Promoting recovery in chronic aphasia with an interactive technology
Abstract
Objective To assess chronic aphasic patients' responses to resumption of therapy using an innovative, computer-based treatment system.Design Patients were assessed pretreatment and posttreatment using standardized assessment tools. Pretreatment and posttreatment performance score means were computed and compared, with statistical significance of the differences established using a one-tailed, matched t test.Setting The work was conducted at (1) a Veterans Affairs medical center participating in treatment research and (2) a regional aphasia center delivering therapy services for reimbursement.Patients Chronic aphasic patients (n = 23) from 6 months to more than 15 years postonset were enrolled in the study. They included a wide range of types and severities of aphasia, and all had received traditional speech-language therapy services earlier.Interventions All patients were treated in 1-hour clinical sessions by speech-language pathologists using the designated computer-based treatment system. All but one of the patients had access to the computer-based treatment system at home for practice between clinical therapy sessions.Main outcome measures The outcome measures used were (1) the Porch Index of Communicative Ability (PICA), (2) the Boston Naming Test (BNT), (3) the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB), and (4) the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE).Results The majority of patients improved significantly in multiple modalities as assessed by these instruments.Conclusions Specific measures of language function can be broadly, positively, and significantly influenced by computer-based language therapy in chronic aphasia.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The BNT summary effect size of 3.30 exceeded its SEM of 2.04, which supports its validity for measuring intervention-related improvement.
“Lastly, the summary ES for the BNT of 3.30 was also higher than its SEM of 2.04,43 supporting its validity as a metric of intervention-related improvement.”
From Benchmarks of Significant Change After Aphasia Rehabilitation (2019) · cites this paper as [43]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 28 · Cited by 76
- Authors
- Aftonomos, L. B., Steele, R. D., & Wertz, R. T.
- Affiliations
- Nashville VA Medical Center (US)
- Venue
- Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1997-08
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 841-846
- ISSN
- 0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2015551594
- Cited by
- 76
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
- Keywords
- chronic aphasia, interactive technologies, aphasia recovery, home-based practice, speech therapy, Boston Naming Test, Western Aphasia Battery, Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination, veterans
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aphasia, Cerebrovascular Disorders, Chronic Disease, Convalescence, Female, Humans, Language Therapy, Male, Middle Aged, Severity of Illness Index, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review