Semantic feature analysis: Application to confrontation naming of actions in aphasia

Abstract

Background: Despite advances in the development and testing of therapies for verb retrieval impairments in aphasia, generalisation effects of treatment remain a challenge. Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) is a word retrieval treatment that has been reported to result in generalised responding to untrained object names with persons with aphasia. The theorised therapeutic mechanisms of SFA appeared to be appropriate for facilitating retrieval of trained and untrained action names. Aims: This investigation was designed to extend pilot research in which SFA was applied to verb retrieval. The primary purpose of the current study was to examine the acquisition and response generalisation effects of SFA applied to action naming with four persons with chronic aphasia. Additional purposes were to examine changes in production of content in discourse and to explore the correspondence of accuracy of naming during treatment to probe performance. Methods & Procedures: SFA was modified slightly to be appropriate for application to action naming as opposed to object naming; several feature categories were changed, but all other procedures were retained. Treatment was applied sequentially to two sets of action names in the context of multiple baseline designs across behaviours and participants. Accuracy of naming of trained and untrained actions in probes was measured repeatedly throughout all phases of the design. Production of correct information units (CIUs) in discourse was measured prior to and following treatment. The relationship of probe-naming performance to naming performance during treatment sessions was examined using correlational analyses. Outcomes & Results: Increased accuracy of naming of trained action names was associated with treatment for three of the four participants. The remaining participant did not demonstrate improvement in naming on probes, despite some gains during treatment. Generalisation to untrained action names did not occur for any of the participants. Increases in CIU production were observed for only one of the participants. For the participants with positive naming outcomes, probe performance correlated well with naming performance during treatment. For the participant who demonstrated some improvements in treatment, but did not show gains in naming on probes, weak correlations were obtained.

A Systematic Review of Semantic Feature Analysis Therapy Studies for Aphasia

“…Nine studies investigated SFA with confrontation naming of nouns (Boyle, 2004;Boyle & Coelho 1995;Coelho, McHugh & Boyle, 2000;Davis & Stanton, 2005;DeLong, Nessler, Wright, & Wambaugh, 2015;Hashimoto & Frome, 2011;Massaro & Tompkins, 1994;Mehta & Isaki, 2016;Rider, Wright, Marshall, & Page, 2008). Two studies examined SFA with confrontation naming of verbs (Wambaugh & Ferguson, 2007;Wambaugh, Mauszycki, &Wright, 2014) and a further two tested SFA with confrontation naming of nouns and verbs (Kristensson, Behrns, & Saldert, 2015;Marcotte & Ansaldo, 2010). Kristensson's study additionally explored everyday conversation and functional communication outcomes.…”

A Systematically Conducted Scoping Review of the Evidence and Fidelity of Treatments for Verb Deficits in Aphasia: Verb-in-Isolation Treatments

“…So for example, studies have attempted to adapt SFA treatment (applied initially to nouns) for verbs by adapting the features generated during treatment to be more appropriate (or active) for verbs (e.g. Wambaugh Mauszycki & Wright, 2014;Wambaugh & Ferguson, 2007). In SFA treatment, the likely active ingredient of treatment is the generation of semantic features for a target word (see Gravier et al, 2018).…”

“…Ten studies reported the minimum and maximum length of sessions as well as the number of sessions which allowed the estimation of the minimum and maximum total amount of treatment (Bonifazi et al,;Boo & Rose, 2011;Conroy, Sage & Lambon-Ralph, 2009 a, b and c;Marangolo et al, 2010;McCann & Doleman, 2011;McNeil et al, 1998;Routhier, Bier & Macoir, 2016). Wambaugh and colleagues reported a series of studies where the amount of treatment was dependent on reaching a predetermined performance criterion, meaning amount of treatment given differed (Wambaugh et al, 2014;Wambaugh & Ferguson, 2007;Wambaugh, Cameron, Kalinyak-Fliszar, Nessler & Wright, 2004;Wambaugh, Doyle, Martinez, & Kalinyak-Fliszar, 2002). Takizawa, Nishida, Ikemoto, & Kurauchi (2015) reported huge variation in the duration and intensity of treatment given in their clinical study: one to five 40-minute sessions per week over a span of 2-8 months.…”

Semantic Treatments for Word and Sentence Production Deficits in Aphasia

“…Several researchers have applied SFA to verb retrieval. 45,46,49,50 In these studies, the semantic feature categories used during treatment were modified from the ones used for object naming to make them more appropriate for generating semantic features for actions, but the other aspects of treatment were the same. The feature categories used were subject, purpose of action, part of body or tool used to carry out the action, description, usual location, and association.…”