CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 71Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage Development and DisordersStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

Influence of Cognitive Ability on Therapy Outcomes for Anomia in Adults With Chronic Poststroke Aphasia

Dignam, Jade, Copland, David, O'Brien, Kate, Burfein, Penni, Khan, Asaduzzaman, Rodriguez, Amy D.·2017·Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
DOI 10.1044/2016_jslhr-l-15-0384
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: The relationship between cognitive abilities and aphasia rehabilitation outcomes is complex and remains poorly understood. This study investigated the influence of language and cognitive abilities on anomia therapy outcomes in adults with aphasia. Method: Thirty-four adults with chronic aphasia participated in Aphasia Language Impairment and Functioning Therapy. A language and cognitive assessment battery, including 3 baseline naming probes, was administered prior to therapy. Naming accuracy for 30 treated and 30 untreated items was collected at posttherapy and 1-month follow-up. Multiple regression models were computed to evaluate the relationship between language and cognitive abilities at baseline and anomia therapy outcomes. Results: Both language and cognitive variables significantly influenced anomia therapy gains. Verbal short-term memory ability significantly predicted naming gains for treated items at posttherapy (β = −.551,p= .002) and for untreated items at posttherapy (β = .456,p= .014) and 1-month follow-up (β = .455,p= .021). Furthermore, lexical-semantic processing significantly predicted naming gains for treated items at posttherapy (β = −.496,p= .004) and 1-month follow-up (β = .545,p= .012). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that individuals' cognitive ability, specifically verbal short-term memory, affects anomia treatment success. Further research into the relationship between cognitive ability and anomia therapy outcomes may help to optimize treatment techniques.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1044/2016_jslhr-l-15-0384

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Baseline cognitive abilities influence inter-individual variability in treated language improvement in post-stroke aphasia.

    “It is well established that inter-individual variability in TLI in post-stroke aphasia is influenced by an array of factors, including, but not limited to, age12–15, education16–19, aphasia severity11,14,15,20,21, baseline cognitive abilities13,22,23, and, specific to bPWA, bilingual language experience and language of treatment (e.g., whether therapy is delivered in L1 or L2)24,25.”

    From Machine Learning Predictions of Recovery in Bilingual Poststroke Aphasia: Aligning Insights With Clinical Evidence (2025) · cites this paper as [23]

  • Previous studies demonstrate the impact of cognitive factors, such as attention, memory, and executive function, on treatment-induced language recovery in monolingual aphasia.

    “This finding resonates with previous studies demonstrating the impact of cognitive factors, such as attention, memory, and executive function, on treatment-induced language recovery in monolingual aphasia13,22,23.”

    From Machine Learning Predictions of Recovery in Bilingual Poststroke Aphasia: Aligning Insights With Clinical Evidence (2025) · cites this paper as [23]

  • The influence of cognitive factors on treatment outcomes has been found in monolingual aphasia studies, with stronger skills conferring better outcomes.

    “The influence of cognitive factors on treatment outcomes has been found in monolingual aphasia studies13,22,23, with stronger skills conferring better outcomes.”

    From Machine Learning Predictions of Recovery in Bilingual Poststroke Aphasia: Aligning Insights With Clinical Evidence (2025) · cites this paper as [23]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Dignam, J., Copland, D., O'Brien, K., Burfein, P., Khan, A., & Rodriguez, A. D.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • The University of Queensland, Centre for Clinical Research, Herston, Queensland, Australia
  • Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Publisher
American Speech Language Hearing Association
Published
2017-02
Volume
60
Issue
2
Pages
406-421
ISSN
  • 1092-4388 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9102
DOI
10.1044/2016_jslhr-l-15-0384
OpenAlex
W2587972043
Cited by
71
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2
FWCI
2.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Keywords
anomia, aphasia rehabilitation, naming therapy, verbal short-term memory, lexical-semantic processing, cognitive ability, treatment response prediction
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Anomia, Aphasia, Attention, Chronic Disease, Cognition, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Language, Language Therapy, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Middle Aged, Regression Analysis, Speech Perception, Visual Perception, Treatment Outcome, Stroke, Pattern Recognition, Physiological, Executive Function

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