Background Treatment studies for anomia in PPA have rarely compared multiple treatments in the same individual, and few anomia treatment studies have included participants with the logopenic variant of PPA (lvPPA). Aims The goals of this study were to evaluate two types of treatment for anomia in a bilingual participant (ND) with lvPPA, and to examine possible cross-language transfer of treatment effects. Methods & Procedures ND is a Norwegian-English bilingual woman with lvPPA who began this study at the age of 69. In the phonological treatment, ND listened to a word while viewing a corresponding picture, and she repeated the word. In the orthographic treatment, ND read a word out loud while viewing the corresponding picture, and she then copied the word. Both treatments were conducted in English, and accuracy for three tasks (oral naming, written naming, and naming to definition) was assessed in English and Norwegian. The treatment occurred over a one-year period, with eight sessions at the laboratory during the first month, followed by monthly laboratory sessions and thrice-weekly home practice sessions during the subsequent 11 months. Post-treatment assessments were conducted at 1 week, 8 months, 1 year, 20 months, and 3 years. Outcomes & Results Compared to untrained items, the orthographic treatment resulted in greater English written naming accuracy. This treatment also resulted in cross-language transfer: greater Norwegian oral naming and naming to definition accuracy. The phonological treatment resulted in marginally greater English oral naming accuracy, but it did not have a significant effect on naming accuracy in Norwegian. Conclusions These findings suggest that the orthographic treatment was effective in strengthening the orthographic representations of the treated items, which facilitated ND's written naming performance. The pattern of cross-language transfer suggests that the orthographic treatment also strengthened the language-independent semantic representations of the treated items, thereby facilitating access to their Norwegian phonological representations.

It has been argued that individuals with logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA) have an impairment of the phonological loop, which is a component of the short-term memory (STM) system. In contrast, this type of impairment is not thought to be present in mild typical Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Thus, one would predict that people with lvPPA would score significantly lower than a matched AD group on tasks that require phonological STM. In the current study, an lvPPA group was compared with a mild AD group that was matched on age, education, and general cognitive functioning. For a subset of the tasks that involved pseudowords, the AD and lvPPA groups were compared to a healthy control group that was matched on age and education. The lvPPA group was more impaired than the AD group on all of the tasks that required phonological STM, including the pseudoword tasks, but there were no significant differences between these groups on tasks that required visuospatial STM. Compared to the healthy controls, the lvPPA group performed significantly worse on the repetition and reading of pseudowords, while the AD group did not differ significantly from the controls on these tasks. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that phonological STM is impaired in lvPPA.

Many individuals with aphasia describe anomia with comments like “I know it but I can’t say it.” The exact meaning of such phrases is unclear. We hypothesize that at least two discrete experiences exist: the sense of (1) knowing a concept, but failing to find the right word, and (2) saying the correct word internally but not aloud (successful inner speech, sIS). We propose that sIS reflects successful lexical access; subsequent overt anomia indicates post-lexical output deficits. In this pilot study, we probed the subjective experience of anomia in 37 persons with aphasia. Self-reported sIS related to aphasia severity and phonological output deficits. In multivariate lesion-symptom mapping, sIS was associated with dorsal stream lesions, particularly in ventral sensorimotor cortex. These preliminary results suggest that people with aphasia can often provide meaningful insights about their experience of anomia and that reports of sIS relate to specific lesion locations and language deficits.

This study examines the reasons for the success of Multiple Oral Re-reading (MOR; Moyer, 1979), a non-invasive, easily administered alexia treatment that has been reported in the literature and is currently in clinical use. The treatment consists of reading text passages aloud multiple times a day. Findings that MOR improves reading speed on practiced as well as novel text have been inconsistent, making MOR‘s role in the rehabilitation of alexia unclear. We hypothesized that MOR’s treatment mechanism works through repetition of high frequency words (i.e., bottom-up processing). We designed and controlled our text passages to test the hypothesis that participants would not improve on all novel text but would improve on text that includes a critical mass of the words contained in the passages they were re-reading. We further hypothesized that the improvement would be at the level of their specific alexic deficit. We tested four participants with phonologic alexia and two with pure alexia during 8 weeks of MOR treatment. Contrary to the conclusions of previous studies, our results indicate that improvements in top-down processing cannot explain generalization in MOR and that much of the improvement in reading is through repetition of the practiced words. However, most patients also showed improvement when specific phrases were re-used in novel passages, indicating that practice of difficult words in context may be crucial to reading improvement.

People with aphasia frequently report being able to say a word correctly in their heads, even if they are unable to say that word aloud. It is difficult to know what is meant by these reports of “successful inner speech”. We probe the experience of successful inner speech in two people with aphasia. We show that these reports are associated with correct overt speech and phonologically related nonwords errors, that they relate to word characteristics associated with ease of lexical access but not ease of production, and that they predict whether or not individual words are relearned during anomia treatment. These findings suggest that reports of successful inner speech are meaningful and may be useful to study self-monitoring in aphasia, to better understand anomia, and to predict treatment outcomes. Ultimately, the study of inner speech in people with aphasia could provide critical insights that inform our understanding of normal language.