ArticleNeuropsychology2022
An examination of retrieval practice and production training in the treatment of lexical-semantic comprehension deficits in aphasia.
Article in Neuropsychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveLittle research has addressed the treatment of lexical-semantic comprehension deficits (i.e., difficulty retrieving the meanings of words) in people with aphasia (PWA). Research suggests that practice retrieving names for depicted objects from long-term memory (production-based retrieval practice) more strongly benefits word retrieval for production in PWA compared to errorless learning (i.e., word repetition), which eschews retrieval practice. This study assessed whether production-based and comprehension-based retrieval practice enhance performance on errorful word-comprehension items in PWA measured relative to nonretrieval forms of training and untrained control items.
methodIn a within-participant group study of PWA, errorful comprehension items were assigned to (a) a production-based training module (retrieval practice vs. errorless learning); (b) a comprehension-based training module (a receptive form of retrieval practice vs. restudy). Each module comprised one training session and a 1-day and 1-week comprehension posttest on the module's trained items and an untrained item set.
resultsThe comprehension module conditions produced similar and superior posttest performance relative to untrained items. Both production module conditions improved posttest performance relative to untrained items, with retrieval practice conferring more durable learning and generalization indicative of refinement of semantic representations compared to errorless learning.
conclusionsResults suggest comprehension- and production-based forms of training are both beneficial for improving lexical-semantic deficits in aphasia, with production-based retrieval practice conferring additional benefits to the targeted deficit compared to errorless learning. Future studies should examine these learning factors in schedules of training more commensurate with clinical practice and in other neurological populations (e.g., semantic dementia). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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.