CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 82Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage Development and DisordersAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

Sentactics®: Computer-automated treatment of underlying forms

Open access
Thompson, Cynthia K., Choy, JungWon Janet, Holland, Audrey, Cole, Ronald·2010·Aphasiology
DOI 10.1080/02687030903474255PMC PMC3002176
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Treatment of Underlying Forms (TUF) is a linguistically-based treatment for improving agrammatic sentence deficits, which enjoys a substantial database attesting to its efficacy for improving both sentence comprehension and production in agrammatic aphasia. However, TUF requires considerable linguistic background to administer and administration time can exceed the number of treatment sessions allotted in toto for reimbursement by third party payors in the United States. Thus, Sentactics®, an interactive computer system that enables delivery of TUF by a virtual clinician was developed. AIMS: This study tested the effects of Sentactics® on the acquisition and generalized production and comprehension of complex sentences. Additionally, a direct comparison of the results of computer-delivered Sentactics® and clinician-delivered TUF was undertaken. METHODS #ENTITYSTARTX00026; PROCEDURES: Twelve agrammatic aphasic speakers participated in the study, with six receiving Sentactics® and six serving as experimental controls, who received no treatment. All participants were administered pre- and post-treatment sentence comprehension and production tests and other measures to evaluate the effects of Sentactics®. Performance of the Sentactics® group also was compared to eight agrammatic patients who previously received clinician-delivered TUF treatment, identical to that delivered via Sentactics®, but with a human clinician. OUTCOMES #ENTITYSTARTX00026; RESULTS: Sentactics® significantly improved all six aphasic speakers' ability to comprehend and produce both trained and untrained, linguistically related, complex sentences as compared to six agrammatic control participants who did not receive Sentactics®. In addition, comparing the results of the Sentactics® to clinician-delivered TUF revealed no significant differences between approaches with regard to acquisition or generalization patterns. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide further support for the efficacy of TUF and demonstrate the viability of computer-delivered therapies in the field of aphasia treatment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02687030903474255

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Computer therapy tools can deliver personally tailored exercises that benefit a range of language skills, including word retrieval, verb production, sentence building, and speech comprehension.

    “Computer therapy tools can deliver personally tailored exercises that benefit a range of language skills, including word retrieval [10, 11], verb production [12] sentence building [13,14], and speech comprehension [15].”

    From Evaluating the Benefits of Aphasia Intervention Delivered in Virtual Reality: Results of a Quasi-Randomised Study (2016) · cites this paper as [13]

    The citation is attached to sentence building, not to the separately cited language skills. The Results report improved production of trained sentences with Sentactics®, and the Method describes computer-guided sentence-construction exercises. The Method also says all participants trained on the same 14 sentences, so this paper does not establish that the exercises were personally tailored. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Five studies compared self-administered versus clinician-delivered therapy (two on word production, two on reading comprehension, and one on sentence production) and concluded that both approaches yielded comparable outcomes in terms of specificity and generalization patterns.

    “For information, these comparisons concerned five studies (two on word production [ 47 , 49 ], two on reading comprehension [ 62 , 63 ], and one on sentence production [ 59 ]). These studies concluded that both approaches yielded comparable outcomes in terms of specificity and generalization patterns.”

    From Computer- and Smart-Tablet-Based Self-Administered Treatments in Chronic Post-Stroke Aphasia: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [59]

  • In another study on sentence-level intervention, narrative production improved significantly, with longer utterances and a higher proportion of complex sentences.

    “In another study on sentence-level intervention [ 59 ], narrative production improved significantly, with longer utterances and a higher proportion of complex sentences.”

    From Computer- and Smart-Tablet-Based Self-Administered Treatments in Chronic Post-Stroke Aphasia: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [59]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Thompson, C. K., Choy, J. J., Holland, A., & Cole, R.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Boulder Language Technologies (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Thompson, Cynthia K.
ORCID
Venue
Aphasiology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2010-04-12
Volume
24
Issue
10
Pages
1242-1266
ISSN
  • 0268-7038 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5041
DOI
10.1080/02687030903474255
PMC
PMC3002176
OpenAlex
W2094652594
Cited by
82
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Aphasiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R21DC007377, R01DC001948)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
agrammatic aphasia, computer-assisted therapy, sentence comprehension, sentence production, complex sentences, treatment generalization, aphasia rehabilitation

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