Skip to main content

Table 3 Statistical comparison of numerical vs. linguistic performance at group level (aphasic patients: n = 60 )

From: Patterns of linguistic and numerical performance in aphasia

P

  

NUMBERS VS. LETTERS

 

TG

AS

Cognitive functions

Tasks

numerical score

linguistic score

N > L

N < L

 

Variables

Visual analysis

hidden objects

digits

letters

  

I

d’1 (max: 4.46)

4.14 (3.78, 4.46)

3.89 (3.52, 4.20)

***

 

processing time (in sec)

39 (31, 46.75)

50.5 (40, 59)

***

 

Automatized sequences

successor

number words

letters

  

% correct

100 (90, 100)

70 (12.5, 97.5)

***

 

Phonological working memory

forward

number words

letters

  

% correct

25 (8, 42)

17 (0, 25)

***

 

backwards

    

% correct

21 (7, 29)

14 (0, 21)

***

 
  

NUMBERS VS. WORDS

  

Cognitive functions

Tasks

numerical score

linguistic score

N > L

N < L

 

Variables

Visual analysis

visual matching

dot patterns

pseudowords

  

II

% correct

78 (67.5, 82.5)

89 (84, 92)

 

***

efficiency2

2100 (1800, 2500)

1700 (1400, 2200)

 

***

 

digits

pseudowords

  

% correct

86 (78.25, 91)

89 (84, 92)

 

*

efficiency

1900 (1500, 2300)

1700 (1400, 2200)

 

**

Automatized sequences

successor

number words

months

  

% correct

100 (90, 100)

90 (60, 100)

***

 

Repetition

simple

number words

adjectives

  

% correct

100 (100, 100)

100 (92, 100)

**

 

complex

    

% correct

100 (69, 100)

92 (67, 100)

(*)

 

Reading

 

Arabic digits

number words

  

% correct

80 (32.5, 100)

90 (60, 100)

 

**

 

number words

words

  

% correct

90 (60, 100)

90 (64.15, 100)

 

*

Morpho-lexical knowledge

 

grammatical number

grammatical gender

  

% correct

58 (23, 84)

48 (24, 68)

*

 

efficiency

1970 (1260, 3350)

3345 (2217.5, 5402.5)

*

 

S

Semantic classification

 

parity

biological gender

  

III

% correct

96.5 (91, 98)

90 (84.25, 97)

*

 

efficiency

875 (770, 1142.5)

950 (840, 1240)

*

 

Semantic comparison

magnitude comparison

Arabic digits

number words

  

% correct

98 (95.5, 99)

98 (93.25, 99.75)

  

efficiency

690 (615, 900)

810 (725, 977.5)

***

 
 

number words

animals

  

% correct

98 (93.25, 99.75)

95.5 (90, 99)

*

 

efficiency

810 (725, 977.5)

915 (772.5, 1047.5)

***

 
 

Arabic digits

animals

  

% correct

98 (95.5, 99)

95.5 (90, 99)

**

 

efficiency

690 (615, 900)

915 (772.5, 1047.5)

***

 

Fact retrieval

 

arithmetic facts

semantic facts

  

% correct

97 (81.5, 100)

94 (83, 100)

  
 

arithmetic facts

phonological facts

  

% correct

97 (81.5, 100)

94 (79.25, 100)

  
  1. Note. Descriptive statistics of scores is indicated as medians \( \left(\tilde{x}\right) \) and first and third quartiles in brackets (Q1, Q3) with ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, (*) p < .10 (Wilcoxon signed ranks test); N > L: better numerical than linguistic performance, N < L: better linguistic than numerical performance; 1d’ from signal detection theory: d’ = zhit – zfalse alarm; 2inverse efficiency measure = (median reaction time)/(proportion correct).