Evaluating Change in the Conversation of a Person With Mild Aphasia After Attentive Reading With Constrained Summarization-Written Treatment

Treatment of the Linguistic and Temporal Components of Lexical Activation to Improve Word Retrieval in Aphasia

Current approaches to treatments for word processing impairments in aphasia emphasize two components to target, the linguistic content, semantic or phonological representations of words, and the processing component, access to and retrieval of those representations. In this study, we explore these two components of a treatment to improve lexical activation that supports access and retrieval of word representations. Five people with aphasia participated. The treatment task was repetition of concrete word pairs after a 5-s response delay which was intended to provide practice in maintaining activation of the words for that 5-s period before reproducing them. Two of the five participants demonstrated a difficulty in maintaining activation of single words in repetition, with accuracy decreasing significantly after the 5-s interval. The treatment was applied to all participants, however, to determine if its benefit was specific to those with the activation maintenance impairment. Results confirmed that the activation maintenance treatment in the context of this repetition task led to more treatment gains for the two participants who demonstrated this specific impairment. They made gains on four of the nine measures compared to improvements on one to two measures for the other participants. A second question addressed in this study was the relative importance of the item component (linguistic content) of the treatment and the processing component, maintenance of activation. To that end, there were two conditions of treatment probes, (1) repeated content for all treatment, immediate post-treatment and 3-month maintenance probes and (2) novel content for probes in these three phases of treatment. Only one participant showed significant improvement in treatment when items were novel for all probes. We discuss the possibility that this outcome reflects a more specific deficit in the temporal processing component of lexical activation compared to the two other participants who showed better performance on probes with repeated items in treatment and post-treatment phases. Clinical implications of this study and directions of future research are discussed.

Behavioral interventions for poststroke aphasia

There is a long history of behavioral interventions for poststroke aphasia with hundreds of studies supporting the benefits of aphasia treatment. However, interventions for aphasia are complex with many interacting components, and no one treatment is appropriate for all persons with aphasia. We present a novel, simple framework for classifying aphasia interventions. The framework is incorporated within the overarching International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) model and is consistent with the commonly-held definition that aphasia is a multimodality disorder that impairs, in varying degrees, the understanding and expression of both oral and written language modalities. Furthermore, within the language impairment level, it distinguishes between the linguistic areas of phonology, semantics, and syntax that may be impaired individually or in combination. We define the terminology of the proposed framework and then categorize some common examples of behavioral interventions for post-stroke aphasia. We describe some of these interventions in greater detail to illustrate the extensive toolbox of evidence-based treatments for aphasia. We address some key issues that clinicians, usually speech-language pathologists, consider when selecting interventions for their specific patients with aphasia, including dose. Finally, we address various models of service delivery for persons with aphasia such as Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Programs (ICAPs) and Aphasia Centers.

Toward Empowering Conversational Agency in Aphasia: Understanding Mechanisms of Topic Initiation in People With and Without Aphasia

PURPOSE

This study examined topic initiation (TI) in conversations involving people with aphasia (PWA), matched people without aphasia (M-PWoA), and speech-language pathologists who were their conversation partners (SLP-Ps). For each speaker type, we analyzed patterns of distribution of typical mechanisms of TI and patterns of simultaneous use of multiple TI mechanisms. Lastly, we examined associations between use of simultaneous TI mechanisms and communicative success.

METHOD

Twenty PWA and 20 M-PWoA each participated in two conversations with SLP-Ps. Conversation samples were analyzed for TI locations and mechanisms, with results tallied for each speaker type following a published typology. A measure of communicative success was applied to TI utterances. Rank-order correlations were conducted to evaluate the patterns of distribution of the TI mechanisms between speaker types and the patterns of multiple mechanism usage between speaker types. Descriptive analysis was conducted to provide additional insight to the TI behaviors of each speaker type and to evaluate the relationship between multiple TI mechanisms and communicative success.

RESULTS

All speaker types used cohesion most often to achieve TI. PWA used an abrupt method of TI (noncoherent TI) more often than other speaker types. A single mechanism of TI was used most often by all speaker types, except for SLP-Ps when they were in conversations with PWA. In this case, SLP-Ps most often used two or more layered mechanisms of TI. SLP-Ps also used a highly salient TI mechanism with greater frequency when speaking with PWA than observed between other speaker types. When PWA layered mechanisms of TI, they appeared to be more likely to achieve better communicative success.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific, teachable behaviors such as favoring certain TI mechanisms and using multiple TI mechanisms may improve communicative success during TI for PWA. Furthermore, findings suggest that SLP-Ps modify their TI behaviors when speaking to PWA.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.17699423.

Assessing Language in Unstructured Conversation in People With Aphasia: Methods, Psychometric Integrity, Normative Data, and Comparison to a Structured Narrative Task

Purpose This study evaluated interrater reliability (IRR) and test-retest stability (TRTS) of seven linguistic measures (percent correct information units, relevance, subject-verb-[object], complete utterance, grammaticality, referential cohesion, global coherence), and communicative success in unstructured conversation and in a story narrative monologue (SNM) in persons with aphasia (PWAs) and matched participants without aphasia (M-PWoAs). Furthermore, the relationship of language in unstructured conversation and SNM was investigated for these measures. Methods Twenty PWAs and 20 M-PWoAs participated in two unstructured conversations on different days with different speech-language pathologists trained as social conversation partners. An 8- to 12-min segment of each conversation was analyzed. Additionally, a wordless picture book was used to elicit an SNM sample at each visit. Correlational analyses were conducted to address the primary research questions. Normative range and minimal detectable change data were also calculated for the measures in both conditions. Results IRR and TRTS were moderate to good for parametric measures and moderate to excellent for nonparametric measures for both groups, except for TRTS for referential cohesion for the PWAs in conversation. Furthermore, in PWAs, a strong correlation was demonstrated for three of eight measures across conditions. Moderate or weaker correlations were demonstrated for three of eight measures, and correlations for two of eight measures were not significant. An ancillary finding was no significant differences occurred for sample-to-sample variability between the two conditions for any measure. Conclusions This study replicates previous research demonstrating the feasibility to reliably measure language in unstructured conversation in PWAs. Furthermore, this study provides preliminary evidence that language production varies for some measures between unstructured conversation and SNM, contributing to a literature base that demonstrates language variation between different types of monologue. Thus, these findings suggest that inclusion of the specific types of discourse of interest to the PWA may be important for comprehensive assessment of aphasia. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16569360.

Measuring Global Coherence in People With Aphasia During Unstructured Conversation

Purpose Global coherence is an essential macrolinguistic discourse skill that speakers use to formulate discourse to convey meaning with maintenance to a topic. When global coherence is poor, the listener's ability to understand how the discourse makes sense as a whole is diminished. Measures exist to evaluate global coherence in people with aphasia during monologue tasks (e.g., picture description). The aim of the current research is to develop such a measure for unstructured conversation and to explore how global coherence is impacted by aphasia during conversation. A global coherence measure for conversation is required because markedly different cognitive and linguistic demands are made for production of different types of discourse. Thus, a structured monologue measure cannot be used with validity for unstructured conversation. To adequately evaluate global coherence during conversation, a measure specific to the demands of conversation is required. Method We adapted the 4-point Global Coherence Scale (Wright & Capilouto, 2012; Wright et al., 2013), a monologue-level measure of global coherence to conversation, resulting in the 4-point Global Coherence Scale in unstructured conversation (GCSconv). We conducted statistical evaluation of the reliability/stability of the 4-point GCSconv in 18 unstructured conversations held by nine people with aphasia. Utterances with low global coherence scores were classified following a recent methodology to describe how breakdown in these utterances contributed to diminished global coherence (Hazamy & Obermeyer, 2019). Results The 4-point GCSconv demonstrated excellent inter/intrarater reliability and test-retest stability. Nonspecific language and off-topic comments contributed most frequently to lowered global coherence. Conclusions Findings suggest the 4-point GCSconv may be a feasible and reliable measure of global coherence in conversation. This measure adds to a core of emerging reliable discourse measures for conversation. As such, it has potential to inform assessment and treatment of everyday conversation and to investigate the relationship of global coherence in structured monologue and unstructured conversation. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12469187.