||||
AQ 4 | |||||||||||||
Bengali | 68.6 | 75 | CT 2 | 83.6 | 76.8 | CT 2 | 77.2 | 68.6 | |||||
English | 64.4 | CT 2 | 74.4 | 79.8 | 74.2 | 48 | 76.4 | CT 2 |
Measures | BWA1 | BWA2 | BWA3 | BWA4 | BWA5 | BWA6 | BWA7 | BWA8 | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | BWA | |||||||
Pre | Post | BHC (N = 8) | |||||||||||||||||||||
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | Statistical Results 8 | |||||||||||||||||
Bengali | |||||||||||||||||||||||
LAH 1,6 | 16 | 16 | 12 | 15 | 14 | 12 | 14 | 14 | 14.1 | 1.5 | 14.9 | 1.1 | t(14) = −1.1, p = 0.29 | ||||||||||
LOI 2,6 | 9 | 6 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 2.1 | 6.8 | 2.5 | t(14) = 0.10, p = 0.91 | ||||||||||
SLF 3,6 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 4.5 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 7 | 5.2 | 7 | 4.5 | 5.5 | 3.5 | 6 | 4.8 | 7 | 4.2 | 6.2 | 1.5 | 4.3 | 0.8 | 6.6 | 0.57 | t(14) = −0.77, p = 0.45 |
Speaking | 7 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 4.5 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 6.7 | 0.9 | 3.9 | 1.2 | 7 | ||
Comprehension | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6.7 | 0.7 | 6.1 | 0.6 | 7 | ||
Reading | 7 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 5.6 | 2.2 | 3.7 | 1.5 | 6.2 | 1 | |
Writing | 7 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 5.6 | 2.2 | 3.4 | 1.2 | 6.1 | 1.3 | |
Language use 4,6 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 17 | 14 | 30 | 30 | 24 | 26 | 19 | 13 | 23 | 26 | 30 | 30 | 25.4 | 5.4 | 24.8 | 7.2 | 25.8 | 7.7 | t(14) = −0.11, p = 0.91 |
LD 5,7 | 23 | 26 | 12 | 23 | 25 | 19 | 11 | 26 | 20.6 | 6 | 20.9 | 5.8 | t(14) = −0.08, p = 0.93 | ||||||||||
English | |||||||||||||||||||||||
LAH 1,6 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1.8 | 2.9 | 1.4 | t(14) = −0.10, p = 0.31 | ||||||||||
LOI 2,6 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 6 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 5.1 | 3.6 | 5.6 | 1.3 | t(14) = −0.37, p = 0.72 | ||||||||||
SLF 3,6 | 6.5 | 4.4 | 3.8 | 2.2 | 6 | 4.8 | 6 | 4.1 | 5.6 | 4 | 7 | 4.8 | 7 | 4.5 | 4.2 | 2.7 | 5.8 | 1.2 | 3.9 | .9 | 4.8 | 1.5 | t(14) = 1.3, p = 0.21 |
Speaking | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 5.2 | 1.9 | 2.8 | .7 | 4.6 | 1.8 | |
Comprehension | 6 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 5.6 | 1.4 | 5 | 1.3 | 4.8 | 1.8 | |
Reading | 7 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 6.1 | 0.8 | 4.1 | 1.2 | 5.2 | 1 | |
Writing | 7 | 3.5 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 6.1 | 0.8 | 3.8 | .9 | 4.7 | 1.7 | |
Language use 4,6 | 18 | 13 | 8 | 6 | 24 | 21 | 16 | 12 | 16 | 15 | 21 | 24 | 18 | 15 | 12 | 12 | 16.6 | 4.9 | 14.8 | 5.9 | 15.1 | 7.7 | t(14) = 0.71, p = 0.49 |
LD 5,7 | 7 | 2 | 17 | 9 | 8 | 20 | 23 | 5 | 11.4 | 7.6 | 12 | 4.5 | t(14) = −0.20, p = 0.84 |
Measures | BWA (N = 8) | BHC (N = 8) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | Min–Max | SD | M | Min–Max | SD | ||
Stroop difference | 1636 | 66–4069 | 1529 | 200 | 15–335 | 113 | U1 = 10, p = 0.02 |
Stroop ratio | 49 | 4–85 | 30 | 24 | 3–35 | 11 | t(8.9) = 2.2, p = 0.05 |
TMT difference | 193 | 33–759 | 246 | 32 | 11–61 | 21 | U1= 13, p = 0.005 |
TMT ratio | 4 | 1.6–8 | 2 | 2 | 1–3 | 0.6 | U1= 13, p = 0.05 |
Backward digit span | 4 | 3–5 | 0.8 | 4.5 | 3–7 | 2 | U1 = 27, p = 0.64 |
Inhibitory control | Mental-set shifting | Working memory | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
BWA | Stroop difference | Stroop ratio | TMT difference | TMT ratio | Backward digit span |
BWA1 | 1132.8 | 36 | 66 | 2.8 | 4 |
BWA2 | 4068.8 | 76 | 316 | 8 | 3 |
BWA3 | 1296.1 | 57 | 82 | 1.9 | 3 |
BWA4 | 367.4 | 33 | 32.6 | 1.6 | 4 |
BWA5 | 65.7 | 4 | 123 | 2.8 | 4 |
BWA6 | 3511.7 | 80 | 129 | 2.8 | 5 |
BWA7 | 251.8 | 19 | 37.1 | 2.7 | 5 |
BWA8 | 2391.3 | 85 | 759 | 6.7 | 3 |
BHC (Mean, SD) | 199.8, 113.4 | 24, 11.1 | 31.8, 20.7 | 2.0, 0.6 | 4.5, 1.6 |
Measures | BWA (N = 8) | BHC (N = 8) | Statistical Analysis (Group, Language, Condition) | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | E | Total | B | E | Total | ||||||||||||||
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | Group (G) | Lang (L) | Cond (C) | G x L | G x C | C x L | G x L x C | |
CR 1 | 6.4 | 3.1 | 6.1 | 3.7 | 6.3 | 3.1 | 16.0 | 3 | 14.9 | 4.4 | 15.4 | 1.2 | Sig | NS | Sig | NS | NS | Sig | NS |
Semantic | 8.9 | 4 | 8.1 | 4.8 | 8.5 | 3.9 | 20.8 | 4 | 15.8 | 5.6 | 18.3 | 4.3 | |||||||
Letter | 3.9 | 2.7 | 4.2 | 3.4 | 4.1 | 2.9 | 11.1 | 3 | 14 | 4.4 | 12.5 | 3.2 | |||||||
FDS 2 | 0.56 | 0.24 | 0.62 | 0.26 | 0.59 | 0.19 | 0.46 | 0.14 | 0.06 | 0.40 | 0.26 | 0.24 | Sig | NS | NA | Sig | NA | NA | NA |
1st RT | 5.2 | 5.5 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.9 | 3.9 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 1.3 | 0.4 | Sig | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Semantic | 3.4 | 2.4 | 5.9 | 8 | 4.7 | 4.4 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 0.3 | |||||||
Letter | 6.9 | 11 | 3.3 | 2 | 5.1 | 5.8 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 0.5 | |||||||
Sub-RT | 20.4 | 6.5 | 18.5 | 7.3 | 19.5 | 4.6 | 22 | 2.3 | 23 | 1.5 | 22.5 | 1.7 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Semantic | 21.2 | 7.6 | 16.4 | 7.6 | 18.8 | 5.8 | 20 | 3.2 | 21 | 3.5 | 20.6 | 2.8 | |||||||
Letter | 19.6 | 8.2 | 20.7 | 9.7 | 20.2 | 5.2 | 25 | 2.6 | 24 | 3.5 | 24.5 | 2.4 | |||||||
Cluster size | 0.49 | 0.30 | 0.50 | 0.23 | 0.50 | 0.20 | 0.74 | 0.20 | 0.56 | 0.12 | 0.65 | 0.14 | NS | NS | Sig | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Semantic | 0.83 | 0.53 | 0.76 | 0.48 | 0.79 | 0.45 | 0.93 | 0.24 | 0.65 | 0.23 | 0.79 | 0.21 | |||||||
Letter | 0.16 | 0.22 | 0.24 | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.12 | 0.55 | 0.28 | 0.47 | 0.21 | 0.51 | 0.17 | |||||||
Switches | 4.1 | 2.1 | 3.9 | 2.6 | 4 | 2.2 | 8.7 | 1.4 | 9.3 | 2.5 | 9 | 1.8 | Sig | NS | Sig | NS | NS | Sig | Sig |
Semantic | 4.9 | 2.3 | 4.8 | 2.9 | 4.9 | 2.4 | 10.6 | 1.7 | 9.1 | 3.3 | 9.9 | 2.3 | |||||||
Letter | 3.3 | 2.3 | 3 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 2.5 | 6.7 | 1.8 | 9.5 | 2.4 | 8.1 | 1.7 | |||||||
WCP 3 | 3 | 1.8 | 3 | 1.8 | 3 | 1.3 | 3.1 | 1.1 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 3.4 | 1.6 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Semantic | 3.8 | 1.4 | 3 | 0.8 | 3.4 | 0.65 | 1.7 | 0.54 | 2.3 | 0.90 | 2 | 0.51 | |||||||
Letter | 2.2 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 4.4 | 2.2 | 5 | 3.6 | 4.7 | 2.8 | |||||||
BCP 4 | 8.1 | 2.5 | 10.3 | 5.8 | 9.2 | 4 | 4.3 | 0.78 | 4.7 | 0.97 | 4.5 | 0.64 | Sig | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Semantic | 8.2 | 5.6 | 10.3 | 7.8 | 9.3 | 6.4 | 3.4 | 0.49 | 4.6 | 1.4 | 4.1 | 0.75 | |||||||
Letter | 7.9 | 4 | 10.4 | 9 | 9.1 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 1.5 | 4.7 | 1.1 | 5 | 0.99 |
CR | FDS | Cluster size | Number of switches | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Semantic | Letter | Semantic | Letter | Semantic | Letter | ||
BWA1 | 10.75 | 3.5 | 0.69 | 0.4 | 0.19 | 7.75 | 2.83 |
BWA2 | 4.25 | 4.79 | 0.59 | 0.72 | 0.29 | 3 | 2.17 |
BWA3 | 7.5 | 2.34 | 0.68 | 0.27 | 0.28 | 6.25 | 1.5 |
BWA4 | 12 | 9.83 | 0.19 | 1.03 | 0.32 | 5.5 | 7.67 |
BWA5 | 11 | 4.17 | 0.62 | 0.9 | 0.31 | 6 | 2.83 |
BWA6 | 3.25 | 1.5 | 0.55 | 0.61 | 0.09 | 1.75 | 1.17 |
BWA7 | 13.75 | 6.17 | 0.55 | 0.72 | 0.14 | 7.25 | 6.5 |
BWA8 | 5.25 | 0.5 | 0.87 | 1.71 | 0.35 | 1.5 | 0.67 |
BHC (Mean, SD) | 18.3, 4.3 | 12.5, 3.2 | 0.26, 0.24 | 0.79, 0.21 | 0.51, 0.17 | 9.9, 2.3 | 8.1, 1.7 |
Parameters | Processes | Bilinguals with Aphasia (BWA) vs. Bilingual Healthy Controls (BHC) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Lexical | Executive | Findings | Correlation with Executive Control | |
Quantitative analysis | ||||
Number of correct responses | √ | √ | Yes BWA < BHC | Yes, (negative) with Stroop ratio BWA |
Fluency difference score | √ | Yes BWA > BHC | No | |
Time-course analysis | ||||
1st RT | √ | Yes BWA > BHC | Yes, (positive) with Stroop ratio for BWA | |
Sub-RT | √ | No BWA = BHC | No | |
Clustering and Switching analysis | ||||
Cluster size | √ | No BWA = BHC | No | |
Number of switches | √ | Yes BWA < BHC | Yes, (negative) with Stroop ratio for BWA | |
Within-cluster pauses | √ | No BWA = BHC | No | |
Between-cluster pauses | √ | Yes BWA > BHC | Yes, (negative) with backward digit span for BHC |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Patra, A.; Bose, A.; Marinis, T. Lexical and Cognitive Underpinnings of Verbal Fluency: Evidence from Bengali-English Bilingual Aphasia. Behav. Sci. 2020, 10, 155. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10100155
Patra A, Bose A, Marinis T. Lexical and Cognitive Underpinnings of Verbal Fluency: Evidence from Bengali-English Bilingual Aphasia. Behavioral Sciences. 2020; 10(10):155. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10100155
Chicago/Turabian StylePatra, Abhijeet, Arpita Bose, and Theodoros Marinis. 2020. "Lexical and Cognitive Underpinnings of Verbal Fluency: Evidence from Bengali-English Bilingual Aphasia" Behavioral Sciences 10, no. 10: 155. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10100155