Cited by 37Assistive Technology in Communication and MobilityNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

Technology-Based Rehabilitation to Improve Communication after Acquired Brain Injury

Open access
Des Roches, Carrie A., Kiran, Swathi·2017·Frontiers in Neuroscience

Abstract

The utilization of technology has allowed for several advances in aphasia rehabilitation for individuals with acquired brain injury. Thirty-one previous studies that provide technology-based language or language and cognitive rehabilitation are examined in terms of the domains addressed, the types of treatments that were provided, details about the methods and the results, including which types of outcomes are reported. From this, we address questions about how different aspects of the delivery of treatment can influence rehabilitation outcomes, such as whether the treatment was standardized or tailored, whether the participants were prescribed homework or not, and whether intensity was varied. Results differed by these aspects of treatment delivery but ultimately the studies demonstrated consistent improvement on various outcome measures. With these aspects of technology-based treatment in mind, the ultimate goal of personalized rehabilitation is discussed.

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 · 10.3389/fnins.2017.00382

Cites

70 of 70 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Herbert R. Best W. Hickin J. Howard D. Osborne F. (2013). Powers: Profile of Word Errors and Retrieval in Speech, An Assessment Tool for Use with People with Communication Impairment. Albury: J & R Press.
  2. Porch B. E. (1971). Porch Index of Communicative Ability: Theory and Development, Vol. 1 Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  3. Swinburn K. Porter G. Howard D. (2004). CAT: Comprehensive Aphasia Test. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Des Roches, C. A., & Kiran, S.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Published
2017-07-28
Volume
11
Pages
382-382
ISSN
1662-453X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2737674149
Cited by
37
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3
FWCI
0.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OpenBU (Boston University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wallace H. Coulter Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Keywords
aphasia rehabilitation, acquired brain injury, technology-based rehabilitation, language rehabilitation, cognitive rehabilitation, personalized rehabilitation, treatment intensity, homework, treatment standardization, rehabilitation outcomes

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