Immediate and short‐term effects of contextual priming on word retrieval in aphasia

Abstract

Background: Many therapy techniques for word retrieval disorders use some form of priming to improve access to words. Priming can facilitate or interfere with naming under different circumstances. We examined effects of priming when combined with semantic or phonological context (training words in groups that are semantically or phonologically related) and how these effects interact with the type of naming impairment (semantically or phonologically based).Aims: We addressed three questions (1) Are word retrieval impairments differentially sensitive to priming with semantic or phonological contexts? (2) Would such differences be systematically related to deficits of semantic versus phonological processing? (3) Do effects of priming evolve from immediate interference to short‐term facilitation, as predicted by an interactive activation model of word retrieval?Methods & Procedures: A total of 11 chronic English‐speaking aphasic subjects with varied types of aphasia participated in this experiment. Background measures of semantic and phonological processing ability were administered to determine the nature of each subject's naming impairment. The experiment involved one‐session facilitation treatments for each of three context conditions (semantic, phonological, and unrelated), plus three replications (nine subjects) or one replication (two subjects). Ten pictures in each condition were tested before and after treatment. Five pictures were trained and five served as controls. Participants repeated the name of each picture four times (repetition priming) and then attempted to name each picture individually (naming probe). Repetition priming and naming probes were repeated eight times. We used McNemar tests to compare rates of correct responses before and after priming, and chi square analyses of correct responses and contextual errors on naming probes obtained during the priming sessions.Outcome & results: Our predictions were borne out in the data. Participants varied in their sensitivity to the semantic and phonological contexts. The error data suggest that interference during training is more likely when the context (semantic or phonological) and underlying source of the word processing impairment (semantic or phonological) match. Additionally, we found two sequential effects of contextual priming: immediate interference followed short‐term facilitation.Conclusions: These data have theoretical implications regarding the time course of priming effects, but also have important clinical implications. The present contextual priming procedure is relatively short and could be used as a predictor of performance patterns in a long‐term treatment protocol that uses this approach or other tasks that employ priming.