Asymmetric inhibitory treatment effects in multilingual aphasia

A Meta-Analysis of Anomia Treatment in Bilingual Aphasia: Within- and Cross-Language Generalization and Predictors of the Treatment Outcomes

PURPOSE

The present meta-analysis investigated the efficacy of anomia treatment in bilingual and multilingual persons with aphasia (BPWAs) by assessing the magnitudes of six anomia treatment outcomes. Three of the treatment outcomes pertained to the "trained language": improvement of trained words (treatment effect [TE]), within-language generalization of semantically related untrained words (WLG-Related), and within-language generalization of unrelated words (WLG-Unrelated). Three treatment outcomes were for the "untrained language": improvement of translations of the trained words (cross-language generalization of trained words [CLG-Tx]), cross-language generalization of semantically related untrained words (CLG-Related), and cross-language generalization of unrelated untrained words (CLG-Unrelated). This study also examined participant- and treatment-related predictors of these treatment outcomes.

METHOD

This study is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the number CRD42023418147. Nine electronic databases were searched to identify word retrieval treatment studies of poststroke BPWAs of at least 6 months postonset. Pre- and posttreatment single-word naming scores were extracted for each eligible participant and used to calculate effect sizes (within-case Cohen's d) of the six treatment outcomes. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to assess weighted mean effect sizes of the treatment outcomes across studies. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to examine the effects of participant-related variables (pretreatment single-word naming and comprehension representing poststroke lexical processing abilities) and treatment-related variables (type, language, and duration). The methodological quality of eligible studies and the risk of bias in this meta-analysis were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 17 published studies with 39 BPWAs were included in the meta-analysis. The methodological quality of the included studies ranged from fair (n = 4) to good (n = 13). Anomia treatment produced a medium effect size for TE (M = 8.36) and marginally small effect sizes for WLG-Related (M = 1.63), WLG-Unrelated (M = 0.68), and CLG-Tx (M = 1.56). Effect sizes were nonsignificant for CLG-Related and CLG-Unrelated. TE was significantly larger than the other five types of treatment outcomes. TE and WLG-Related effect sizes were larger for BPWAs with milder comprehension or naming impairments and for treatments of longer duration. WLG-Unrelated was larger when BPWAs received phonological treatment than semantic and mixed treatments. The overall risk of bias in the meta-analysis was low with a potential risk of bias present in the study identification process.

CONCLUSIONS

Current anomia treatment practices for bilingual speakers are efficacious in improving trained items but produce marginally small within-language generalization and cross-language generalization to translations of the trained items. These results highlight the need to provide treatment in each language of BPWAs and/or investigate other approaches to promote cross-language generalization. Furthermore, anomia treatment outcomes are influenced by BPWAs' poststroke single-word naming and comprehension abilities as well as treatment duration and the provision of phonological treatment.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25595712.

Rehabilitating an attrited language in a bilingual person with aphasia

Language difficulties can arise from reduced exposure to any given language (e.g. attrition) or after brain damage (e.g. aphasia). The manifestations of attrition and aphasia are often similar so differentiating between their effects on language loss and recovery is challenging. We investigated treatment effects for an English-Hebrew bilingual person with stroke-induced aphasia who had minimal contact with his Hebrew for over 14 years. We asked whether his attrited language could be rehabilitated, how effects of attrition and aphasia can be dissociated, and how such dissociation aids our understanding of the mechanisms involved in language recovery in aphasia. We administered a verb-based semantic treatment in Hebrew three times a week for six weeks (totalling 29 hours of therapy) and assessed changes in both Hebrew and English comprehension and production abilities across a variety of language tasks. Quantitative analyses demonstrated improvement in Hebrew production across language tasks, including those involving lexical retrieval processes that were trained during treatment. Improvement to English occurred in these same lexical retrieval tasks only. We interpret these results as indicating that the participant's attrited language (Hebrew) could be rehabilitated with both specific treatment and general exposure to Hebrew contributing to improvement. Furthermore, treatment effects transferred to the untreated English. Qualitative analyses indicated that an interaction among aphasia, incomplete mastery of Hebrew pre-stroke, and attrition contributed to the participant's language difficulties post-stroke. We conclude that partially shared underlying mechanisms of attrition and aphasia drive language processing and changes to it with treatment.

Aphasia in Multilingual Patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We summarize recent published work concerning assessment and treatment of aphasia in bilingual and multilingual people and review current related models of treatment outcomes. As well, we discuss studies that address the recently debated topic of cognitive processes in bilingual individuals with aphasia, with a focus on the effects of bilingualism on aphasia recovery and its potential protective effects.

RECENT FINDINGS

Providing assessment and treatment tools that best serve multilingual individuals with aphasia and unpacking the variables and mechanisms that underlie response to treatment have emerged as goals of several recent studies. Additionally, while findings are still contradictory, some empirical studies reported that aphasia may manifest less severely in multilingual individuals and may improve faster compared to in monolingual counterparts. The findings of recent studies with the focus of aphasia in multilingual individuals are crucial to understanding theoretical and clinical aspects of brain-related language impairment in multilingual people and to the study of language representation and processing in the brain.

Predicting treatment outcomes for bilinguals with aphasia using computational modeling: Study protocol for the PROCoM randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Bilinguals with aphasia (BWA) present varying degrees of lexical access impairment and recovery across their two languages. Because both languages may benefit from therapy, identifying the optimal target language for treatment is a current challenge for research and clinical practice. Prior research has demonstrated that the BiLex computational model can accurately simulate lexical access in healthy bilinguals, and language impairment and treatment response in bilingual aphasia. Here, we aim to determine whether BiLex can predict treatment outcomes in BWA in the treated and the untreated language and compare these outcome predictions to determine the optimal language for rehabilitation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study involves a prospective parallel-group, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Forty-eight Spanish-English BWA will receive 20 sessions of semantic treatment for lexical retrieval deficits in one of their languages and will complete assessments in both languages prior and after treatment. Participants will be randomly assigned to an experimental group receiving treatment in the optimal language determined by the model or a control group receiving treatment in the language opposite to the model's recommendation. Primary treatment outcomes include naming probes while secondary treatment outcomes include tests tapping additional language domains. Treatment outcomes will be compared across the two groups using 2×2 mixed effect models for repeated measures Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on metrics of treatment effects commonly employed in rehabilitation studies (ie, effect size and percentage change).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

All procedures included in this protocol (protocol number 29, issue date: 19 March 2019) were approved by the Boston University Charles River Campus Institutional Review Board at Boston, Massachusetts (reference number: 4492E). The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and will be presented at national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02916524.

Variables and Mechanisms Affecting Response to Language Treatment in Multilingual People with Aphasia

BACKGROUND

Despite substantial literature exploring language treatment effects in multilingual people with aphasia (PWA), inconsistent results reported across studies make it difficult to draw firm conclusions.

METHODS

We highlight and illustrate variables that have been implicated in affecting cross-language treatment effects in multilingual PWA.

MAIN CONTRIBUTION

We argue that opposing effects of activation and inhibition across languages, influenced by pertinent variables, such as age of language acquisition, patterns of language use, and treatment-related factors, contribute to the complex picture that has emerged from current studies of treatment in multilingual PWA. We propose a new integrated model-Treatment Effects in Aphasia in Multilingual people (the TEAM model)-to capture this complexity.

What Influences Language Impairment in Bilingual Aphasia? A Meta-Analytic Review

Patterns of language impairment in multilingual speakers with post-stroke aphasia are diverse: in some cases the language deficits are parallel, that is, all languages are impaired relatively equally, whereas in other cases deficits are differential, that is, one language is more impaired than the other(s). This diversity stems from the intricate structure of the multilingual language system, which is shaped by a complex interplay of influencing factors, such as age of language acquisition, frequency of language use, premorbid proficiency, and linguistic similarity between one's languages. Previous theoretical reviews and empirical studies shed some light on these factors, however no clear answers have been provided. The goals of this review were to provide a timely update on the increasing number of reported cases in the last decade and to offer a systematic analysis of the potentially influencing variables. One hundred and thirty cases from 65 studies were included in the present systematic review and effect sizes from 119 cases were used in the meta-analysis. Our analysis revealed better performance in L1 compared to L2 in the whole sample of bilingual speakers with post-stroke aphasia. However, the magnitude of this difference was influenced by whether L2 was learned early in childhood or later: those who learned L2 before 7 years of age showed comparable performance in both of their languages contrary to the bilinguals who learned L2 after 7 years of age and showed better performance in L1 compared to L2. These robust findings were moderated mildly by premorbid proficiency and frequency of use. Finally, linguistic similarity did not appear to influence the magnitude of the difference in performance between L1 and L2. Our findings from the early bilingual subgroup were in line with the previous reviews which included mostly balanced early bilinguals performing comparably in both languages. Our findings from the late bilingual subgroup stressed the primacy of L1 and the importance of age of L2 learning. In addition, the evidence from the present review provides support for theories emphasizing the role of premorbid proficiency and language use in language impairment patterns in bilingual aphasia.

Significance of speech production errors on cross-linguistic processing in Sepedi-English individuals with bilingual aphasia: a case series analysis

BACKGROUND

Bilingual aphasia forms a significant part of speech-language pathologists' (SLP) caseload, globally, and specifically in South Africa. Few tools supporting clinical decision-making are available due to limited understanding of typical and disordered cross-linguistic processing (how the languages interact). Speech errors may provide insight about "hidden" bilingual mechanisms.

OBJECTIVES

To determine what speech errors can impart about cross-linguistic processing, as well as, associated language and impairment variables in Sepedi-English individuals with aphasia.

METHOD

The case series included six participants, purposively selected from three rehabilitation sites in South Africa. Detailed language and clinical profiles were obtained. Participants performed a confrontation naming task in their most dominant (MDL) and less dominant language (LDL). Responses were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for overall accuracy and error type in MDL and LDL; verified by a Sepedi-speaking linguist and a qualified SLP.

RESULTS

(1) No statistically significant differences in MDL-LDL naming accuracy were found, supporting recent literature of simultaneous inter-activation of both languages and shared word retrieval mechanisms. All types of speech errors occurred, and semantic errors were produced most frequently and consistently in each participant's MDL and LDL. (2) Language proficiency, language recovery patterns, and aphasia type (Broca's and Anomic) and severity (mild and/or moderate) appeared to be more strongly linked to cross-linguistic processing than Sepedi-English linguistic differences and age of acquisition of both languages.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants with bilingual aphasia may use typical cross-linguistic and word retrieval mechanisms, concurring with current theories of bilingualism. Findings are preliminary, warranting investigations of other language tasks, modalities, pairs, and related variables.

The role of language proficiency and linguistic distance in cross-linguistic treatment effects in aphasia

Current findings from intervention in bilingual aphasia are inconclusive regarding the extent to which levels of language proficiency and degree of linguistic distance between treated and non-treated languages influence cross-language generalisation and changes in levels of language activation and inhibition following treatment. In this study, we enrolled a 65-year-old multilingual speaker with aphasia and administered treatment in his L1, Dutch. We assessed pre- and post-treatment performance for seven of his languages, five of high proficiency and two of lower proficiency. We asked whether treatment in L1 would generalise to his other languages or increase interference among them. Forty hours of treatment were completed over the course of five weeks. Each language was tested three times at pretreatment and at post-treatment. Testing included measures of narrative production, answering questions, picture description and question generation. Dependent measures examined language efficiency, defined as Correct Information Units (CIUs)/min, as well as language mixing, defined as proportion of code-mixed whole words. We found that our participant's improved efficiency in Dutch was mirrored by parallel improvement in the four languages of high proficiency: English, German, Italian and French. In contrast, in his languages of lower proficiency, Norwegian and Spanish, improved efficiency was limited. An increase in code-mixing was noted in Spanish, but not in Norwegian. We interpret the increased code-mixing in Spanish as indication of heightened inhibition following improvement in a language of close linguistic proximity, Italian. We conclude that an interaction of language proficiency and linguistic similarity affects cross-language generalisation following intervention in multilingual aphasia.

Bilingual Aphasia: An Intervention Roadmap and the Dynamic Interplay Between Lexical Access and Language Control

This article discusses key issues that relate to bilingual aphasia and intervention techniques. The primary topics include: (a) an intervention roadmap that outlines diagnostic procedures and the importance of obtaining a comprehensive language profile for a bilingual person with aphasia, and (b) the theoretical underpinnings of bilingual language control, lexical access impairment, and bilingual control impairment.