Naming Deficits In Aphasia Research Articles

The use of semantic- and phonological-based feature approaches to treat naming deficits in aphasia

The aim of the study was to compare approaches highlighting either semantic or phonological features to treat naming deficits in aphasia. Treatment focused on improving picture naming. An alternating treatments design was used with a multiple baseline design across stimuli to examine effects of both approaches in two participants with varying degrees of anomia. The features approaches were modified in that three, rather than six, features were used. Significant differential effects were found across participants; this appeared to be a function of each participant's strengths or preferences over the course of treatment. Modest generalization effects were obtained for one participant. Naming error analyses revealed patterns suggestive of increased lexical access for both participants. These findings provide evidence that using a modified features-based protocol can improve naming when incorporating both semantic and phonological feature cues. Naming error patterns can provide additional evidence of improved naming during treatment.

The use of a modified semantic features analysis approach in aphasia

Several studies have reported improved naming using the semantic feature analysis (SFA) approach in individuals with aphasia. Whether the SFA can be modified and still produce naming improvements in aphasia is unknown. The present study was designed to address this question by using a modified version of the SFA approach. Three, rather than the typical six, features were used, and written along with verbal responses were allowed in an individual with both aphasia and apraxia of speech. A single-subject multiple-baseline design across behaviors was used to treat naming of single objects across three different semantic categories in a 72-year-old individual with aphasia and apraxia of speech. Stimulus generalization of training was measured by using photographs of trained items presented in natural contexts. Training of the three different categories resulted in improved naming. At a 6-week follow-up session, naming remained above pre-treatment levels but declines were noted compared to treatment levels. Generalization to the same trained items presented in different contexts was also demonstrated although declines in performance were also noted over time. Results of the study provide qualified support for the use of three features in promoting long-term improvement of naming in an individual with both aphasia and apraxia of speech. Future SFA studies should focus on whether it is the number or types of features used, aphasia severity, or length of treatment that are critical factors in rehabilitating naming deficits in aphasia. Learning outcomes: The reader will be able to (1) Increase understanding of the SFA approach. (2) Increase understanding of strengths and weaknesses of this approach. (3) Determine how the SFA can be modified for use in clinical settings.

Treating naming impairments in aphasia: Findings from a phonological components analysis treatment

Background: A new phonologically based treatment that we developed for addressing naming deficits in aphasia—the phonological components analysis (PCA) treatment—is presented. The PCA was modelled after the semantic feature analysis (SFA) approach (Boyle & Coelho, 1995). The SFA approach was chosen as a model for two reasons. First, results from the semantic therapies that have used SFA have been encouraging (e.g., Boyle, 2004; Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho, McHugh, & Boyle, 2000; Conley & Coelho, 2003; Lowell, Beeson, & Holland, 1995). Second, SFA incorporates the principle of choice, a factor that has been identified by some as being important in producing longer‐lasting effects of treatment (e.g., Hickin, Best, Herbert, Howard, & Osborne, 2002). The PCA was developed to serve as a comparable phonological comparison for the SFA approach with the future goal of comparing the relative effects of both types of therapies. Portions of this work were presented at the Academy of Aphasia meetings in New York, October 2002 (Rochon, Leonard, & Laird, 2002) and Victoria, October 2006 (Rochon et al., 2006a), at the American Speech and Hearing Association meeting, Philadelphia, November 2004, and at the Rotman Research Conference, Toronto, March 2006 (Rochon et al., 2006b). This project was supported by grant number 44069 from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and by grant number NA 5379 from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario. The authors are grateful to the North York Aphasia Institute, the York Durham Aphasia Centre, and the Aphasia Centre of Ottawa‐Carleton for allowing us to recruit participants from their institutions, and to all the individuals who participated in this research. James Andrews, Eleanor Arabia, Jennifer Cupit, Kit Flynn, Heather McCallum, Lauren Reznick, and Patty Vlachos, provided valuable assistance on this project. Thank you also to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Aims: The primary aim of this investigation was to document the effectiveness of PCA treatment for the remediation of naming deficits in aphasia. In addition, we wished to examine potential maintenance and generalisation effects associated with this treatment. Methods & Procedures: The PCA treatment followed the protocol of Coelho et al. (2000). The target picture was presented in the centre of a chart and the participant was asked to name it. Irrespective of his/her ability to name the picture, the participant was asked to identify five phonological components related to the target item (i.e., rhymes with, first sound, first sound associate, final sound, number of syllables). For each component targeted, if a participant could not spontaneously provide a response, he/she was asked to choose one from a list. A single‐subject multiple‐baseline across behaviours design was employed, with maintenance effects examined 4 weeks post‐treatment. Generalisation effects were examined by comparing pre‐ and post‐treatment scores on the Philadelphia Naming Test (Roach, Schwartz, Martin, Grewal, & Brecher, 1996). Ten individuals with aphasia participated. Outcomes & Results: Of the 10 individuals, 7 demonstrated notable treatment effects. Follow‐up testing indicated maintenance of treatment gains over a 4‐week period, with some generalisation to untreated items. Conclusions: This investigation was successful in demonstrating the effectiveness of a new phonological approach to the remediation of naming deficits in aphasia and in supporting the notion that a components analysis treatment protocol (similar to a semantic feature based treatment) is useful in strengthening activations within the lexical system with the potential result of longer‐lasting effects.

Effect of abstractness on treatment for generative naming deficits in aphasia

Effect of abstractness on treatment for generative naming deficits in aphasia

The benefits of orthographic cueing to naming deficits in aphasia: A case study

The benefits of orthographic cueing to naming deficits in aphasia: A case study

The role of semantic complexity in treatment of naming deficits: training semantic categories in fluent aphasia by controlling exemplar typicality.

The effect of typicality of category exemplars on naming was investigated using a single subject experimental design across participants and behaviors in 4 patients with fluent aphasia. Participants received a semantic feature treatment to improve naming of either typical or atypical items within semantic categories, while generalization was tested to untrained items of the category. The order of typicality and category trained was counterbalanced across participants. Results indicated that patients trained on naming of atypical exemplars demonstrated generalization to naming of intermediate and typical items. However, patients trained on typical items demonstrated no generalized naming effect to intermediate or atypical examples. Furthermore, analysis of errors indicated an evolution of errors throughout training, from those with no apparent relationship to the target to primarily semantic and phonemic paraphasias. Performance on standardized language tests also showed changes as a function of treatment. Theoretical and clinical implications regarding the impact of considering semantic complexity on rehabilitation of naming deficits in aphasia are discussed.

The role of semantic complexity in treatment of naming deficits: training semantic categories in fluent aphasia by controlling exemplar typicality.

The effect of typicality of category exemplars on naming was investigated using a single subject experimental design across participants and behaviors in 4 patients with fluent aphasia. Participants received a semantic feature treatment to improve naming of either typical or atypical items within semantic categories, while generalization was tested to untrained items of the category. The order of typicality and category trained was counterbalanced across participants. Results indicated that patients trained on naming of atypical exemplars demonstrated generalization to naming of intermediate and typical items. However, patients trained on typical items demonstrated no generalized naming effect to intermediate or atypical examples. Furthermore, analysis of errors indicated an evolution of errors throughout training, from those with no apparent relationship to the target to primarily semantic and phonemic paraphasias. Performance on standardized language tests also showed changes as a function of treatment. Theoretical and clinical implications regarding the impact of considering semantic complexity on rehabilitation of naming deficits in aphasia are discussed.

Phonological treatment of naming deficits in aphasia: Model-based generalization analysis

Abstract A phonologically based treatment was implemented to train oral picture naming in four aphasic subjects with severe word-retrieval deficits. An initial assessment based on current cognitive neuropsychological models of naming indicated different levels of phonological and/or semantic deficits underlying naming failure across the subjects. Using a single-subject multiple baseline design across behaviours and subjects, the effects of treatment were evaluated by daily probing of both trained and untrained items across lexical tasks: oral naming, oral reading, and written naming. Results indicated successful acquisition of trained naming targets for the four subjects, and varied patterns of response generalization to naming of untrained phonologically and semantically related pictures, and to oral reading and written naming for the same words. Baseline levels of oral reading performance were noted to predict success in oral naming treatment. Differences in generalization patterns across tasks are disc...