CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 212Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryLanguage Development and Disorders

Predicting the outcome of anomia therapy for people with aphasia post CVA: Both language and cognitive status are key predictors

Open access
Lambon Ralph, Matthew A., Snell, Claerwen, Fillingham, Joanne K., Conroy, Paul, Sage, Karen·2010·Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
DOI 10.1080/09602010903237875
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine whether it was possible to predict therapy gain from participants' performance on background tests of language and cognitive ability. To do this, we amalgamated the assessment and therapy results from 33 people with aphasia following cerebral vascular accident (CVA), all of whom had received the same anomia therapy (based on progressive phonemic and orthographic cueing). Previous studies with smaller numbers of participants had found a possible relationship between anomia therapy performance and some language and cognitive assessments. Because this study had access to a larger data set than previous studies, we were able to replicate the previous findings and also to verify two overarching factors which were predictive of therapy gain: a cognitive factor and a phonological factor. The status of these two domains was able to predict both immediate and longer-term therapy gain. Pre-treatment naming ability also predicted gain after the anomia therapy. When combined, both cognitive and language (naming or phonological) skills were found to be independent predictors of therapy outcome.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09602010903237875

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • 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 [22]

  • 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 [22]

  • 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 [22]

  • In a naming therapy study in 33 chronic aphasic patients, a mixture of cognitive and phonological skills explained about 50% of the between-subject variance in response to therapy.

    “A naming therapy study in 33 chronic aphasic patients used maximum possible gain on trained items as the main outcome measure (this tends to emphasise gains in more mildly affected patients) [36]. They found that a mixture of cognitive and phonological skills explained about 50% of the between-subject variance in response to therapy.”

    From Aphasia Recovery: When, How and Who to Treat? (2018) · cites this paper as [36]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lambon Ralph, M. A., Snell, C., Fillingham, J. K., Conroy, P., & Sage, K.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2010-04
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
289-305
ISSN
  • 0960-2011 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0694
DOI
10.1080/09602010903237875
OpenAlex
W2142127566
Cited by
212
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 10
FWCI
5.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Neuropsychological Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
aphasia, stroke, naming, phonological processing, cognitive status, language assessment, treatment response prediction
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anomia, Cognition, Female, Humans, Language, Language Tests, Language Therapy, Male, Middle Aged, Names, Neuropsychological Tests, Prognosis, Time Factors, Cohort Studies, Treatment Outcome, Stroke

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