Table 1.
Predictive performances (simple correlations between predicted and empirical = Pearson's R) of the best of 16 inducers for each language score and data configuration. No model which employed connectivity variables was significantly better than the lesion load model, when predicting any language score (all p > 0.2). Med. = median; N = sample size; L = lesion load model; C(r) = restricted connectivity model; C(f) = full connectivity model; LC(r) = lesion load appended to restricted connectivity; LC(f) = lesion load appended to full connectivity; LsC(r) = stacked model with lesion load and restricted connectivity; LsC(f) = stacked model with lesion load and full connectivity.
TASK | R: Predicted vs. Empirical |
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Med. (range) | N (all/impaired) | L | C(r) | C(f) | LC(r) | LC(f) | LsC(r) | LsC(f) | |
Fluency | 68 (38) | 812/255 | 0.72 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.70 |
Comprehension of spoken words | 65 (40) | 814/158 | 0.50 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.51 | 0.50 | 0.51 | 0.50 |
Comprehension of spoken sentences | 63 (44) | 813/370 | 0.66 | 0.67 | 0.66 | 0.67 | 0.66 | 0.67 | 0.65 |
Comprehension of spoken paragraphs | 60 (26) | 805/116 | 0.44 | 0.43 | 0.39 | 0.43 | 0.40 | 0.44 | 0.45 |
Comprehension of spoken language | 63 (48) | 805/283 | 0.66 | 0.67 | 0.66 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.66 | 0.65 |
Comprehension of written words | 65 (37) | 813/256 | 0.54 | 0.53 | 0.55 | 0.54 | 0.55 | 0.54 | 0.53 |
Comprehension of written sentences | 64 (47) | 809/278 | 0.67 | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.68 | 0.67 | 0.66 | 0.64 |
Comprehension of writing | 65 (48) | 808/339 | 0.67 | 0.66 | 0.67 | 0.68 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.65 |
Repeating words | 57 (30) | 813/312 | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.63 | 0.62 |
Repeating complex words | 62 (24) | 812/252 | 0.64 | 0.66 | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.62 |
Repeating non-words | 67 (29) | 813/233 | 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.56 | 0.57 | 0.56 | 0.57 | 0.58 |
Repeating digit strings | 66 (31) | 815/253 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.70 |
Repeating sentences | 63 (24) | 811/293 | 0.76 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.76 | 0.75 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
Repeating (all) | 58 (38) | 810/445 | 0.73 | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.73 |
Object naming | 66 (37) | 815/352 | 0.71 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.70 |
Action naming | 69 (30) | 813/420 | 0.68 | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.68 |
Naming (all) | 69 (40) | 807/341 | 0.74 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.74 |
Spoken picture description | 63 (36) | 805/397 | 0.72 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.72 |
Reading words | 69 (31) | 809/362 | 0.68 | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.68 | 0.67 |
Reading complex words | 67 (27) | 805/304 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.68 |
Reading function words | 62 (27) | 808/97 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.58 | 0.58 |
Reading non-words | 61 (28) | 807/330 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.69 |
Reading | 66 (33) | 805/335 | 0.72 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.71 |
Writing (copying) | 61 (28) | 796/101 | 0.45 | 0.43 | 0.43 | 0.44 | 0.43 | 0.38 | 0.38 |
Written picture naming | 67 (29) | 801/189 | 0.58 | 0.60 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.56 |
Writing to dictation | 68 (30) | 799/299 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.67 | 0.68 | 0.67 | 0.69 | 0.68 |
Writing | 65 (35) | 786/270 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.66 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.69 | 0.67 |
Written picture description | 71 (33) | 781/354 | 0.71 | 0.71 | 0.71 | 0.72 | 0.71 | 0.71 | 0.71 |