Cited by 53Reading and Literacy DevelopmentNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research

Acquired alexia: Lessons from successful treatment

BEESON, PELAGIE M., INSALACO, DEBORAH·1998·Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society

Abstract

Two individuals with anomic aphasia and acquired alexia were each provided treatment for their reading impairment. Although reading of single words in isolation was fairly accurate, their text reading was slow and effortful, including functor substitutions and semantic errors. Prior to treatment, reading reaction times for single words showed grammatical class and word-length effects. Both patients responded positively to a treatment protocol that included two phases: (1) multiple oral rereading of text, and (2) reading phrase-formatted text that had increased spacing between phrasal clauses. Their reading rates for text improved while maintaining good comprehension. Following treatment, reading reaction times for single words showed the elimination of grammatical class and word-length effects, suggesting improved access to word forms, particularly functors. (JINS, 1998, 4, 621–635.)

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1355617798466116

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Previous research reported improvements in lexical retrieval, spontaneous speech, and reading abilities post-treatment, though with relatively limited generalization of these improvements.

    “Previous research33 similarly reported improvements in lexical retrieval, spontaneous speech, and reading abilities post-treatment, though with relatively limited generalization of these improvements.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
BEESON, P. M., & INSALACO, D.
Affiliations
University of Arizona (US)
Venue
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
Published
1998-11
Volume
4
Issue
6
Pages
621-635
ISSN
  • 1355-6177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7661
OpenAlex
W2046549784
Cited by
53
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5p60dc001409-10)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (DC 01409)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Keywords
anomic aphasia, reading disorders, text reading, single word reading, semantic errors, word length effect, reading speed, reading comprehension
MeSH terms
Adult, Dyslexia, Acquired, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Reaction Time, 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