An efficacy study of memory training for patients with closed-head injury

Goldstein, Gérald; McCue, Michael; Turner, Samuel M.; Spanier, Cynthia A.; Malec, Elaine A.; Shelly, Carolyn

doi:10.1080/13854048808520108

Cited by 58 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The face-name mnemonic has frequently been used successfully to improve recall of common, fictitious surnames assigned to individuals appearing in photographs (Geiselman, McCloskey, Mossler, & Zielan, 1984;Goldstein, McCue, Turner, Spanier, Malec, & Shelly, 1988;Gratzinger, Sheikh, Friedman, & Yesavage, 1990;Hill, Sheikh, & Yesavage, 1987;Hill, et al, 1989;McCarty, 1980;Morris, Jones, & Hampson, 1978;Yesavage, 1984;Yesavage & Jacob, 1984;Yesavage & Rose, 1984; Yesavage, Rose, & Bower, 'Request reprints from G. Patton, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, 218 Clark H d , Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA 15705. 1983;Yesavage, Sheikh, Friedman, & Tanke, 1990).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Testing the Efficacy of Name Mnemonics Used during Conversation

Patton

1994

Psychol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies successfully used the face-name mnemonic to improve recall of fictitious surnames of individuals appearing in photographs. Exps. 1 and 2 tested whether this mnemonic could also aid recall of the actual surnames of real people met during conversations. Exp. 1, like previous studies, showed that the face-name mnemonic facilitated recall of surnames of photographed individuals; however, chis mnemonic reduced name recall following conversations. Exp. 2 refined the procedure used in Exp. 1 by including a control group in the design and strengthening the training procedures for the face-name mnemonic group. The results of Exp. 2 paralleled those of Exp. 1, again showing no advantage to using the face-name mnemonic during conversation. Exp. 3 explored alternatives to the face-name mnemonic, and featured use of self-help mnemonics (those initiated by the learner without help from others) and stranger-provided mnemonics (those provided by the person whose name was being memorized). A combination of self-help and stranger-provided mnemonics produced significantly greater recall of surnames following conversation than that achieved by self-help strategies alone, a control group, or the face-name mnemonic.The face-name mnemonic was devised by Lorayne (1957) to enhance ability to remember last names. As described by Hill, Yesavage, Sheikh, and Friedman (1989), "The face-name mnemonic involves three components: (a) identification of a prominent feature of the person's face (e.g., a wide mouth), (b) derivation of a concrete, high-imagery transformation of the person's name (e.g., the name Whealen becomes a whale), and (c) formation of a visual image associating the prominent feature with the transformed name (a whale in the person's mouth). To recall the name, the participant had to (a) identify the prominent feature of the test face, (b) use that feature as a retrieval cue for the image association, (c) reconstruct the name transformation (whale) from the image association, and (d) decode the name from the transformation (whale means Whealen)" (p. 634).The face-name mnemonic has frequently been used successfully to improve recall of common, fictitious surnames assigned to individuals appearing in photographs (

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Testing the Efficacy of Name Mnemonics Used during Conversation

Patton

1994

Psychol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because of previous research findings [3][4][5]7], the current researchers had hypothesized that visual imagery would be a better means of facilitating name use and knowledge during real-world training than name restating and phonemic cueing. The findings do not provide strong validation for this hypothesis, instead indicating only minimal superiority of visual imagery compared to the other cueing strategies implemented.…”

Section: Efficacy Of Cueing Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…When teaching the names of people, the most convenient method involves using photographs of the individuals whose names a client is to learn. Several researchers have used photographs as stimuli when comparing different techniques for learning face-name associations [2][3][4][5]7]. Although these researchers demonstrated successful learning of face-name associations by having participants name the individuals photographed, naming of the actual person was rarely, if ever, attempted.…”

Section: Efficacy Of Cueing Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Teaching face-name associations to survivors of traumatic brain injury: A sequential treatment approach

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recalling names in real-world contexts is often difficult for survivors of traumatic brain injury despite successful completion of face-name association training programmes. This small number study utilized a sequential treatment approach in which a traditional training programme preceded real-world training. The traditional training component was identical across programmes: one-on-one intervention using visual imagery and photographs to assist in mastery of face-name associations. The real-world training component compared the effectiveness of three cueing strategies--name restating, phonemic cueing and visual imagery--and was conducted by the actual to-be-named people. Results revealed improved name learning and use by the participants regardless of cueing strategy. After treatment targeting six names, four of five participants consistently used two or more names spontaneously and consistently knew three or more names in response to questioning. In addition to documenting the effectiveness of real-world treatment paradigms, the findings call into question the necessity for preliminary traditional intervention.

show abstract

“…After 30 sessions over an 8-week period, this patient continued to have no delayed recall of the target words. Because the method had been used by other researchers with more success, 14 Heinrichs suggested that it may only be appropriate for patients with less severe impairments. Even in those cases, however, gains did not generalize beyond the treatment stimuli.…”

Section: Memory Retraining Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treating Memory Problems in Adults with Neurogenic Communication Disorders

Turkstra¹

2001

Semin Speech Lang

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historical approaches to memory therapy have focused on rehearsal or "relearning" of memory skills and on compensation for impairments. Whereas the use of rehearsal-based approaches has received little empirical support, the use of external compensatory devices has proved helpful to patients with a variety of neurogenic communication disorders. More recent approaches have capitalized on advances in cognitive psychology, permitting the identification of strengths and weaknesses in specific memory functions, and increasing our understanding of the role of response errors in the therapy process. These advances, together with applied behavioral analysis, allow therapy to be tailored to the cognitive profile of an individual patient, and help explain the successes and failures of earlier techniques. In this article, both historical and current approaches are discussed, and memory therapy guidelines are suggested.

show abstract

An efficacy study of memory training for patients with closed-head injury

Abstract: 1988) An efficacy study of memory training for patients with closed-head injury, Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2:3, 251-259,

Cited by 58 publications

References 7 publications

Testing the Efficacy of Name Mnemonics Used during Conversation

Testing the Efficacy of Name Mnemonics Used during Conversation

Teaching face-name associations to survivors of traumatic brain injury: A sequential treatment approach

Treating Memory Problems in Adults with Neurogenic Communication Disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About