Though aphasia is primarily characterized by impairments in the comprehension and/or expression of language, research has shown that patients with aphasia also show deficits in cognitive-linguistic domains such as attention, executive function, concept knowledge and memory (Helm-Estabrooks, 2002 for review). Research in aphasia suggests that cognitive impairments can impact the online construction of language, new verbal learning, and transactional success (Freedman & Martin, 2001; Hula & McNeil, 2008; Ramsberger, 2005). In our research, we extend this hypothesis to suggest that general cognitive deficits influence progress with therapy. The aim of our study is to explore learning, a cognitive process that is integral to relearning language, yet underexplored in the field of aphasia rehabilitation. We examine non-linguistic category learning in patients with aphasia (n=19) and in healthy controls (n=12), comparing feedback and non-feedback based instruction. Participants complete two computer-based learning tasks that require them to categorize novel animals based on the percentage of features shared with one of two prototypes. As hypothesized, healthy controls showed successful category learning following both methods of instruction. In contrast, only 60% of our patient population demonstrated successful non-linguistic category learning. Patient performance was not predictable by standardized measures of cognitive ability. Results suggest that general learning is affected in aphasia and is a unique, important factor to consider in the field of aphasia rehabilitation.

The present study examines the influence of language proficiency and language combination on bilingual lexical access using category fluency in 109 healthy speakers. Participants completed a category fluency task in each of their languages in three main categories (animals, clothing, and food), each with two subcategories, as well as a language use questionnaire assessing their proficiency. Five language combinations were examined (Hindi–English, Kannada–English, Mandarin–English, Spanish–English, and Turkish–English). Multivariate analyses of variance revealed that the average number of correct items named in the category fluency task across the three main categories varied across the different groups only in English and not the other language. Further, results showed that language exposure composite (extracted from the questionnaire using a principal component analysis) significantly affected the average number of items named across the three main categories. Overall, these results demonstrate the effects of particular language combinations on bilingual lexical access and provide important insights into the role of proficiency on access.

Purpose To study strategy use during nonlinguisitic category learning in aphasia. Method Twelve non-aphasic controls and 53 patients with aphasia (PWA) completed a computerized feedback-based category learning task comprising of training and testing phases. Accuracy rates of categorization in testing phases were calculated. To evaluate strategy use, strategy analyses were conducted over training and testing phases. Participant data was compared with model data that simulated complex multi-cue (OMC), single feature (SF) and random pattern (RP) strategies. Learning success and strategy use were evaluated within the context of standardized cognitive-linguistic assessments. Results Categorization accuracy was higher among control participants than among individuals with aphasia. The majority of control participants implemented suboptimal or optimal multi-cue and single feature strategies by testing phases of the experiment. In contrast, a large subgroup of individuals with aphasia implemented random patterns, or no strategy, during both training and testing phases of the experiment. Conclusions Person-to-person variability arises not only in category learning ability, but in the strategies implemented to complete category learning tasks. PWA less frequently developed effective strategies during category learning tasks than controls. Certain PWA may have impairments of strategy development or feedback processing not captured by language and currently probed cognitive abilities.

Purpose: Best practices in the field of aphasia rehabilitation increasingly acknowledge a whole-person approach that values interventions aimed at reducing impairments, while also recognizing the impact of aphasia on participation and quality of life. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), this study aimed to examine whether current clinical practices along levels of service provision reflect this whole-person, multifaceted approach. Method: Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the United States who provide intervention to people with aphasia across the continuum of care completed this cross-sectional online survey. Current outcome measurement and treatment practices were evaluated within the Living With Aphasia: Framework for Outcome Measurement via multiple-choice and open-text response questions. Data were analyzed descriptively and using ordinal logistic regression models to compare clinical practices along levels of service provision. Results: Data from 90 SLPs revealed that language and cognitive skills are assessed with equal consistency across clinical settings; however, functional communication, participation, and quality of life domains are prioritized in settings providing care to clients within the community. Psychological well-being is rarely assessed within clinical practice along most of the rehabilitation process and prioritized within the university clinic setting when clients are in the chronic stage of recovery. Conclusions: Clinical practices related to a multifaceted approach to aphasia intervention are variable across levels of service provision. Further exploration of barriers and facilitators to multifaceted aphasia care along the domains of the CFIR is needed to provide an informed approach to implementing change.