. 2020 Jul 9;11:1594. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01594

TABLE 4.

Mean number of correctly named items for the different runs (RwS; RwP; RwT) related to the different dysfunctions (a) to (e).

Dys-func-tion	Number of correctly named items RwO_1 Mean ± SD	Number of correctly named items RwS Mean ± SD	Difference RwO vs. RwS Mean ± SD	RwO_1 vs. RwS p Value¹for overall performance	Number of correctly named items RwO_2 Mean ± SD	Number of correctly named items RwP Mean ± SD	Difference RwO vs. RwP Mean ± SD	RwO_2 vs. RwP p value¹for overall performance	Number of correctly named items RwO_3 Mean ± SD	Number of correctly named items RwT Mean ± SD	Difference RwO vs. RwT Mean ± SD	RwO_3 vs. RwT p value¹for overall performance	Sem. vs. Phono. Cues (Difference Values) p value¹for overall performance	Sem. vs. RwT s (Difference Values) p value¹for overall performance	Phon. vs. RwT (Difference Values) p value¹for overall performance
a	15 ± 18.65	28 ± 29.71	13 ± 14.95	p = 0.03*	15.2 ± 19.66	28.7 ± 31.97	13.4 ± 14.35	p = 0.03*	16.3 ± 21.49	19.1 ± 23.61	2.8 ± 3.12	p = 0.02*	p = 0.75	p = 0.03*	p = 0.04*
b	22 ± 18.86	34.8 ± 28.29	12.8 ± 10.08	p = 0.01*	23.6 ± 20.15	39.3 ± 32.48	15.8 ± 13.06	p = 0.02*	25.2 ± 22.51	27.6 ± 25.15	2.8 ± 2.66	p = 0.15	p = 0.11	p = 0.01*	p = 0.01*
c	17.1 ± 18.18	29.2 ± 29.96	12.1 ± 12.42	p = 0.03*	21.6 ± 22.18	35.2 ± 36.11	13.6 ± 14.3	p = 0.03*	23.7 ± 24.84	26.5 ± 27.26	2.8 ± 2.94	p = 0.14	p = 0.14	p = 0.03*	p = 0.04*
d	26.5 ± 12.92	37.3 ± 18.87	10.8 ± 6.34	p = 0.01*	32.2 ± 15.67	46 ± 22.22	13.8 ± 7.21	p = 0.01*	34.2 ± 17	36.4 ± 17.95	2.2 ± 1.03	p = 0.31	p = 0.01*	p = 0.01*	p = 0.01*
e	27 ± 18.74	38.7 ± 26.81	11.7 ± 8.19	p = 0.02*	31 ± 21.7	45.9 ± 31.79	14.9 ± 10.44	p = 0.02*	34 ± 24	37.6 ± 26.48	3.6 ± 2.84	p = 0.71	p = 0.01*	p = 0.01*	p = 0.01*

In addition, a statistical analysis to check the improvement in performance through cues (RwO vs. RwS / RwP / RwT), to check the effectiveness of the cues based on the difference values (Sem. vs. Phono.) and to check the effect using the comparison with the control variable (RwS / RwP vs. RwT). ¹Wilcoxon signed-rank test, two- tailed. p = 0.05; * significant after correcting for multiple testing (a) within concept level dysfunction, (b) between concept-to-lemma level dysfunction, (c) within lemma level dysfunction, (d) between lemma-to-phonological level dysfunction, and (e) within phonological level dysfunction.