↓ Skip to main content

Neurally dissociable cognitive components of reading deficits in subacute stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Neurally dissociable cognitive components of reading deficits in subacute stroke
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00298
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olga Boukrina, A. M. Barrett, Edward J. Alexander, Bing Yao, William W. Graves

Abstract

According to cognitive models of reading, words are processed by interacting orthographic (spelling), phonological (sound), and semantic (meaning) information. Despite extensive study of the neural basis of reading in healthy participants, little group data exist on patients with reading deficits from focal brain damage pointing to critical neural systems for reading. Here, we report on one such study. We have performed neuropsychological testing and magnetic resonance imaging on 11 patients with left-hemisphere stroke (<=5 weeks post-stroke). Patients completed tasks assessing cognitive components of reading such as semantics (matching picture or word choices to a target based on meaning), phonology (matching word choices to a target based on rhyming), and orthography (a two-alternative forced choice of the most plausible non-word). They also read aloud pseudowords and words with high or low levels of usage frequency, imageability, and spelling-sound consistency. As predicted by the cognitive model, when averaged across patients, the influence of semantics was most salient for low-frequency, low-consistency words, when phonological decoding is especially difficult. Qualitative subtraction analyses revealed lesion sites specific to phonological processing. These areas were consistent with those shown previously to activate for phonology in healthy participants, including supramarginal, posterior superior temporal, middle temporal, inferior frontal gyri, and underlying white matter. Notable divergence between this analysis and previous functional imaging is the association of lesions in the mid-fusiform gyrus and anterior temporal lobe with phonological reading deficits. This study represents progress toward identifying brain lesion-deficit relationships in the cognitive components of reading. Such correspondences are expected to help not only better understand the neural mechanisms of reading, but may also help tailor reading therapy to individual neurocognitive deficit profiles.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 67 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 29%
Linguistics 7 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 88. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2020.
All research outputs
#405,181
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#185
of 7,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,836
of 266,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#8
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,153 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,654 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 184 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.