The results of this trial demonstrate generalization of training effects on laboratory measures, which were sustained at 3 months, and provide support for the theories that motivated the treatment.

Background: It is broadly known that persons with chronic aphasia experience difficulty reading. However, the frequency of acquired reading disorders (alexia), and the most common subtype of alexia, as well as predictors of reading in this population are yet to be determined. Aims: This study aims to provide initial evidence regarding the frequency, nature, and predictors of alexia in a large convenience sample of persons with chronic aphasia. Methods & Procedures: Single-word oral reading abilities for lexical items (regular and irregular words) and sublexical items (pseudohomophones and nonwords) from 99 persons with aphasia (PWA) and 29 normal controls (NC) were assessed and retrospectively analysed. Outcomes & Results: Of the 99 PWA, 68% met our alexia criteria. These PWA and coexisting alexia performed worse than the NC on all reading stimuli and tended to perform worse with stimuli requiring sublexical processing (i.e., pseudohomophones and nonwords) than on stimuli requiring lexical processing (i.e., real words). The group of PWA and alexia had a wide range of aphasia types and severities. Less severe aphasia was found to predict higher oral reading performance. Education was not found to be a significant predictor of reading. Conclusions: Our retrospectively analysed results from a convenience sample suggest that reading problems occur frequently among PWA and severity of aphasia influences reading performance. Moreover, our results suggest that acquired reading difficulties after stroke are likely to be characterised by difficulty with sublexical processing. A

This study provides support that phonomotor treatment is a viable approach to improve phonological processing and oral reading for PWA with phonological alexia. The lack of improvement with comprehension is inconsistent with prior work using similar treatments (Conway et al., 1998; Kendall et al., 2003). However, this difference can, in part, be accounted for by differences in variables, such as treatment intensity and frequency, outcome measures, and alexia severity.