Triangulation of language-cognitive impairments, naming errors and their neural bases post-stroke.

In order to gain a better understanding of aphasia one must consider the complex combinations of language impairments along with the pattern of paraphasias. Despite the fact that both deficits and paraphasias feature in diagnostic criteria, most research has focused only on the lesion correlates of language deficits, with minimal attention on the pattern of patients' paraphasias. In this study, we used a data-driven approach (principal component analysis - PCA) to fuse patient impairments and their pattern of errors into one unified model of chronic post-stroke aphasia. This model was subsequently mapped onto the patients' lesion profiles to generate the triangulation of languagecognitive impairments, naming errors and their neural correlates. Specifically, we established the pattern of co-occurrence between fifteen error types, which avoids focussing on a subset of errors or the use of experimenter-derived methods to combine across error types. We obtained five principal components underlying the patients' errors: omission errors; semantically-related responses; phonologically-related responses; dysfluent responses; and a combination of circumlocutions with mixed errors. In the second step, we aligned these paraphasia-related principal components with the patients' performance on a detailed language and cognitive assessment battery, utilising an additional PCA. This omnibus PCA revealed seven unique fused impairment-paraphasia factors: output phonology; semantics; phonological working memory; speech quanta; executive-cognitive skill; phonological (input) discrimination; and the production of circumlocution errors. In doing so we were able to resolve the complex relationships between error types and impairments. Some are relatively straightforward: circumlocution errors formed their own independent factor; there was a one-to-one mapping for phonological errors with expressive phonological abilities and for dysfluent errors with speech fluency. In contrast, omission-type errors loaded across both semantic and phonological working memory factors, whilst semanticallyrelated errors had the most complex relationship by loading across four factors (phonological ability, speech quanta, executive-cognitive skills and circumlocution-type errors). Three components had unique lesion correlates: phonological working memory with the primary auditory region; semantics with the anterior temporal region; and fluency with the precentral gyrus, converging with existing literature. In conclusion, the data-driven approach allowed derivation of the triangulation of deficits, error types and lesion correlates in post-stroke aphasia.