Cited by 24Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage Development and DisordersStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

Predicting language treatment response in bilingual aphasia using neural network-based patient models

Open access
Grasemann, Uli, Peñaloza, Claudia, Dekhtyar, Maria, Miikkulainen, Risto, Kiran, Swathi·2021·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Predicting language therapy outcomes in bilinguals with aphasia (BWA) remains challenging due to the multiple pre- and poststroke factors that determine the deficits and recovery of their two languages. Computational models that simulate language impairment and treatment outcomes in BWA can help predict therapy response and identify the optimal language for treatment. Here we used the BiLex computational model to simulate the behavioral profile of language deficits and treatment response of a retrospective sample of 13 Spanish-English BWA who received therapy in one of their languages. Specifically, we simulated their prestroke naming ability and poststroke naming impairment in each language, and their treatment response in the treated and the untreated language. BiLex predicted treatment effects accurately and robustly in the treated language and captured different degrees of cross-language generalization in the untreated language in BWA. Our cross-validation approach further demonstrated that BiLex generalizes to predict treatment response for patients whose data were not used in model training. These findings support the potential of BiLex to predict therapy outcomes for BWA and suggest that computational modeling may be helpful to guide individually tailored rehabilitation plans for this population.

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 · 10.1038/s41598-021-89443-6

Cites

56 of 56 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?

  • Other studies focusing solely on bilingual persons with aphasia have reported conflicting findings regarding the influence of aphasia severity in the treated and untreated languages on treated language improvement and cross-language generalization.

    “However, other studies focusing solely on bPWA have reported conflicting findings regarding the influence of aphasia severity in the treated and untreated languages on TLI and CLG7,10,29 underscoring the need for further research to clarify the contribution of these factors to treatment outcomes.”

    From Machine Learning Predictions of Recovery in Bilingual Poststroke Aphasia: Aligning Insights With Clinical Evidence (2025) · cites this paper as [29]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The BiLex neural network model successfully predicted the development of language skills in the treated language in bilingual aphasia patients.

    “The study revealed that the BiLex model was able to successfully predict the development of language skills in the treated language”
  • The BiLex model had lower prediction accuracy in the untreated language and tended to underestimate cross-linguistic generalization.

    “but had lower prediction accuracy in the untreated language and tended to underestimate cross-linguistic generalization [33].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [40]Howard D Patterson K The Pyramids and Palm Trees Test: A test of semantic access from words and pictures 1992 Pearson

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grasemann, U., Peñaloza, C., Dekhtyar, M., Miikkulainen, R., & Kiran, S.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Grasemann, Uli
  • Peñaloza, Claudia
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2021-05-18
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
10497-10497
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3162572179
Cited by
24
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders of the National Institutes of Health (U01DC014922)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Keywords
bilingual aphasia, cross-lingual generalization, naming impairment, Spanish-English bilinguals, stroke, language rehabilitation
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aphasia, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nerve Net, Retrospective Studies, Speech Therapy, Multilingualism, Stroke, Datasets as Topic

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