Cited by 9Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesReading and Literacy Development

Predicting naming responses based on pre-articulatory electrical activity in individuals with aphasia

Open access
Wilmskoetter, Janina, Del Gaizo, John, Phillip, Lorelei, Behroozmand, Roozbeh, Gleichgerrcht, Ezequiel, Fridriksson, Julius, Riley, Ellyn, Bonilha, Leonardo·2019·Clinical Neurophysiology

Abstract

Objective To investigate whether pre-articulatory neural activity could be used to predict correct vs. incorrect naming responses in individuals with post-stroke aphasia.Methods We collected 64-channel high density electroencephalography (hdEEG) data from 5 individuals with chronic post-stroke aphasia (2 female/3 male, median age: 54 years) during naming of 80 concrete images. We applied machine learning on continuous wavelet transformed hdEEG data separately for alpha and beta energy bands (200 ms pre-stimulus to 1500 ms post-stimulus, but before articulation), and determined whether electrode/time-range/energy (ETE) combinations were predictive of correct vs incorrect responses for each participant.Results The five participants correctly named between 30% and 70% of the 80 stimuli correctly. We observed that pre-articulatory scalp EEG ETE combinations could predict correct vs incorrect responses with accuracies ranging from 63% to 80%. For all but one participant, the prediction accuracies were statistically better than chance.Conclusions Our findings indicate that pre-articulatory neural activity may be used to predict correct vs incorrect naming responses for some individuals with aphasia.Significance The individualized pre-articulatory neural pattern associated with correct naming responses could be used to both predict naming problems in aphasia and lead to the development of brain stimulation strategies for treatment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clinph.2019.08.011

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Wilmskoetter et al. (33) predicted naming task performance from brain electrical activity before pronunciation, with model AUC ranging from 0.62 to 0.75.

    “Wilmskoetter et al. (33) predicted naming task performance from brain electrical activity before pronunciation, and the model’s AUC ranged from 0.62 to 0.75”

    From Machine learning models in post-stroke aphasia: a scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Results and Conclusions say that pre-articulatory EEG activity was used to predict correct versus incorrect naming responses in individuals with aphasia. Our copy reports prediction accuracies of 63%–80% and discusses AUROC, but the passages found do not establish the claimed AUROC range of 0.62–0.75; accuracy is a different measure. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Twelve included studies mainly used accuracy, AUC, F1-score, precision, recall, and other indicators to assess model performance.

    “Twelve studies (19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27–30, 33, 34, 37) mainly used accuracy, AUC, F1-score, precision, recall, and other indicators.”
  • Two studies (25, 33) used electroencephalogram indicators to evaluate the neural activity level.

    “The other two studies (25, 33) used electroencephalogram indicators to evaluate the neural activity level.”
  • The Wilmskoetter et al. (33) model indicated moderate predictive ability.

    “indicating moderate predictive ability.”
  • Existing models used to monitor symptoms are mostly based on restricted task scenarios, such as analyzing speech intelligibility (31) or predicting naming accuracy (33) through picture naming tasks.

    “The existing models used to monitor symptoms are mostly based on restricted task scenarios, such as analyzing speech intelligibility (31) or predicting naming accuracy (33) through picture naming tasks”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilmskoetter, J., Del Gaizo, J., Phillip, L., Behroozmand, R., Gleichgerrcht, E., Fridriksson, J., Riley, E., & Bonilha, L.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • University of South Carolina (US)
  • Syracuse University (US)
Corresponding author
Wilmskoetter, Janina
Venue
Clinical Neurophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-11
Volume
130
Issue
11
Pages
2153-2163
ISSN
1388-2457 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2970570354
Cited by
9
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • American Heart Association
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
post-stroke aphasia, response prediction, high-density EEG, wavelet analysis, chronic aphasia
MeSH terms
Adult, Aphasia, Brain, Brain Mapping, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Speech, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review