The association between cognitive inhibitory control and language performance in post-stroke aphasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Inhibitory control, a core component of executive function, may play an important role in language processing in individuals with post-stroke aphasia. However, the evidence on its association with language performance has not been systematically synthesized. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the relationship between inhibitory control and language performance in post-stroke aphasia. Methods This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic search of six databases was conducted from database inception to February 1, 2026, for studies examining the association between inhibitory control and language performance. Two independent researchers conducted literature screening, data extraction, and quality evaluation using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The meta-analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, version 3 (CMA 3.0), with correlation coefficient ( r ) as the effect size. Effect sizes were transformed to Fisher’s z and pooled using the inverse-variance method under a fixed-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q-test and I 2 statistic. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to the type of inhibitory control and language domain. Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis and Egger’s test were used to assess robustness and publication bias. Results A total of 12 studies involving 357 individuals with post-stroke aphasia were included. The pooled analysis showed a significant positive correlation between inhibitory control and language performance ( r = 0.339, 95% CI [0.239, 0.432], p < 0.001), with no observed heterogeneity ( I 2 = 0.0%). Subgroup analysis showed that interference control was significantly associated with global language function, expressive language performance, and receptive language performance, whereas response inhibition was significantly associated only with global language function. However, between-subgroup differences were not statistically significant. Sensitivity analyses indicated robust results, and no significant publication bias was detected. Conclusion Inhibitory control is significantly associated with language performance in post-stroke aphasia. Different components of inhibitory control may show distinct patterns of association across language domains, with interference control relating to a broader range of language abilities. These findings suggest that inhibitory control may be an important factor in the assessment and rehabilitation of post-stroke aphasia. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ , identifier CRD420261303657.