Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Treatment of Word retrieval impairments: Do we know which tasks work for whom and why? Continued! Associate Professor Lyndsey Nickels National Health.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Treatment of Word retrieval impairments: Do we know which tasks work for whom and why? Continued! Associate Professor Lyndsey Nickels National Health."— Presentation transcript:

1

2 Treatment of Word retrieval impairments: Do we know which tasks work for whom and why? Continued! Associate Professor Lyndsey Nickels National Health and Medical Research Council Senior Research Fellow, Macquarie Centre for Cognitive Science (MACCS), Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

3 How do we decide which treatment? Each different level of breakdown in word production will be best remediated by a different type of treatment (e.g. Hillis & Caramazza, 1994; Nettleton & Lesser, 1991) impaired word meaning (semantics) → treatment focusing on meaning impaired retrieval of the phonological form from semantics → treatment focusing on providing/accessing the phonological form impaired phoneme level/phonological encoding → treatment focusing on phonemes Remember…. Therapy for word retrieval DOES NOT have to include word retrieval

4 How do we decide which treatment? Each different level of breakdown in word production will be best remediated by a different type of treatment (e.g. Hillis & Caramazza, 1994; Nettleton & Lesser, 1991) impaired word meaning (semantics) → treatment focusing on meaning impaired retrieval of the phonological form from semantics → treatment focusing on providing/accessing the phonological form impaired phoneme level/phonological encoding → treatment focusing on phonemes

5 What treatment is appropriate? Semantic impairments The most successful therapy seems to involve exploring the semantic attributes of a stimulus. e.g. Boyle & Coelho, Coelho, McHugh & Boyle, Hillis, 1991, Nickels & Best, Phonological Output Buffer Speech Phonological Output Lexicon Lexical Semantics

6 Therapy for semantic impairments e.g. Semantic feature analysis (SFA) (Boyle & Coelho, 1995; Coelho, McHugh & Boyle, 2000) name a picture generate features relating to ….. Exploring semantic attributes of a stimulus GROUP: is an ANIMAL USE: is used for protection ACTION: does what? Barks LOCATION: is found at home ASSOCIATION: reminds me of a kennel Can we be sure this is effective? Not entirely … they use very small numbers of items in the sets, and examine changes in performance using visual inspection with no statistics

7 Therapy for semantic impairments (cont) e.g. Nickels & Best (1996) AER “Relatedness judgements” (with feedback) Statistically significantly improved naming of treated and untreated stimuli       Nickels & Best argue that feedback is critical to obtaining generalisation to untreated items

8 Therapy for semantic impairments (cont) e.g. Hillis (1991, 1998) HG. Red vs yellow Round vs oval Thin skin vs thick skin Sweet vs sour Lemon

9 Therapy for semantic impairments (cont) e.g. Hillis (1991, 1998) HG. name a picture, if  and semantic error was produced, → drawing of error compare drawing to the target picture discuss semantic distinctions Significant improvement in written naming (treated) also in spoken naming and word comprehension Improvement of treated items and untreated items in the same semantic category (but this may just be that untreated items appeared in therapy)

10 How does the treatment for semantic impairment work? Doesn’t it improve the semantic impairment? If so what would the effects be?

11 Phonological Output Lexicon Speech output Phonological Output Buffer Lexical Semantics Writing Heard Speech Print Idea, Picture, or seen object Lexical Semantics

12 Phonological Output Lexicon Speech output Phonological Output Buffer Lexical Semantics Writing Heard Speech Print Idea, Picture, or seen object Lexical Semantics

13 Phonological Output Lexicon Speech output Phonological Output Buffer Lexical Semantics Writing Heard Speech Print Idea, Picture, or seen object Lexical Semantics

14 Phonological Output Lexicon Speech output Phonological Output Buffer Lexical Semantics Writing Heard Speech Print Idea, Picture, or seen object Lexical Semantics Semantic therapy for semantic impairments should improve all modalities But although this was true for Hillis’ study with HG, it was not for AER. Improvement in all modalities only occurs if treatment improves semantic processing

15 How did the authors think these treatments for semantic impairments were having their effects? Hillis (1998) “improvement at the semantic level itself – perhaps through increased specificity of semantic representations of trained items” Coelho et al (2000) - a strategy for word retrieval “by activating the semantic network surrounding the target word, that word may be activated above its threshold, thereby facilitating retrieval” Nickels and Best (1996) “the use of a strategy (which may be unconscious) of exploring the semantics of an item … which facilitates retrieval of that item (perhaps by increasing the semantic information addressing the output lexicon…)” Consistent with improvement across modalities Consistent with improvement restricted to speech production

16 Semantic tasks –Those tasks which involve focusing on word meanings Semantic tasks may be used to treat semantic impairments –Those tasks which seem to most often improve semantic impairments involve reflecting on semantic features –However even then they may NOT improve semantics itself but may instead provide a strategy for improving word retrieval. Didn’t we contrast semantic impairments and post-semantic word retrieval impairments? Semantic tasks and semantic impairments Hold on! How can therapy for semantic impairments improve word retrieval without improving semantics Yes, but semantic impairments cause word retrieval impairments …

17 Semantics Object, picture or idea purrs cat dog rabbit fish barks fur pet 4-legs scales house robin Phonological Lexicon Phonological Buffer/ Phonemes ætdogk Post semantic word retrieval impairment

18 Semantic impairment

19 Sem impairment Semantics Object, picture or idea purrs cat dog rabbit fish barks fur pet 4-legs scales house robin Phonological Lexicon Phonological Buffer/ Phonemes æt d ogk Semantic impairment

20 Semantics Object, picture or idea purrs cat dog rabbit fish barks fur pet 4-legs scales house robin Phonological Lexicon Phonological Buffer/ Phonemes ætdogk Semantic impairment also leads to a reduction in activation at the word form level Semantic impairment Although, as we will see, this is usually only the case in people with less severe semantic impairments. So tasks can be effective in improving word retrieval WITHOUT improving the semantic impairment

21 SUMMARY: What treatment is appropriate? Semantic impairments The most successful therapy seems to involve exploring the semantic attributes of a stimulus. e.g. Boyle & Coelho, Coelho, McHugh & Boyle, Hillis, 1991, Nickels & Best, Phonological Output Buffer Speech Phonological Output Lexicon Lexical Semantics Any questions?

22 Therapy for semantic impairments or semantic tasks as therapy? Virtually all tasks involve semantic processing Some focus on semantic processing to a greater extent (we tend to refer to these as semantic tasks) e.g. odd one out (spoken or written) word to picture matching These tasks are widely used in the remediation of word- retrieval impairments, however, their use is not restricted to those individuals with semantic impairments. word-picture verification

23 Semantic tasks for improving word retrieval The use of semantic tasks is not restricted to individuals with semantic impairments…... semantic tasks can improve word production even for those individuals with good semantic processing and even when the tasks are performed accurately (e.g. Nickels & Best, 1996). …. In fact they are probably more likely to improve word production for those with relatively less semantic impairment – those with ‘post-semantic lexical retrieval impairments’.

24 What treatment is appropriate? Word retrieval impairments Tasks focusing on semantics and phonology - improve word retrieval e.g. Howard et al 1985 Nickels & Best 1996 Phonological Output Buffer Speech Phonological Output Lexicon Lexical Semantics

25 What treatment is appropriate? Word retrieval impairments Tasks involve activation of both semantics and phonology But may focus more on semantics…. Phonological Output Buffer Speech Phonological Output Lexicon Lexical Semantics

26 What treatment is appropriate? Word retrieval impairments All the tasks involve activation of both semantics and phonology But may focus more on semantics or phonology Phonological Output Buffer Speech Phonological Output Lexicon Lexical Semantics Repeat “kangaroo” It starts with /k/

27 What treatment is appropriate? Word retrieval impairments All the tasks involve activation of both semantics and phonology They produce long lasting, item specific effects in the majority of individuals with impaired activation of the correct target in the phonological lexicon Improves likelihood of the target being sufficiently activated to be retrieved successfully. Phonological Output Buffer Speech Phonological Output Lexicon Lexical Semantics

28 Let’s explore these tasks that improve word retrieval in more detail

29 “Semantic” tasks as therapy Word-picture matching Word-picture verification Widely effective (Howard et al, 1985; Marshall et al, 1989) Long lasting effects (Pring et al., 1990) Generally, lasting effects are item specific These tasks typically don’t require word production but improve naming at a later point nevertheless The tasks work best with people that can do them easily (people with less of a semantic problem)

30 Howard et al (2006) Compared the efficacy of word-picture matching with related and unrelated distractors (related distractors = deeper processing = more effective?) How important is the emphasis on semantic processing?

31 Howard et al (2006) Compared the efficacy of word-picture matching with related and unrelated distractors All incorrect before word-picture matching After word-picture matching Related distractors: 45% correct Unrelated distractors: 50% correct Controls: 30% correct How important is the emphasis on semantic processing? No evidence that deeper semantic processing improves efficacy of word-picture matching Not even for those with more severe semantic impairments?

32 Howard et al (2006) Compared the efficacy of word-picture matching with related and unrelated distractors All incorrect before word-picture matching After word-picture matching Less sem imp. More sem imp. Related distractors: 50%40% Unrelated distractors: 60% 40% Controls: 40%23% How important is the emphasis on semantic processing? No evidence that deeper semantic processing improves efficacy of therapy: not even for those with more severe semantic impairments

33 Martin, Laine et al (2000, 2003, 2004, 2005) ‘Contextual Priming’ Compared the efficacy of naming/repetition in the context of semantically related distractors and unrelated distractors. How important is the emphasis on semantic processing?

34 Martin, Laine et al (2000, 2003, 2004, 2005) ‘Contextual Priming’ How important is the emphasis on semantic processing?

35 Martin, Laine et al (2000, 2003, 2004, 2005) ‘contextual priming’ Compared the efficacy of naming/repetition in the context of semantically related distractors and unrelated distractors. - Naming is worse at the time with semantically related distractors. -Naming is improved no more (at a later point) with semantically related distractors. How important is the emphasis on semantic processing? No evidence that a semantic context improves efficacy of therapy

36 How important is the emphasis on semantic processing? Not as important as we thought! Tasks which have traditionally been labelled ‘semantic’, such as word-picture matching are equally effective with unrelated items. Adding a semantic context to a (naming/repetition) task does not make it more effective.

37 Word form is usually provided. e.g. Le Dorze et al (1994) “Show me the octopus” “Show me the mollusc with long legs” How important is the phonological form in the semantic task? Most probably critical to its effectiveness 

38 Therapy: The application of a technique several times, over days, weeks or months Immediate Cueing effects: The effect of a technique at the time of its application Nickels, McDonald, Makin, Moses & Taylor – Facilitation Experiments What is a facilitation experiment? It looks at the effect of a task performed ONCE on another task at a later point and contrasts with…

39 Cueing, Facilitation, Therapy “k” kangaro o

40 Cueing, Facilitation, Therapy “k” kangaroo ….later

41 Cueing, Facilitation, Therapy “k” kangaroo

42 Nickels, McDonald, Makin, Moses & Taylor – Facilitation Experiments Phonological Repetition “kangaroo” Semantic without the word form Feature verification Does it hop?

43 Nickels, McDonald, Makin, Moses & Taylor – Facilitation Experiments Name 300 pictures until 95 failed (10 second limit) Sort the failed items into 3 (frequency & length) matched sets Facilitation Task 1Facilitation Task 2Control Facilitation Name all 3 sets of pictures+ 30 easy fillers 1 week later 10 mins later

44 Comparing repetition and a semantic task with no word form

45

46 Very little benefit from a semantic task without the word form for most individuals

47 Semantic tasks without the word form We also looked at the same tasks used as therapy with 4 individuals with aphasia … once again, semantic tasks without the word form had little benefit …. for example…. DRS 8 sessions of semantic therapy (feature verification) over 2-3 weeks Before each therapy session named all those items that were to be treated, and a set of control pictures (50 items in each set).

48 DRS - Semantic Therapy No extra benefit from the semantic task But the untreated items seem to improve..... Spontaneous recovery? Generalisation? Benefits from repeated naming attempts?

49

50 Treated items and repeatedly named items improve to the same degree – so there is no specific benefit from the semantic task

51 The improvement from naming controls isn’t generalisation or spontaneous recovery (unseen controls don’t improve) – but benefit from repeated attempts at naming

52 Summary: semantic tasks in word retrieval Degree/depth of semantic processing appears not to be critical (Howard et al) Presenting tasks in a semantic context can interfere short-term and mostly has no long term advantage over presentation in unrelated contexts (Martin, Laine et al) Presence of phonological form appears critical in most cases (Le Dorze et al; Nickels et al: facilitation studies, DRS therapy study) …… and so to Phonological tasks Any questions?

53 “Phonological” tasks Repetition of target Reading aloud Phonological & orthographic cueing Rhyme judgements Syllable and phoneme counting Phoneme segmentation Anagrams …….but nearly always in the presence of the picture. Again we need to remember the distinction between the nature of the task and the nature of the impairment …. Here we are talking about phonological tasks but NOT impairments to the phoneme level.

54 Phonological tasks and word retrieval Widely argued to be the most appropriate for impairments in retrieval of (or damage to) the phonological form from the phonological output lexicon (e.g. Hillis & Caramazza, 1994; Miceli,et al, 1996; Nettleton & Lesser, 1991) Miceli et al (1996): as these tasks focus at the level of activation of individual entries in the phonological output lexicon, their effects should be item specific – a result of ‘priming’ retrieval of the phonological form.

55 For many years ‘semantic’ tasks were thought to be more effective than ‘phonological’ tasks in improving word retrieval How true is this?

56 Comparing repetition and a semantic task with no word form

57 Very little benefit from a semantic task without the word form … repetition is almost always more beneficial

58 DRS - Phonological Therapy Significant extra benefit from the repetition task

59 For many years ‘semantic’ tasks were thought to be more effective than ‘phonological’ tasks in improving word retrieval This seems NOT to be true in general, particularly if the semantic task does not include the word form

60 Semantic & phonological treatments: an overstated distinction? BOTH have semantic and phonological components –Semantic tasks without the phonological form are generally not effective Howard (2000) – tasks having the same effects in the same way Strengthening the connections between semantics and phonological form when both are simultaneously active equivalent effects for semantic and phonological tasks for most individuals

61 Semantics Object, picture or idea purrs cat dog rabbit fish barks fur pet 4-legs scales house robin Phonological Lexicon Phonological Buffer/ Phonemes ætdogk

62 Semantics Object, picture or idea purrs cat dog rabbit fish barks fur pet 4-legs scales house robin Phonological Lexicon Phonological Buffer/ Phonemes ætdogk

63 Semantics Object, picture or idea purrs cat dog rabbit fish barks fur pet 4-legs scales house robin Phonological Lexicon Phonological Buffer/ Phonemes ætdogk

64 ‘Semantic’ and ‘phonological’ tasks are working in similar ways By strengthening the connections between semantics and word form by activating both semantics and phonology

65

66 The role of effort and error Effortful >benefit than automatic? –Greater semantic processing Errorless >benefit than errorful? How does amount of ‘effort’ or accuracy in a task affect the benefit for naming?

67 Comparing Phonological Tasks “kangaroo” Repetition Effortless, ‘shallow’ processing, error reducing “k” Phonemic cueing Effortful, deeper processing, errorful

68 Method Name 300 pictures until 95 failed (10 second limit) Sort the failed items into 3 (frequency & length) matched sets Facilitation Task 1Facilitation Task 2Control Facilitation Name all 3 sets of pictures+ 30 easy fillers 1 week later 10 mins later

69 * * * * * * * * Facilitation effect compared to control pictures: Errorless/Automatic (Repetition) vs Errorful /Effortful (Phonemic cues)

70 * * * * * * * *

71 Comparing Phonological Tasks “kangaroo” Repetition Effortless, ‘shallow’ processing, error reducing “k” Phonemic cueing Effortful, deeper processing, errorful > benefit than No need for it to be effortful to be helpful – FOR MOST PEOPLE Well, repetition is better and it does improve more BUT the proper comparison is within a task …. Is errorless (or error reducing) better than errorful?

72 Fewer errors means greater benefit? Repetition is more error-free than cueing… but the proper comparison is within a task Cueing Do the people who are more accurate with cueing (at the time) have more benefit for naming (later)?

73 Errorless items benefit more? Repetition is more error-free than cueing… but the proper comparison is within a task Cueing no significant correlation between success of the cue during facilitation and benefit of cueing for subsequent naming. i.e. errorless is not better than errorful for cueing. Why did we think errorless might be better in the first place?

74 Errorless learning Hypothesis Remediation is more effective if errors are prevented - the act of producing an error may strengthen the incorrect association, and make the correct response less likely to occur. History Animal learning (Terrace, 1963) Children with developmental learning difficulties (e.g. Sidman & Stoddard, 1967). Acquired memory impairments (amnesia) (e.g. Baddeley & Wilson, 1994)

75 Errorless learning and anomia treatment Fillingham et al (2003) “error reducing techniques do have positive effects for patients with word finding difficulties. As yet there is limited information on which to judge whether this technique is significantly advantageous over errorful approaches” (p358). Fillingham et al (2005, 2006) –No significant difference between errorless (repetition) and errorful (cueing) tasks. Abel et al (2005) –No significant difference between increasing and vanishing cues methods (errorful vs error reducing). BUT nonetheless repetition may be more beneficial than phonemic cueing for many people There appears to be no difference between errorful and errorless techniques in aphasia Remember that this will all depend on the processing strengths and weaknesses of the aphasic individual

76 Any questions? How semantic & phonological tasks work Error & Effort

77 Generalisation in the treatment of word retrieval. the most successful treatment is one which effects improvement not only for the items used in therapy but also for any other item, in any other context. many treatments produce clear long lasting effects on the treated items, generalisation to untreated items is less common, and when obtained, often less robust (e.g. Nickels and Best, 1996b)

78 When perceived generalisation is actually an effect of (assessment during) treatment! DRS

79 When perceived generalisation is actually an effect of (assessment during) treatment! DRS

80 When perceived generalisation is actually an effect of (assessment during) treatment! Howard et al (1985) “Naming controls” naming daily but NOT treated Improved significantly Widely interpreted as generalisation of treatment effects – more probably the result of repeated attempts at naming (Howard, 2000) Nickels (2002)JAW -Repeatedly attempted to name a set of pictures (daily for a week) -Significantly improved naming

81 Practice makes (closer to) perfect: trying to name helps naming! HOW? -some names will be successfully retrieved on one occasion but not on another. -When, by chance, an individual produces a picture name successfully, both the semantic representation and the phonological representation for that item are simultaneously active. -This will then strengthen the mapping for that item, making it more likely that the word will be produced correctly on a subsequent occasion (which will again strengthen the mapping). -Over time, more items will have strong enough mappings to be produced accurately on every occasion Or perhaps just partially activating the phonological representation when trying to name is enough to strengthen the mappings More work needs to be done to determine who this works for, how close together naming attempts have to be etc etc But it could have important implications -Use it or lose it - (Attempts at) conversation might improve word retrieval - (Trying to) talk about the same topics may be better

82 When generalisation is a reflection of (strategic?) changes in processing Semantic tasks (with semantic disorders) Techniques promoting reflection on semantic properties may be better viewed as teaching a strategy, albeit an unconscious strategy. Phonological tasks –Best (2006) examined who showed generalisation using a cueing treatment – it was those individuals with relatively more of a phonological impairment (and less semantic impairment) Self-cueing –E.g. phonologically mediated orthographic cueing

83 Mostly generalisation is limited… Therefore the emphasis is on the clinician to ensure that all items used in therapy are functionally relevant and chosen in collaboration with the person with aphasia. Nickels et al – in progress ‘Home Programme’ Using the most successful task (repetition) items chosen by the person with aphasia as being words they wanted to be able to say. Therapy presented by computer in powerpoint ‘Structured’ conversation used to evaluate carry-over from naming to conversation

84

85

86 Treatments aimed at remediating word production impairments Tasks can be effective (e.g. Hillis & Caramazza, 1994; Howard et al, 1985b), produce durable effects (e.g. Pring et al, 1990), be administered by clinician &/or computer (e.g. Fink et al, 2002) be obtained on verbs & nouns (e.g. Murray & Karcher, 2000; Raymer and Ellsworth, 2002). carry-over into connected speech & conversation (e.g. Hickin et al, 2002), BUT treatment tasks are not invariably effective

87 Do impairment-based treatments impact on functional skills and increase activity & participation? word retrieval/production underlies every attempt at verbal communication hence improving word retrieval impairments is of course functionally relevant Simplistic and/or fundamentally misguided BUT the importance of an increased ability to name treated items following therapy should not be underestimated Hillis (1998)HG - small change in impairment – significant gains in activity & participation with the use of functionally relevant personal items (Bacardi & Coke!)

88 Do impairment-based treatments impact on functional skills and increase activity & participation? Yes …. (functional gains can be achieved) but…. (they are by no means guaranteed) few studies that have formally evaluated the effects on disability of impairment-based remediation. It seems particularly important given the prevalence of item specific effects that remediation should include personally relevant stimuli.

89 Any questions? Generalisation Effects of repeated naming Functional relevance

90 So far we’ve talked about tasks that aim to improve the underlying word retrieval impairment – some tasks may work in other ways too Lets take another look at cueing

91

92 ?

93 ? /t/

94 tomato /t/

95 ? T

96 tomato T Letter cueing has been found to have the same effects as phonemic cues – both immediate and longer term benefits for naming for some individuals (Best et al. 2002)

97 ? Some individuals can generate their own orthographic cues

98 ? TOMATO

99 tomato TOMATO How does this work?

100 ? T -> /t/ How does this work? Phonologically-mediated self-cueing (e.g. Bachy-Langedock & DePartz, 1986; Nickels, 1992)

101 tomato T -> /t/ Phonologically-mediated self-cueing (e.g. Bachy-Langedock & DePartz, 1986; Nickels, 1992) Requires phonological cueability Requires access to the written form when the spoken form is unavailable Requires an ability to convert letters into sounds

102 Phonologically-mediated self-cueing (e.g. Bachy-Langedock & DePartz, 1986; Nickels, 1992) Requires phonological cueability Requires access to the written form when the spoken form is unavailable Requires an ability to convert letters into sounds Can use a computer cueing aid to do the conversion Can be retaught

103 Generating phonemic cues from the initial letter 1. Spoken naming  2. Written naming 3. Convert letters to sounds  dog Nickels (1992)TC

104 Generating phonemic cues from the initial letter 1. Spoken naming  2. Visualise written word 3. Sound out initial letter & cue word production Nickels (1992) retaught letter-sound correspondences d dog This improved TCs spoken naming to almost the same level as his written naming. He used this spontaneously in conversation. Could be (and was) used for any word he was trying to retrieve (only fails for words with irregular initial letters e.g. onion, Cinderella)

105 Using a computer to generate phonemic cues from the initial letter e.g. Bruce & Howard (1987); Best et al. (1997)    /d/ dog d 3. Press letter 2. Visualise first letter 4. Computer produces phoneme 5. Cue word production 1. Spoken naming 

106 Generating phonemic cues When spoken naming  IF individuals can identify initial letter convert letters to sounds and are phonemically cueable Then they can generate their own cues. If unable to convert letters to sounds - Can be retaught - Can use computer generated cues - may be able to use the letters without converting to sounds – Direct orthographic cueing.

107 Direct Orthographic Cueing SD: Howard & Harding (1998) impaired access to the phonological output lexicon (good semantics) Unable to form letters Given an alphabet board – naming improved dramatically Was not using phonological mediation unable to convert letters to sounds unaffected by initial letter regularity (e.g. onion; eye)

108 Self-generated orthographic cues When spoken naming  IF individuals can identify initial letter They may be able to use direct orthographic cueing If they are phonemically cueable They may be able to use a computer to generate the cues If they can (or be taught to) convert letters to sounds They may be able to generate their own phonological cues. Any questions? Self-generated cues

109 When things don’t go the way you planned!

110 Using a cueing aid as therapy – who benefits? Best, Howard, Bruce & Gatehouse (1997) 13 individuals treated with the cueing aid predicted benefit only for those who when spoken naming  can identify initial letter & are phonemically cueable They should be better at naming with the aid than without it (this is providing the cues). Only two individuals had both skills After treatment: Only 1 individual had better naming with the aid than without. BUT 12 showed significant improvement in naming. WHY???

111 Why does treatment with a cueing aid help individuals who are not predicted to benefit? Treatment tasks can work in different ways for different individuals Multicomponent treatment orthography phonology semantics (presentation of the picture and attempted naming). Only one individual was helped by the aid providing the cue - for many others this was a standard word retrieval therapy Phonemic cueing Repetition in the presence of the picture

112 Cueing aid reorganising the naming system: JOW (Best et al, 1997) Substantial and long-lasting effects of treatment Improvement in treated and untreated items treatment drew attention to the relationship between orthography and phonology altered automatic (not strategic) processes in his word retrieval A direct orthographic cueing mechanism

113 Why does treatment with a cueing aid help individuals who are not predicted to benefit? Treatment tasks can work in different ways for different individuals …. especially when they are multicomponent How tasks actually work may not be how you planned them to! And sometimes they don’t work even though you would predict they should!

114 RECAP BEFORE THE BREAK Assessment of level of breakdown in word production Methodological issues in evaluating treatment

115 RECAP (continued) AFTER THE BREAK Improving naming when there are semantic impairments –Exploring semantic features –It may work by providing a strategy to improve naming rather than improving semantics itself. Word retrieval impairments –Semantic vs phonological tasks –Semantic tasks require the word form, depth of semantic processing is not important –Phonological tasks are also effective –Tasks are working in the same way Effort & error –Tasks do not need to be effortful –There is no additional benefit from errorless performance

116 RECAP (continued) Generalisation –Treatment for Word retrieval impairments usually result in item specific improvements –but may generalise to conversation, and can produce effects on participation/quality of life –Use of functionally relevant items is a priority –Repeated attempts at naming may improve word retrieval for some individuals –Generalisation can result from strategic/compensatory approaches Self-generated Cues –Phonologically mediated/computer generated/direct orthographic Tasks may not always work the way you expect ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE GENERALISATIONS – every person with aphasia is different and could be the exception to these general principles

117 Relationship between task, impairment and efficacy Therapist’s dream = Prescription guide “to unambiguously pair a particular functional impairment with a treatment task that has guaranteed success for that impairment”

118 Clinicians need to know what to do NOW!!! choose a therapy that has the best chance of succeeding Choose a task that has successfully improved naming for a wide variety of people with spoken word retrieval impairments - multicomponent approaches (e.g. cueing hierarchies or multimodality/multi-task therapies – see e.g. Best et al, 1997; Hickin et al, 2002) Use pilot studies using different tasks for short periods (e.g. 1 week) to establish which tasks seem effective and which do not prior to continuing with the most effective therapies over longer period.

119 Prove that it works! ensure that it is possible to establish whether or not a particular therapy is effective by using a sound methodology. We have a duty to be able to demonstrate that a therapy is effective to the individuals with aphasia, their families/friends/carers, those funding the treatment and not least to ourselves.

120 Thank you! Any questions or comments?

121


Download ppt "Treatment of Word retrieval impairments: Do we know which tasks work for whom and why? Continued! Associate Professor Lyndsey Nickels National Health."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google