ArticleAphasiology2024
An electrophysiological and behavioral investigation of feedback-based learning in aphasia.
Article in Aphasiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: Feedback is a fundamental aspect of aphasia treatments. However, learning from feedback is a cognitively demanding process. At the most basic level, individuals must detect feedback and extract outcome-related information (i.e., feedback processing). Neuroanatomical and neuropsychological differences associated with post-stroke aphasia may influence feedback processing and potentially how people with aphasia (PWA) respond to feedback-based treatments. To better understand how post-stroke aphasia affects feedback-based learning, the current study leverages event-related potentials (ERPs) to (1) characterize the relationship between feedback processing and learning, (2) identify cognitive skills that are associated with feedback processing, and (3) identify behavioural correlates of feedback-based learning in PWA. Methods: Seventeen PWA completed a feedback-based novel word learning task. Feedback processing was measured using the feedback-related negativity (FRN), an ERP hypothesized to reflect the detection and evaluation of outcomes communicated via feedback. Individuals also completed neuropsychological assessments of language (phonological processing, verbal short-term memory) and executive functioning. Results: PWA elicited an FRN that was sensitive to feedback valence. The magnitude of the FRN was not associated with novel word learning but was strongly correlated with performance on another feedback-based task, the Berg Card Sort. Cognitive variables (information updating, selective attention) but not language variables were associated with novel word learning. Discussion & Conclusion: For PWA, feedback processing may be associated with learning in some but not all feedback-based contexts. These findings may inform future research in determining which variables moderate the relationship between feedback processing and learning with the long-term goal of identifying how feedback can be modified to support successful learning during aphasia rehabilitation.
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.