ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Computational Models for Bilingual Aphasia: A Systematic Review of Language Deficit Research with a Focus on Code-Switching and Translation.
Review in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review synthesises computational models of language deficits in bilingual aphasia, focusing on code-switching and translation. Per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, this study identified 42 publications (2010-2025). Of the three deficit types, lexical retrieval and naming deficit simulations are most mature, replicating naming errors and predicting cross-language generalisation. Code-switching and translation deficit modelling is extremely limited: only a single computational lesioning study has addressed both through mechanistic simulation. Machine learning methods show preliminary promise for predicting treatment outcomes but remain largely data-driven. Three key challenges emerge: (1) methodological fragmentation-heterogeneous model types, lesion implementations, and evaluation metrics, with no standardised quantitative validation; (2) an underdeveloped theoretical foundation, as most studies are confined to behavioural fitting rather than testing hypotheses on impaired language control via computational lesions; (3) limited clinical translation, with few predictive studies integrating longitudinal patient data, with approximately 70% of studies concentrated in North America/Western Europe and biased toward English-Spanish bilinguals, limiting theoretical generalisability. Future work should shift from behavioural fitting to explainable mechanistic simulation, develop predictive frameworks for personalised rehabilitation, and establish standardised protocols bridging computational modelling with clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.