Back

Cognitive functions supporting learning over time in naming treatment for aphasia.

Goldberg, E. B.; Hula, W. D.; Cavanaugh, R.; Swiderski, A. M.; Autenreith, A.; Dickey, M. W.

2024-11-28 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.1101/2024.11.25.24317903 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeAphasia rehabilitation is a learning process that unfolds over time. Previous work has examined aphasia treatment response using pre- to post-treatment comparison, largely ignoring the unfolding learning response that occurs session-to-session. We aimed to: (1) characterize the shape of learning while individuals with aphasia received intensive anomia intervention, and (2) identify the cognitive predictors of this learning response. MethodIndividuals (n=39) with chronic post-stroke aphasia received intensive semantic feature analysis (SFA). Naming accuracy for trained and semantically-related, untrained words was probed daily. We used Bayesian generalized linear mixed effects models to estimate the shape of learning during SFA treatment, and to measure the influence of key cognitive functions on treatment response. ResultsMost treatment gains appeared early during treatment, after the first four hours of intervention. Verbal recognition and visuospatial memory were associated with the magnitude of those early treatment gains, favoring strong cognitive performers. Treatment generalization to untrained targets was present but modest, with some evidence suggesting that visuospatial recall performance may be associated with treatment generalization. ConclusionsMonitoring SFA treatment response early could help inform clinicians whether patients will respond optimally to intervention. Verbal recognition and visuospatial recall support learning during treatment, helping elucidate cognitive underpinnings of learning during aphasia rehabilitation.

Published in Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research (predicted rank #12) · training set

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.