The assessment of severe lexical disorders in Italian individuals with aphasia

A Correction to this article was published on 03 April 2020

This article has been updated


Tests and batteries used in the evaluation of language impairments are overly complex and often ineffective (too difficult) in the assessment of post-stroke patients affected by severe aphasia (global aphasia). The present study reports details on the construction and standardization of a new Italian battery of tasks, specifically designed to assess severe lexical disorders in acquired aphasia (Battery for the Assessment of Severe Acquired Lexical Damage in Italian, BASALDI). The battery is composed of a common set of 64 stimuli (concrete nouns), belonging to both living and non-living categories, and consists of four lexical tasks assessing picture naming, repetition, reading aloud, and oral comprehension. The item selection was based on word frequency, word length, and phonological-articulatory complexity, namely the presence of continuant vs. plosive phones, a variable that may interact with word production in case of severe language damage. Standardization (naming agreement) of a new set of 64 colored images and normative data on Italian healthy subjects pooled across homogenous subgroups for age, gender, and education are reported. Finally, for the four tasks, percentile ranks and z-scores were calculated from a pool of 92 left brain-damaged patients affected by aphasia of different types and severity. The battery allows a fine investigation of lexical disorders, being suitable for diagnostic assessment of mild-to-moderate and severe aphasic lexical deficits, detection of changes over time, and possible dissociations between tasks.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Change history

  • 03 April 2020

    This article was published with incomplete Table 4. The Equivalent scores were missing during the submission. The correct Table is presented here.


  1. 1.

    In Italian phonology and with only some exceptions (mainly loanwords, e.g., tram, streetcar), content words usually end with a vowel. Consequently, monosyllabic words are very rare and the bisyllabic structure (C)VCV (e.g., uva, grape; nave, ship) constitutes a condition of phonological simplicity.

  2. 2.

    For clinical purposes, it is recommended to separate sub-tests over time and to administer them on different days.


  1. 1.

    Goldstein K (1948) Language and language disturbances. Grune & Stratton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Basso A (2003) Aphasia and its therapy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Vignolo LA (1996) Disturbi concettuali non verbali nell’afasia. In: Denes G, Pizzamiglio L (eds) Manuale di neuropsicologia. Eds. Zanichelli, Bologna, pp 361–385

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Barry C, Morrison CM, Ellis AW (1997) Naming the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures: effects of age of acquisition, frequency, and name agreement. Q J Exp Psychol Sect A 50(3):560–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Cycowicz YM, Friedman D, Rothstein M, Snodgrass JG (1997) Picture naming by young children: norms for name agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. J Exp Child Psychol 65(2):171–237

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Laiacona M, Luzzatti C, Zonca G, Guarnaschelli C, Capitani E (2001) Lexical and semantic factors influencing picture naming in aphasia. Brain Cogn 46(1):184–187

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Bates E, D’Amico S, Jacobsen T et al (2003) Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychon Bull Rev 10(2):344–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Ellis AW, Morrison CM (1998) Real age-of-acquisition effects in lexical retrieval. J Exp Psychol Mem Cogn 24(2):515–523

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Snodgrass JG, Yuditsky T (1996) Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 28:516–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Cheng X, Schafer G, Akyürek EG (2010) Name agreement in picture naming: an ERP study. Int J Psychophysiol 76(3):130–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Kan IP, Thompson-Schill SL (2004) Effect of name agreement on prefrontal activity during overt and covert picture naming. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 4(1):43–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Barry C, Hirsh KW, Johnston RA, Williams CL (2001) Age of acquisition, word frequency, and the locus of repetition priming of picture naming. J Mem Lang 44(3):350–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Oldfield RC, Wingfield A (1965) Response latencies in naming objects. Q J Exp Psychol 17(4):273–281

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Szekely A, D'Amico S, Devescovi A et al (2006) Timed action and object naming. Cortex 41(1):7–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Funnell E, Hughes D, Woodcock J (2006) Age of acquisition for naming and knowing: a new hypothesis. Q J Exp Psychol 59(2):268–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Ruff IM, Swanson SJ, Hammeke TA, Sabsevitz D, Mueller WM, Morris GL (2007) Predictors of naming decline after dominant temporal lobectomy: age at onset of epilepsy and age of word acquisition. Epilepsy Behav 10(2):272–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Pérez MA (2007) Age of acquisition persists as the main factor in picture naming when cumulative word frequency and frequency trajectory are controlled. Q J Exp Psychol 60(1):32–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Meyer AS, Roelofs A, Levelt WJM (2003) Word length effects in object naming: the role of a response criterion. J Mem Lang 48(1):131–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Okada K, Smith KR, Humphries C, Hickok G (2003) Word length modulates neural activity in auditory cortex during covert object naming. Neuroreport 14(18):2323–2326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Huber W, Weniger D, Poeck K, Willmes K (1983) Der Aachener Aphasie Test (AAT). Hogrefe, Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Luzzatti C, Willmes K, De Bleser R (1996) Aachener Aphasie Test, Versione Italiana. Organizzazioni Speciali, Firenze

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Ciurli P, Marangolo P, Basso A (1996) Esame del linguaggio-II. Organizzazioni Speciali, Firenze

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Allibrio G, Gori MA, Signorini G, Luzzatti C (2009) Un esame del linguaggio per la diagnosi dei deficit afasici al letto del malato. G. di Psicol. 3(1):ISSN 1971-9558

  24. 24.

    Panebianco M, Zavanone C, Dupont S et al (2019) The inter-rater reliability of the Italian version of aphasia rapid test (ART) for acute ischemic stroke. Neurol Sci 40(10):2171–2174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Capasso R, Miceli G (2001) Esame Neuropsicologico per Pazienti Afasici (ENPA). Sprinter-Verlag, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Miceli G, Laudanna A, Burani C, Capasso R (1994) Batteria per l’analisi dei deficit afasici, BADA. Cepsag, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Policlinico Gemelli, Roma

  27. 27.

    Catricalà E, Della Rosa PA, Ginex V, Mussetti Z, Plebani V, Cappa SF (2013) An Italian battery for the assessment of semantic memory disorders. Neurol Sci 34(6):985–993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Laganaro M, Python G, Toepel U (2013) Dynamics of phonological-phonetic encoding in word production: evidence from diverging ERPs between stroke patients and controls. Brain Lang 126(2):123–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Galluzzi C, Bureca I, Guariglia C, Romani C (2015) Phonological simplifications, apraxia of speech and the interaction between phonological and phonetic processing. Neuropsychologia 71:64–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Luzzatti C (2012) La rieducazione dei deficit fonologici e dell’articolazione. In: Mazzucchi A (ed) La Riabilitazione Neuropsicologica: Premesse teoriche ed applicazioni cliniche, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Milano, pp 25–47

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR (1975) Mini-mental state: a practical method for grading the state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12:189–198

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Magni E, Binetti G, Bianchetti A, Rozzini R, Trabucchi M (1996) Mini-mental state examination: a normative study in Italian elderly population. Eur J Neurol 3(3):198–202

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Bisiach E (1966) Perceptual factors in the pathogenesis of anomia. Cortex 2:90–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Marconi L, Ott M, Pesenti E, Ratti D, Tavella M (1993) Lessico Elementare: Dati statistici sull’italiano letto e scritto dai bambini delle elementari.. Zanichelli, Bologna

  35. 35.

    Spinnler H, Tognoni G (1987) Standardizzazione e taratura italiana di test neuropsicologici. Ital J Neurol Sci 6(Suppl 8)

  36. 36.

    Capitani E, Laiacona M (1997) Composite neuropsychological batteries and demographic correction: standardization based on equivalent scores, with a review of published data. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 19(6):795–809

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Capitani E, Laiacona M (1988) Aging and psychometric diagnosis of intellectual impairment: some considerations on test scores and their use. Dev Neuropsychol 4(4):325–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Crawford JR, Garthwaite PH, Slick DJ (2009) On percentile norms in neuropsychology: proposed reporting standards and methods for quantifying the uncertainty over the percentile ranks of test scores. Cinical Neuropsychol 23(7):1173–1195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Mattioli F (2019) The clinical management and rehabilitation of post stroke aphasia in Italy: evidences from the literature and clinical experience. Neurol Sci 40:1329–1334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Orgass BE (1976) Eine Revision des Token Tests. Teil I und II Diagnostica 22:141–156

  41. 41.

    Willmes K (1981) A new look at the Token Test using probabilistic test models. Neuropsychologia 19(5):631–646

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank Alessandra Caporali and Verena Biscaro for their help in data collection.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Veronelli.

Ethics declarations

The study has been designed according to the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki (British Medical Journal, 302: 1194, 1991), and approved by the local ethical committee.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.



Table 5 Word frequency (WF, high: A–D item types; low: E–H item types), number of syllables (Syll, 2 syllables: A, B, E, F item types; 3–4 syllables: C, D, G, H item types), and phonological-articulatory complexity (Ph-AC, continuant: A, C, E, G item types; plosive: B, D, F, H item types), for the target words included in the battery. NA, name agreement (%) of the corresponding picture; RO, randomized order
Table 6 Target word (uppercase) and distractors included in the comprehension task, disposed in the four-alternative multiple-choice set (upper left, upper right, lower left, lower right position). RO, randomized order
Table 7 Table of percentile ranks with accompanying interval estimates and Z-scores for the confrontation naming task calculated in the group of patients with aphasia
Table 8 Table of percentile ranks with accompanying interval estimates and Z-scores for the reading aloud task, calculated in the group of patients with aphasia
Table 9 Table of percentile ranks with accompanying interval estimates and Z-scores for the repetition task, calculated in the group of patients with aphasia
Table 10 Table of percentile ranks with accompanying interval estimates and Z-scores for the oral comprehension task, calculated in the group of patients with aphasia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Veronelli, L., Scola, I., Frustaci, M. et al. The assessment of severe lexical disorders in Italian individuals with aphasia. Neurol Sci 41, 1791–1805 (2020).

Download citation


  • Lexical disorders
  • Naming
  • Aphasia
  • Severe damage
  • Battery of tasks
  • Standardization