remediation of anomia in lvppa and svppa
Clicks: 183
ID: 207586
2015
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
183 views
30 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #993 of 1,131 articles by views in accounts of chemical research
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 1,131 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Anomia treatment efficacy has been examined in cases with different subtypes of primary progressive aphasia (PPA), and it has been evaluated in groups of participants with the semantic variant (svPPA), but efficacy has not been examined in groups with different subtypes of PPA.
Method
Participants. Four individuals with the logopenic variant (lvPPA) and four individuals with svPPA participated.
Procedure. At baseline, participants attempted to name two sets of pictured nouns. One set (Exemplar 1) was utilized during treatment. The second set (Exemplar 2) was never trained and was used to assess stimulus generalization. For each participant, nouns that were consistently named incorrectly were divided among three conditions: Orthographic treatment (OTC), Phonological treatment (PTC), and Untrained (UC). The nouns were matched across conditions for frequency, semantic category, and number of syllables, phonemes, and letters.
In the OTC, participants viewed a picture and the corresponding word, read the word out loud, and transcribed the word. In the PTC, participants viewed the picture and a string of symbols. The auditory word was then presented, and participants repeated it.
There were two treatment sessions per week during the first month. During the subsequent five months, subjects participated in monthly treatment sessions, in addition to thrice-weekly practice sessions. A post-treatment evaluation began one month after treatment ended.
Results
lvPPA. From baseline to post-treatment, there was a significant or marginally significant increase in naming accuracy for both exemplars, within every condition [Exemplar 1: UC: t(3) = 2.78, p = .07; PTC: t(3) = 5.75, p = .01; OTC: t(3) = 3.62, p = .04; Exemplar 2: UC: t(3) = 7.82, p = .004; PTC: t(3) = 3.59, p = .04; OTC: t(3) = 3.78, p = .03]. Compared to UC, accuracy at post-treatment was marginally greater for Exemplar 1 in the PTC, t(3) = 3.03, p = .06. There were no other significant or marginally significant differences between UC and the treatment conditions.
svPPA. From baseline to post-treatment, there was a significant or marginally significant increase in accuracy for both exemplars within both treatment conditions, but not in UC [Exemplar 1: UC: t(3) = 1.00, p = .39; PTC: t(3) = 3.62, p = .04; OTC: t(3) = 3.68, p = .04; Exemplar 2: UC: both means and SD’s equal zero; PTC: t(3) = 6.57, p = .01; OTC: t(3) = 3.00, p = .06]. Compared to UC, accuracy at post-treatment was marginally or significantly greater in the treatment conditions [Exemplar 1: PTC: t(3) = 3.25, p = .05; OTC: t(3) = 3.42, p = .04; Exemplar 2: PTC: t(3) = 6.57, p = .01; OTC: t(3) = 3.00, p = .06].
Conclusions
The lvPPA group demonstrated stimulus generalization and a larger treatment effect in PTC. Naming also improved in UC, which may be due to variability in phonological access and/or a testing effect.
The svPPA group demonstrated stimulus generalization and similar treatment effects in PTC and OTC. There was no improvement in UC, which suggests that degraded semantic representations remain inaccessible without treatment.
| Reference Key |
meyer2015frontiersremediation
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Aaron Meyer;Melissa Newhart;R. Scott Turner |
| Journal | accounts of chemical research |
| Year | 2015 |
| DOI |
10.3389/conf.fpsyg.2015.65.00078
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.