Number of correct responses produced across the two verbal fluency tasks.
| Condition . | BPWA (n = 35) . | HB (n = 22) . | p value . | Cohen’s d . | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean . | SD . | Mean . | SD . | |||
| SS | 7.34 | 5.10 | 18.05 | 6.43 | <0.001 | 1.85 |
| NS-L1 | 7.63 | 4.52 | 16.68 | 6.51 | <0.001 | 1.61 |
| NS-L2 | 5.71 | 4.87 | 15.50 | 5.32 | <0.001 | 1.92 |
| FS | 5.31 | 4.25 | 12.64 | 5.95 | <0.001 | 1.42 |
| LF-L1 | 4.01 | 3.38 | 13.11 | 3.97 | <0.001 | 2.47 |
| LF-L2 | 3.02 | 3.52 | 10.51 | 3.23 | <0.001 | 2.22 |
| Condition . | BPWA (n = 35) . | HB (n = 22) . | p value . | Cohen’s d . | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean . | SD . | Mean . | SD . | |||
| SS | 7.34 | 5.10 | 18.05 | 6.43 | <0.001 | 1.85 |
| NS-L1 | 7.63 | 4.52 | 16.68 | 6.51 | <0.001 | 1.61 |
| NS-L2 | 5.71 | 4.87 | 15.50 | 5.32 | <0.001 | 1.92 |
| FS | 5.31 | 4.25 | 12.64 | 5.95 | <0.001 | 1.42 |
| LF-L1 | 4.01 | 3.38 | 13.11 | 3.97 | <0.001 | 2.47 |
| LF-L2 | 3.02 | 3.52 | 10.51 | 3.23 | <0.001 | 2.22 |
Note. BPWA = bilingual patients with aphasia; HB = healthy bilinguals; SS = Self-Switch; NS-L1 = No Switch (L1); NS-L2 = No Switch (L2); FS = Forced-Switch; LF-L1 = Letter Fluency, L1; LF-L2 = Letter Fluency, L2. BPWA produced significantly fewer correct responses than healthy bilinguals across all conditions. Pairwise comparisons revealed superior performance in the SS condition compared to the NS-L2 (p = 0.004) and FS (p < 0.001) conditions, superior performance in the NS-L1 condition compared to the NS-L2 (p = 0.012) and FS conditions (p < 0.001), and superior performance in the NS-L2 condition compared to the FS condition (p = 0.019). No differences were observed between the SS and NS-L1 condition (p = 0.268). Additionally, participants showed superior performance in LF-L1 compared to LF-L2 (p < 0.001).