ArticleAphasiology2024
Errorless and errorful learning in people with aphasia across novel-object pairing and word retrieval tasks.
Article in Aphasiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Rehabilitation interventions for Wernicke's aphasia and related fluent aphasia: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Pooled it
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: While linguistic deficits are key to diagnosing and treating aphasia, there is growing interest in the cognitive processes important for rehabilitation outcomes, particularly the role of learning. Of relevance to the current study, research has manipulated instructional methods (errorless vs. errorful) to assess their effects on outcomes. However, it is still unclear whether individualized profiles of errorless and errorful learning exist in aphasia and whether they might be meaningful for clinical practice. Aims: The current study aimed to examine learning in people with aphasia, manipulating instruction method (errorless, errorful) and linguistic demands of learning. Methods & Procedures: Nine people with stroke-induced aphasia participated in this preliminary study. Participants engaged in errorless and errorful novel object pairing and word retrieval tasks. Learning outcomes were assessed on the same day, next day, and after one week. Participants also completed cognitive-linguistic assessments to investigate the contribution of memory, language, and executive functioning abilities to learning outcomes. Outcomes & Results: At the group level, participants performed significantly better following errorful training for novel object pairing ( Conclusions: Findings are consistent with prior research that suggests that successful effortful retrieval may pose an advantage over errorless learning when acquiring novel information and the potential contributions of verbal short-term memory and nonverbal long term memory on learning. Results from the word retrieval practice task draw attention to differences between practicing lexical access and novel learning. The lack of an errorful advantage in word retrieval may alternatively be due to task design and merits further research. Results support the hypothesis that people with aphasia display variable learning profiles that may stem from differences in underlying cognitive-linguistic abilities. Continuing research is needed to characterize learning in aphasia to consider its potential influence on rehabilitation outcomes and support speech-language pathologists in considering and accounting for different learning and cognitive-linguistic abilities when individualizing treatment decisions.
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.