Back

Specific and intensive language rehabilitation on post-stroke aphasia using eCALAP: a single-case experimental design

Jubin, C.; Badault, J.; Bachoud-Levi, A.-C.; Villain, M.; Jacquemot, C.

2025-03-25 neurology
10.1101/2025.03.25.25324445 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background and purposeEffective rehabilitation needs to be intensive, specific, and suited to the clinical reality of care. Based on previous work, we developed the eCALAP, a tool for aphasia evaluation that generates a tailored rehabilitation program that can be used with the therapist or independently. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the effectiveness of the eCALAP rehabilitation program for people with aphasia (PWA). MethodsFive PWA were included in this concurrent multiple baseline Single-Case Experimental Design (SCED). Repeated measures consisted of a picture naming task and were collected 3 times a week. Baseline duration was randomized and lasted 1 or 2 weeks. Rehabilitation with the eCALAP lasted 3 weeks with 3 rehabilitation sessions per week. For contrasting baseline and rehabilitation performance, statistical analyses were performed according to SCED guidelines. Visual analysis included mean baseline values and a 2-SD envelope post-intervention. Tau-U and Nonoverlap of All Pairs (NAP) analyses were conducted. ResultsAll PWA were able to complete the entire protocol. The rehabilitation program was effective for four out of the five participants. Tau-U values ranged from 0.44 to 0.72 (p<.05), indicating large effect sizes and strong trends in performance improvement. These results are further supported by the NAP values, which were consistently high, suggesting that the intervention led to substantial changes in the repeated measures as compared to the baseline period. ConclusionThe results of this study provide promising evidence for the effectiveness of the eCALAP rehabilitation program.

Matching journals

The top 10 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.