Relearning lost vocabulary in nonfluent progressive aphasia with MossTalk Words®

Abstract

Background: The literature on aphasia has been growing rapidly, with reports of different therapeutic approaches for a post-stroke anomia. While individuals with poststroke anomia frequently recover to some extent, the other end of the aphasia recovery continuum is occupied by those who experience relentless language dissolution as a result of progressive disorders such as primary progressive aphasia. One of the most recent additions to the field of aphasia rehabilitation is therapy whereby either part of or the entire therapy is administered via computer-based programmes. There have been few treatment studies investigating the rehabilitation of language abilities in people with primary progressive aphasia (PPA). Aims: The objectives of this investigation were to examine the ability of PPA individuals to relearn lost words and to determine the extent of benefits derived from MossTalk WordsH, a computer-based treatment for anomia. Methods and Procedures: Using a multiple baseline across behaviours design, we explored treatment-specific effects, maintenance, and generalisation of improvements derived from this therapy programme. Two participants with nonfluent PPA were treated, each on three lists of words for which low and stable baselines were first established. Sessions occurred two to three times a week. Treatment involved the presentation of a picture on the computer screen, with the participants being required to name it. Success in treatment was measured by probing list naming every second session. Once a participant attained 80% accuracy over two consecutive probes, or participated in 12 sessions (whichever occurred first), treatment of a list was terminated and the next

“Do you havemowing the lawn?” – improvements in word retrieval and grammar following constraint-induced language therapy in primary progressive aphasia

“…However, both cueing strategies have been found to be effective in nfvPPA (Henry, Beeson, & Rapcsak, 2008;Jokel et al, 2014). Beside the traditional face-to-face therapy, computer-based programs like MossTalk Words® have been successfully used in the word-retrieval therapy in nfvPPA (Jokel, Cupit, Rochon, & Leonard, 2009;Jokel, Rochon, & Anderson, 2010). Thus, Jokel et al (2009) suggest computer-based home training as a cost-effective way to increase the amount of individual treatment for people with PPA.…”

ICTs in Speech and Language Therapy

“…[30] also examines the effectiveness of MossTalk Words in two patients with anomia. The study proved that this computer-naming treatment program helped both patients improve their language abilities, maintain some of the therapeutic gains on the trained items and show generalization to a sentence production task one month post treatment.…”

Effect of Lexical Retrieval Cascade Treatment on Naming and Discourse of Individuals with Logopenic Variant of Primary Progressive Aphasia (lvPPA)

“…Evidence for behavioral therapies aimed at improving typical deficits in NFPPA such as agrammatism, phonological skills and apraxia of speech is based on one study (for each deficit) rated as Class III 32,33,36 respectively. Evidence from two Class III studies supports therapy targeting naming deficits 34,35 and functional interventions using AAC 37,39 in this group of patients. The evidence for treatments targeting naming and spelling deficits in LPPA is based on two Class III studies 21,40 and one Class III study, 41 respectively.…”

“…38 Impairment-directed interventions aimed at different aspects in NFPPA: agrammatism, 32 phonological skills, 33 apraxia of speech 36 and naming and lexical retrieval deficits. 34,35 Unlike SPPA, most NFPPA patients presented generalization of therapy gains to some extent, verified in untreated items, 32,34 different tasks 33,34 or functional communication evaluated through self-ratings of treatment effects. 36 These results are encouraging but need to be replicated in a larger number of patients.…”

“…This paper presents the results of non-pharmacological treatment applied to 11 patients in eight ar-ticles. With a few exceptions, 33,34 most studies consisted of analyses of treatments applied to a single case.…”