Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32044615›Full record

ArticleCognition2020

Effects of distributed practice and criterion level on word retrieval in aphasia.

Julia Schuchard, Katherine A Rawson, Erica L Middleton

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Julia SchuchardMoss Rehabilitation Research Institute, 50 Township Line Rd., Elkins Park, PA 19027, USA. Electronic address: schuchardj@email.chop.edu.
Katherine A RawsonDepartment of Psychological Sciences, 332 Kent Hall, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, USA. Electronic address: krawson1@kent.edu.
Erica L MiddletonMoss Rehabilitation Research Institute, 50 Township Line Rd., Elkins Park, PA 19027, USA. Electronic address: middleer@einstein.edu.
Moss Rehabilitation Hospital · USKent State University · US

Funding

Retrieval Practice Principles: A Theory of Learning for Aphasia RehabilitationR01DC015516 · NIDCD · THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY · PI Erica Lee Middleton · 2017 to 2026
$4.9M
Postdoctoral Training in Translational Neurorehabilitation ResearchT32HD071844 · NICHD · ALBERT EINSTEIN HEALTHCARE NETWORK · PI WHYTE, JOHN · 2013 to 2022
$2.2M
NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD071844NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC015516
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examined how the distribution and amount of practice affect word retrieval in aphasia as well as how such factors relate to the efficiency of learning. The central hypothesis was that factors that enhance the learning of new knowledge also enhance persistent access to existing, but inconsistently available, word representations. The study evaluated the impact of learning principles on word retrieval by manipulating the timing and amount of retrievals for items presented for naming. Nine people with chronic aphasia with naming impairment completed the experiment. Training materials involved proper noun entities assigned to six conditions formed by crossing a 2-level factor of spacing of sessions, i.e., intersession interval (1 day versus 7 days between sessions) with a 3-level factor of number of correct retrievals per item per session, i.e., criterion level (Criterion-1, Criterion-2, and Criterion-4). Each intersession interval condition comprised three training sessions and a one-month retention test. Increasing the criterion level enhanced naming performance after short (1 day, 7 days) and long (one month) retention intervals, but these advantages came at the cost of many additional training trials. In most cases, later naming success was superior when the same number of correct retrievals of an item was distributed across multiple sessions rather than administered within one session. The substantial advantages for across-session spacing were gained at little cost in terms of additional training trials. At one-month retention, naming accuracy was numerically but not significantly higher in the 7-day versus 1-day intersession interval condition. Implications for theories of lexical access and naming treatment in aphasia are discussed.

Indexed as

AphasiaHumansLearningAphasiaDistributed practiceLag effectLexical accessNaming treatment

Identifiers

PMID32044615
PMCPMC7197013
OpenAlexW3004869162

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.