ArticleAphasiology2022
The Challenge of Achieving Greater Generalization in Phonological Treatment of Aphasia.
Article in Aphasiology, 2022. 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.
- Mechanisms associated with tDCS as an adjuvant to shortened phonomotor treatment in chronic post-stroke aphasia.Neuroimage. Reports · 2026Article
- Timing of implicit processes in aphasia: An event-related potential investigation of masked priming effects.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Stimulus selection is important to anomia treatment because similarity between trained and untrained words in the mental lexicon may influence treatment generalization. We focused on phonological similarity between trained and untrained words from a clinical trial of Phonomotor Treatment (PMT) that showed gains in confrontation naming accuracy of untrained words post-treatment. One way to capture the amount of similarity between the trained and untrained words is to consider the phonological network path distance between words. We posited that the distance between trained and untrained words in a phonological network could account for the improvement in confrontation naming accuracy post-treatment. Aim: To define the phonological network distance between trained and untrained words that influences change in confrontation naming accuracy post-treatment. Methods and procedures: We retrospectively analyzed data from 28 people with aphasia who received PMT as part of a clinical trial. Participants completed confrontation naming (baseline, post-treatment, and 3-months post-treatment) of words varying in phonological distance to the treatment stimuli. We used a phonological network to calculate the average shortest path length (ASPL), defined by number of phoneme differences, between an untrained word and all trained words. We used mixed effects regression models to predict change in confrontation naming accuracy of untrained words post-treatment from ASPL. Several post-hoc analyses were also conducted. Outcomes and results: We found no effect of ASPL on change in confrontation naming accuracy of untrained words immediately post- and 3-months post-treatment. However, post-hoc analyses indicated significant subject heterogeneity and limitations in observable path distance between trained and untrained words. Conclusion: Despite the clinical trial report that confrontation naming of untrained words improved after PMT, we found no overall effect of ASPL on the amount of improvement. We discuss further investigation of the entire domain of phonological sequence knowledge (the phonological sequence knowledge landscape) and its influence on treatment generalization, and the potential importance of identifying predictors of treatment response to enhance the effects of treatment generalization.
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.