Therapy for naming difficulties in aphasia: Application of a cognitive neuropsychological model

Nettleton, Julie; Lesser, Ruth

doi:10.1016/0911-6044(91)90004-3

Cited by 89 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the study indicated that 3 out of 4 patients are receiving model-appropriate treatments improved in their naming abilities while those 2 patients provided with model-inappropriate treatment showed no improvement [5]. One of the limitations of this study was that each patient was planned to receive only one treatment, so it is not clear whether the patients in the model-inappropriate group improved in naming if they received the appropriate treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…For example, Miceli et al (1996) used a lexical-semantic processing model for investigating two participants with selective damage to the phonological output lexicon and reported improvements in naming for both participants following phonological treatment with long-lasting effects. Similarly, other studies also reported that treatment outcomes are maintained after the completion of phonological therapy, highlighting that phonologically-based treatment can yield longterm results [5,23,24]. Participants 3 and 4, whose pre-treatment assessments showed semantic impairments, displayed considerable improvement for both treatment sets immediately after treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Accordingly, the subjects were classified into two subgroups, "semantic impairment", and ''phonological impairment''. It was expected that the participants with ''semantic impairment'' show an advantage of the semantic over the phonological treatment, whereas the participants with ''phonological impairment'' showed the reverse pattern [5,22]. All four participants benefited from both treatment approaches; although, the percentage of correct responses and generalization to untrained items were of different degrees.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, it seems that semantic-based treatment specifically targets on strengthening representations at the level of the word meaning and phonological-based treatment aims at enhancing representations at the level of the word form. Some studies have shown that semantic tasks are effective for patients with semantic impairments, and phonological tasks are effective for those with phonological impairments [4,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparative Effectiveness of Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) and Phonological Components Analysis (PCA) for Anomia Treatment in Persian Speaking Patients With Aphasia

Sadeghi

Baharloei

Zadeh

et al. 2017

IRJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Anomia is one of the most common and persistent symptoms of aphasia. Although treatments of anomia usually focus on semantic and/or phonological levels, which both have been demonstrated to be effective, the relationship between the underlying functional deficit in naming and response to a particular treatment approach remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between the effects of specific treatments (Semantic feature Analysis and Phonological Components Analysis) and their underlying functional deficit patterns within the framework of a cognitive processing model. Methods:In an ABCB reversal control task design, four participants with aphasia were selected according to the criteria based on using a cognitive model of lexical processing. Each patient received two types of treatment. In SFA, features semantically associated to the target words were elicited from the patient, whereas in PCA treatment, the phonological components of the target words were the focus of treatment. Naming accuracy scores obtained in pretreatment baseline phase were compared to post-treatment accuracy scores. Here, both itemspecific effects and generalization of untrained items were analyzed.Results: Both SFA and PCA treatments have the potential to improve naming ability in participants; however, the treatment approach that corresponds exactly to the underlying deficit causing failure in word retrieval is more effective.Discussion: While PCA is more effective for participants with phonological impairments, SFA is more effective for participants with semantic impairments. Therefore, a direct relationship between underlying functional deficit and response to specific treatment was established for all participants.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparative Effectiveness of Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) and Phonological Components Analysis (PCA) for Anomia Treatment in Persian Speaking Patients With Aphasia

Sadeghi

Baharloei

Zadeh

et al. 2017

IRJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Treatment programs which feature initial phoneme cues improve naming performance in English speakers with anomic symptoms as evidenced by a number of studies (Abel et al, 2005;Bruce and Howard, 1987;Conroy et al, 2009;Greenwood et al, 2010;Nettleton and Lesser, 1991;Wambaugh et al, 2001). However, aphasia is known to affect different languages differently.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitation effects of cueing techniques in two Sesotho speakers with anomia

Archer

Müller

Penn

2016

Speech, Language and Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aphasiologists developing treatments for anomia should closely align therapy methods with the typological and morphological characteristics of the language in question.The lead author initiated this study to develop more defensible interventions for speakers of Sesotho, a South African language. Prefix-based cueing (our alternative name for initial phoneme cueing that describes these cues in Sesotho-oriented terms) was compared to a novel technique, root-based cueing (RBC). While prefix-based cues are described in the literature, we hypothesized root-based cues would be more appropriate in this context since they were thought to be more consonant with the linguistic parameters of Sesotho. Two speakers with aphasia, who demonstrated significant anomic symptoms, served as participants. We used a multiple-baseline, single case study design. Two 144-item word lists were developed with every item represented by a photograph. Each of the two word lists was associated with one of the two cueing techniques investigated. After baseline measurements were obtained, each participant attended eight facilitation sessions for each cueing condition, resulting in eight data points per condition and participant. For both participants, RBC resulted in greater naming performance than cueing by means of initial phonemes. Our explanation of these results is based on the Interactive Lexical Network model of lexical access; root-based cues may be more effective because they more efficiently constrain the number of lemmas activated after a cue is provided. We argue that a confluence of factors (word-retrieval processes and the character of Sesotho morphosyntax) gave rise to the noted differences in naming facilitation.

show abstract