Table 1.
Demographic and diagnostic testing for participants with apraxia of speech (AOS∗) plus aphasia who completed the F0 perturbation study (N = 12) and the F1 perturbation study (N = 8, in bold font).
| ID | Sex | Age (years) | Years post-stroke | WAB-AQ (/100) | Aphasia type | PALPA (/72) | E_WIL | PVI_WS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AOS21 |  |
57 | 16 | 22.7 | Broca | 58 | 1.00 | 7.0 |
| AOS22 | |
71 | 12 | 75.3 | Anomic | 60 | 0.25 | 101.3 |
| AOS30 | |
80 | 14 | 39.6 | Broca | 63 | 1.00 | 4.8 |
| AOS49 | |
61 | 4 | 64.8 | Transcortical motor | 68 | 0.47 | 90.3 |
| AOS60 | |
54 | 7 | 38.2 | Broca | 66 | 0.95 | 45.1 |
| AOS77 | |
59 | 4 | 68.3 | Broca | 69 | 0.50 | 63.9 |
| AOS86 | |
61 | 4 | 34.8 | Broca | 70 | 0.46 | 66.0 |
| AOS92 | |
55 | 5 | 98.6 | Anomic | 71 | 0.19 | 40.7 |
| AOS24 |  |
67 | 10 | 88.0 | Anomic | 68 | 0.42 | 30.3 |
| AOS79 | |
60 | 3 | 55.6 | Broca | 71 | 0.47 | 111.4 |
| AOS88 | |
76 | 3 | 88.9 | Anomic | 22 | 0.25 | 50.9 |
| AOS89 | |
50 | 7 | 23.6 | Broca | NA | 1.00 | 60.7 |
| 8
|
M = 62.6 | M = 7 | M = 58.2 | M = 62.4 | M = 0.58 | M = 56.0 | ||
| 4
|
SD = 9.1 | SD = 4.5 | SD = 26.4 | SD = 14.1 | SD = 0.32 | SD = 33.8 | ||
∗AOS diagnosis made by expert judgment and confirmed by both an E_WIL score > 0.17 and PVI_WS score < 112 (Ballard et al., 2016); WAB-AQ, Aphasia Quotient from the Western Aphasia Battery Revised (Kertesz, 2006), an index of aphasia severity; PALPA, Psycholinguistic Assessments of Language Processing in Aphasia (Kay et al., 1992); E_WIL, Errors on Words of Increasing Length (Ballard et al., 2016) calculated from the Words of Increasing Length subtest of the Apraxia Battery for Adults – 2 (Dabul, 2000); PVI_WS, pairwise variability index for vowel duration in weak–strong stressed three syllable words (e.g., “banana”; Ballard et al., 2016); NA, not able to do task. Note that participants AOS22, 30, 49 were reported in New et al. (2015) and AOS21 – 77 were reported in Ballard et al. (2016).