Word-Retrieval Treatment for Aphasia: Semantic Feature Analysis

Not Applicable

Completed

• Conditions: Language Disorders; Aphasia; Speech Disorders
• Interventions: Behavioral: Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA)Training

• Registration Number: NCT00125242
• Lead Sponsor: US Department of Veterans Affairs

Brief Summary

The purpose of this investigation is to further develop and test a treatment for word-finding problems in aphasia. The treatment is designed to strengthen meaning associations within categories of words (e.g., animals, tools, fruits). The treatment is also designed to be used as a search strategy in instances of word-finding difficulty. The study was devised to evaluate the extent to which treatment increases the ability to recall trained, as well as untrained, words.

Detailed Description

The purpose of the proposed research is to examine the effects of a semantically-oriented treatment on word retrieval in persons with aphasia. The planned investigations are designed to further the development of semantic feature training so that it may serve as not only a mechanism for improving disrupted lexical semantic processing, but also as a compensatory strategy during word retrieval failures. The proposed research will also address the issue of exemplar typicality (Kiran \& Thompson, 2003) by examining the effects of training typical versus atypical exemplars of various categories with individuals with different types of aphasia. A series of 24 single subject experimental designs will be conducted in the context of a group design to address the following experimental questions:

* Will training atypical examples of living and artifact noun categories using semantic feature training result in a significantly different outcome\* than training typical examples of living and artifact noun categories?

* Will training of one category of nouns using semantic feature training result in improved retrieval of untrained categories of nouns?

* Will effects of semantic feature training vary across aphasia types?

* Will semantic feature training result in increased production of content during discourse?

* Will generalization to untrained typical examples vary across generalization lists that are repeatedly exposed and those that are limited in exposure? (i.e., Does repeated exposure appear to contribute to generalization?)

* Outcome measure will reflect acquisition, response generalization within category, and response generalization across category effects of treatment.

Basic Information
|
Recruitment & Eligibility
|
Study & Design
|
Trial Locations

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2005-07
• Study First Submitted: 2005-07-27
• Study First Submitted QC: 2005-07-27
• Study First Posted: 2005-07-29
• Primary Completion: 2009-02
• Study Completion: 2013-04
• Results First Submitted: 2014-11-21
• Status Verified: 2014-12
• Results First Submitted QC: 2014-12-22
• Last Update Submitted: 2014-12-22
• Results First Posted: 2014-12-24
• Last Update Posted: 2014-12-24

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: COMPLETED
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 110

Inclusion Criteria

• Diagnosis of Wernicke's, Broca's, or Conduction aphasia with significant word-retrieval deficits
• At least 6 months post-onset of single, left-hemisphere stroke
• Minimum of high-school education
• Visual and auditory acuity sufficient for experimental tasks
• Nonverbal intelligence within normal limits

Read More

Exclusion Criteria

• Diagnosed mental illness other than depression
• Neurological condition other than that which resulted in aphasia
• History of alcohol or substance abuse
• Non-native English speaker
• Premorbid history of speech/language disorder

Read More

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA)	Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA)Training	Word retrieval treatment for aphasia.

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Word Retrieval Accuracy	End of treatment and at 6 weeks post treatment	Accuracy of naming of pictured treated and untreated items was assessed in probes conducted separate from treatment. Probes were conducted repeatedly throughout the study, from baseline (prior to treatment) to follow-up (6 weeks following treatment). All naming responses were scored using a 0-10 scale reflecting promptness and presence of errors; scores of 8-10 received an "accuate" score and scores of 0-7 received an "inaccurate" score. A percentage accuracy score was calculated for each experimental set of items for every probe session. Baseline probe scores were compared to end of treatment and follow-up probe scores to obtain individual effect sizes for each experimental list of items for each participant (i.e., several effect sizes were calculated for each participant). All effect sizes were utlized to obtain an average effect size for each participant; these averages were then utlized to obtain a group average.

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City; 🇺🇸 Salt Lake City, Utah, United States