ArticleAphasiology
What matters in semantic feature processing for persons with stroke-aphasia: Evidence from an auditory concept-feature verification task.
Article in Aphasiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Verbal Description of Concrete Objects: A Method for Assessing Semantic Circumlocution in Persons With Aphasia.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe relationship between object concept domains (living vs. nonliving) and their underlying feature structures is a frequent area of investigation regarding semantic processing in healthy individuals and some individuals with neuropsychological impairment resulting from herpes simplex encephalitis, semantic dementia and Alzheimer's disease. However, this relationship has been less well-investigated in persons with stroke-aphasia (PWA), even though many treatments for anomia following stroke are predicated on the use of semantic feature cues.
aimsAs part of a larger investigation into the influence of semantic feature processing on naming for PWA, this study examined the ability of PWA to confirm the relations between object concepts and associated semantic features. METHODS & PROCEDURES: 15 native English-speaking, right handed individuals with post-stroke-aphasia responded yes or no via button press to feature-verification questions designed to probe the relationships between concept domain and feature type and distinctiveness. OUTCOMES &
resultsPWA were more accurate and quicker to confirm concept-feature relationships when features contained function/action, rather than visual-perceptual, information about concepts and when features were distinctive to concepts rather than shared. The truthfulness (i.e., veracity) of concept-feature pairings was demonstrated to differentially affect living versus nonliving concepts. Within domain, only nonliving concepts were verified more accurately and more quickly when pairings were true (rather than false). Between domains, true nonliving concept-feature pairings were more accurately and more quickly verified than true living concept-feature pairings. Also with respect to veracity, correlations were observed between aphasia severity and accuracy and speed of response to false concept-feature pairings.
conclusionsFindings have implications for the way in which semantic processing is probed with PWA, as well as providing preliminary information regarding responsivity of PWA to differing types of semantic information for living versus nonliving concepts. The fact that PWA demonstrated disproportionate difficulty responding to certain types of semantic information also suggests preliminary implications for the utility of different types of semantic cues in semantically-based treatments for word retrieval impairment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.