Is writing treatment effective for severe aphasia?
Writing treatment that involved repeated copying and recall of target words was implemented with 8 individuals with severe aphasia in order to discern the best candidates for the treatment.
Can untrained items improve aphasia and apraxia?
It was encouraging to note that the improvement in speech production generalized to untrained items, reflecting a general rehabilitative effect on speech and language skills. Thus, this treatment proved to be an efficient method of improving both written and spoken language skills in an individual with severe aphasia and apraxia of speech.
Is there a long-term recovery from aphasia?
This overall gain of 17.8 points is impressive and is important evidence of the potential for long-term recovery of aphasia. We should note that Mr. J’s positive response to treatment occurred despite his relatively poor performance on a test of visual problem solving.
How effective is cart for the treatment of severe aphasia?
The results from this study, combined with those of Beeson (1999) and Beeson et al. (2002), provide data from 12 individuals with severe aphasia who were treated using CART. Of those, 8 individuals responded positively to treatment, and 4 had outcomes that were not considered clinically significant.
Does writing help with aphasia?
The present study was motivated by an individual with severe aphasia who had received, and responded well to, lexical spelling treatment using handwriting (CART). The written modality was particularly important for this individual (referred to here as Mr. J) because of his limited spoken language abilities.
How do you deal with aphasia?
Communicating with a person with aphasiaAfter speaking, allow the person plenty of time to respond. ... Use short, uncomplicated sentences, and don't change the topic of conversation too quickly.Avoid asking open-ended questions. ... Avoid finishing a person's sentences or correcting any errors in their language.More items...
What is copy recall treatment?
Copy and Recall Treatment (CART) Protocol CART treatment involves the re-training of specific orthographic representations for a given set of words. Typically, functional target words are chosen by the patient with the help of the clinician (e.g. words for various ADLs, names of family members, hobbies).
Can patients with expressive aphasia write?
Typically, people with expressive aphasia can understand speech and read better than they can produce speech and write.
How do you communicate with expressive aphasia?
Don't “talk down” to the person with aphasia. Give them time to speak. Resist the urge to finish sentences or offer words. Communicate with drawings, gestures, writing and facial expressions in addition to speech.
What is script training for aphasia?
Script training in aphasia is a treatment approach that focuses on improving communication in everyday activities. It typically involves the repeated practice of words, phrases, and sentences embedded within a monologue or dialogue that is individualized to the person with aphasia.
What is Phonomotor treatment?
Phonomotor Treatment is an intensive treatment program designed to improve phonologic processes of PWA by training speech sounds in isolation before progressing to sound combinations and single words (Kendall et al., 2015).
What is Tactus therapy?
Tactus Therapy isn't just one app – It's a collection of 20 apps that are each uniquely designed to work on a specific skill at various levels: Oral Language (verbalizing & listening) Written Language (reading & writing) Speech (making clear sounds when talking) Cognition (thinking skills like memory)
How were treatment outcomes analyzed?
Treatment outcomes were analyzed for each partici- pant by visual inspection of multiple baseline data , docu- mentation of attainment of criterion for the word sets, and calculation of the treatment effect sizes using the f statistic (Kromrey & Foster-Johnson, 1996; see Appen- dix for a description of the method used to calculate the
What are the PALPA tests?
The selected subtests from the PALPA allowed for examination of single-word reading (visual lexical decision and written word-to-picture matching), audi- tory comprehension (spoken word-to-picture matching), verbal repetition, written naming, and writing to dicta- tion (see Table 2) . In addition, the picture version of the Pyramids and Palm Trees Test (Howard & Patterson, 1992) was administered to examine the ability to make semantic associations. This test simply involves match- ing a target picture to a semantically related picture from a field of two. Peripheral writing processes were assessed using a case conversion task in which participants were asked to write uppercase letters when presented with lowercase letters, and vice versa. Additional informa- tion about graphomotor skills was obtained from each participant's performance on direct copying of written words. Two measures of nonverbal cognitive skills were ob- tained for each participant: Coloured Progressive Matri- ces (CPM; Raven, Court, & Raven, 1990), which provides information about visual problem-solving ability, and the Tapping Forward Subtest from the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised (WMS-R; Wechsler, 1987), which provides an indication of visual memory span. Finally, the oral language portions of the WAB (Kertesz, 1982) were re- administered following treatment to examine whether any changes occurred in modalities other than writing (namely, auditory comprehension or verbal expression).
What was W.K.'s pretreatment performance?
W.K.'s pretreatment performance, shown in Table 2, suggested damage to multiple cognitive processes nec- essary for comprehension and production of spoken and written words. Lexical-semantic and phonological pro- cessing for single words were markedly impaired. Im- pairment of the semantic system was confirmed by her poor performance on the Pyramids and Palm Trees Test and the presence of semantic errors on comprehension tasks. Her strengths included the ability to identify words
What impairment did S.L. have?
He had fairly good com- prehension of single spoken words, but had limited reading comprehension, and at least mild impairment to the semantic system. He was unable to write words using either phonological or semantic strategies, but his peripheral writing processes proved to be an area of strength despite use of the nondominant hand.
Did S.L. change his assessment measures?
As shown in Table 2, there was little change in S .L.'s performance on the assessment measures following treatment. One notable exception was his significant
