What Matters in Semantic Feature Analysis: Practice-Related Predictors of Treatment Response in Aphasia

Gravier, Michelle; Dickey, Michael Walsh; Hula, William D.; Evans, William S.; Owens, Rebecca L.; Winans-Mitrik, Ronda L.; Doyle, Patrick J.

doi:10.1044/2017_ajslp-16-0196

Cited by 48 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, Gravier et al (2018) found that response to treatment was more accurately predicted by the number of features generated by a participant during SFA than either total treatment time or the average number of treatment trials in their treatment study also using SFA for anomia with 17 participants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…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). Thus SFA for nouns includes generating the semantic feature of category whereas in SFA adapted for verbs, features unique to verbs (and therefore potentially active ingredients of treatment for them) are generated (e.g.…”

Section: Verb Retrieval Deficits In Aphasia: Theory and Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Hickin

Cruice

Dipper

2020

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Aphasia research demonstrates increasing interest in the treatment of verb retrieval deficits. This systematically conducted scoping review reports on the level and fidelity of the current evidence for verb treatments; on its effectiveness regarding the production of trained and untrained verbs, functional communication, sentences, and discourse; and on the potential active ingredients. Recommendations to guide clinical decision making and future research are made. Method The computerized database search included studies from January 1980 to September 2018. The level of evidence of each study was documented, as was fidelity in terms of treatment delivery, enactment, and receipt. Studies were also categorized according to the treatment methods used. Results Thirty-seven studies were accepted into the review, and all but 1 constituted a low level of evidence. Thirty-three studies (89%) described treatment in sufficient detail to allow replication, dosage was poorly reported, and the fidelity of treatment was rarely assessed. The most commonly reported treatment techniques were phonological and semantic cueing in 25 (67.5%) and 20 (54%) studies, respectively. Retrieval of trained verbs improved for 80% of participants, and improvements generalized to untrained verbs for 15% of participants. There was not sufficient detail to evaluate the impact of treatment on sentence production, functional communication, and discourse. Conclusions The evidence for verb treatments is predominantly of a low level. There are encouraging findings in terms of treatments being replicable; however, this is tempered by poor monitoring of treatment fidelity. The quality of verb treatment research would be improved by researchers reaching consensus regarding outcome measures (including generalization to, e.g., sentences and discourse) by manualizing treatment to facilitate implementation and exploring the opinions of participants. Finally, while treatment is largely effective in improving production of trained verbs, lack of generalization to untrained items leads to the recommendation that personally relevant verbs are prioritized.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Verb Retrieval Deficits In Aphasia: Theory and Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Hickin

Cruice

Dipper

2020

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Notably, published SFA protocols have incorporated procedures consistent with the principles of experience-dependent neuroplasticity (Kleim and Jones 2008) and other motor learning principles (Maas et al 2008), which are thought to improve treatment, maintenance and generalization effects. More specifically, these principles have included high practice intensity within session, high frequency of sessions, high salience (e.g., self-generating personalized semantic feature descriptions; Boyle 2004), randomized order of stimulus presentation, varied practice (i.e., multiple pictures to represent each stimulus word), and intermittent feedback on accuracy (e.g., Efstratiadou et al 2018, Gravier et al 2018, Quique et al 2019.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of semantic feature analysis treatment for aphasia with and without apraxia of speech

Scholl

McCabe

Nickels³

et al. 2021

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:To date, studies have not explored whether a dual diagnosis of aphasia plus apraxia of speech (AOS) versus aphasia alone (APH) affects the response to language-based naming treatments. Aims: To compare the effects of semantic feature analysis (SFA) treatment for individuals with APH versus aphasia plus AOS, and to test if the presence of AOS impacted the effects of treatment. Methods and Procedures: A non-randomized experimental group study was conducted to explore the treatment, generalization and maintenance effects between the AOS and APH groups. Participants included nine individuals with aphasia and 11 with concomitant aphasia and AOS. Dependent measures included lexical accuracy, number of sound-level distortions, and lexical stress and syllable segmentation errors. Outcomes and Results: Both groups showed significantly improved naming accuracy of trained items for up to 2 months post-treatment. Improvement on naming accuracy of untrained items post-treatment, both semantically related and unrelated to trained items, was lower in magnitude. That this may have been due to effects of repeated probing (which included target repetition) or regression to the mean cannot be excluded. There was a tendency for the AOS group to respond slightly better to treatment than the APH group overall, which was not correlated with aphasia severity. Also, measures of phonetic accuracy and fluency improved for both groups, with no main effect of group. Treatment effects did not generalize to formal measures of (untrained) picture naming or expression of correct information units in discourse in a story retelling task. Conclusions and Implications: Findings indicate that individuals with aphasia plus AOS can gain equivalent benefits in word retrieval and production from the language-based SFA treatment as individuals with aphasia alone. This may be, in part, due to the tendency for SFA to incorporate principles of practice that are known to support motor learning in AOS, such as high intensity, random stimulus presentation and variable practice. Findings provide further support for high-intensity practice and use of self-generated features to facilitate maintenance of effects.

show abstract

“…Such effortful conditions are often described as errorful therapy, as individuals are made aware of their errors, and have been found to be particularly beneficial in naming rehabilitation as they call the individual to draw information from long-term memory (3, 21,22). Furthermore, there is evidence that the practice of autonomously retrieving a stimulus name, even when incorrect, improves treatment outcomes (2,(22)(23)(24)(25). Moreover, greater long-term retention is observed particularly in conditions of effort, consistent with the principle that repeated retrieval practice improves access to stored information (2,3,22).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Villard and Kiran (35) suggest that attention, or the lack thereof, can greatly influence not only the naming performance but also the language treatment outcomes. Furthermore, the importance of the quality, in addition to the quantity of practice, cannot be overlooked in evaluating treatment (46,47). While a frequent and well-spaced dosage of treatment is necessary for improvement (3,12), the quality of treatment, as shaped by speech therapist input and client output (24), must be considered.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Application of Lexical Retrieval Training in Tablet-Based Speech-Language Intervention

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the setting of shortened hospitalization periods, periods of confinement and social isolation, limited resources, and accessibility, technology can be leveraged to enhance opportunities for rehabilitative care ( 1 ). In the current manuscript, we focus on the use of tablet-based rehabilitation for individuals with aphasia, a language disorder that frequently arises post-stroke. Aphasia treatment that targets naming through effortful and errorful instances of lexical retrieval, where corrective feedback is generated on every trial, may enhance retention and generalizability of gains ( 2 , 3 ). This pilot evaluation explored how six individuals with aphasia interacted with a tablet-based therapy application that targeted lexical retrieval. Participants with aphasia either (1) autonomously engaged with the therapy tasks or (2) received systematic encouragement to effortfully retrieve words. Behaviors of response latency and cue use were examined to gain insights into the behavioral patterns of both groups, as well as analyses of task accuracy and outcomes on standardized cognitive–linguistic assessments. Despite some variability, initial observations suggest that participants who received systematic training refrained from using cues to complete tasks and spent longer on each trial, which ultimately co-occurred with increased independent engagement with therapy and improved standardized outcomes. Preliminary results present an alternative means of leveraging technology to implement best-practice recommendations in the context of aphasia telerehabilitation.

show abstract

What Matters in Semantic Feature Analysis: Practice-Related Predictors of Treatment Response in Aphasia

Abstract: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.5734113.

Cited by 48 publications

References 44 publications

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

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

Outcomes of semantic feature analysis treatment for aphasia with and without apraxia of speech

The Application of Lexical Retrieval Training in Tablet-Based Speech-Language Intervention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About