Facilitating Spoken Word Retrieval in Chronic Aphasia: A Case Series Investigation of Orthographic Cues With and Without Phonological Support

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Wei Ping Sze, Jane Warren, Carol Sacchett, Wendy Best
{"title":"Facilitating Spoken Word Retrieval in Chronic Aphasia: A Case Series Investigation of Orthographic Cues With and Without Phonological Support","authors":"Wei Ping Sze,&nbsp;Jane Warren,&nbsp;Carol Sacchett,&nbsp;Wendy Best","doi":"10.1111/1460-6984.70048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Current clinical approaches to the treatment of spoken word-finding difficulties in acquired aphasia encourage multimodal cueing, especially the joint application of written and spoken forms. Research that exclusively examines the effects and mechanisms of written cues is limited, with most studies engaging written forms only as part of a multimodal therapy. Parameters for ideal orthographic cue size and mode of delivery have yet to be determined, and the duration of orthographic facilitation effects needs to be clarified.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims</h3>\n \n <p>(1) What is the optimal unit of orthographic cueing (single letter or the entire word) and how durable are the effects (length of time that naming remains successful post-cueing)? (2) Are orthographic cues alone less effective when compared to orthographic-and-phonological cue combinations?</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method and Procedures</h3>\n \n <p>Five English-speaking monolinguals with post-stroke anomia completed a facilitation study, focusing on cued single spoken-word picture-naming. Linguistic unit (initial letter of the word vs. whole word) and cueing medium (‘orthographic-only’ vs. ‘combined orthographic and phonological’) were manipulated, with naming accuracy and response times (RTs) measured. Naming performance was evaluated at baseline and at two post-facilitation time points (15 min and 1 week post-facilitation).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Outcomes and Results</h3>\n \n <p>Three outcome measures—number of items accurately named as initial and final naming responses (accuracy scores), as well as RTs—were analysed for each participant, with effects of repeated exposure (if any) taken into account. Three participants significantly improved following whole word ‘orthography-only’ cues on at least one of the outcomes, whilst one participant improved following initial letter written-only cues. For ‘combined orthographic-and-phonological’ cues, two participants also benefitted when given the entire word, but none significantly improved with initial letter multimodal cueing.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions and Implications</h3>\n \n <p>(1) This study provides case-level evidence on the efficacy of ‘orthography-only’ cues (both ‘Initial letter’ and ‘Whole word’ levels) to improve spoken naming, extending previously documented effects of a single application of a written cue to potentially 1 week later. This suggests a one-off application of a written cue could potentially be more durable than previously thought. (2) There is also evidence from two participants who benefitted from a combined orthographic-and-phonological cue, although these effects were comparatively short-lived. Taken together, these results caution a need to be sensitive to individuals’ residual strengths/weaknesses post-stroke, rather than advocating the same strategy for all, including the indiscriminate use of multimodal cues. Our findings also provide a basis for further exploration of orthographic cueing as a therapeutic intervention for post-stroke word-finding deficits.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS</h3>\n \n <div><i>What is already known on this subject</i>\n \n <ul>\n \n <li>Compared to research on other types of cues (e.g., semantic prompts), the literature on ‘orthography only’ cues is slim. Recent research, however, indicated that written cues are effective in treating word-finding difficulties. Outstanding questions remain, including the efficacy of different orthographic units and the corresponding duration of their effects. It is also unclear which language pathway(s) underpin(s) successful orthographic cueing.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n \n <div><i>What this study adds</i>\n \n <ul>\n \n <li>The paper addresses gaps in our knowledge: (1) It provides fresh evidence to support the use of two units of orthographic prompts, that is, initial letter and whole word cues. (2) There is clarification that a single application of a written whole word can last for at least 1 week, which is a significant advancement from the previously evidenced duration of 10 min for written cues in general. (3) As far as we are aware, this study is the first in aphasiology that distinguishes and analyses naming accuracies of both initial and final responses.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n \n <div><i>What are the clinical implications of this study?</i>\n \n <ul>\n \n <li>(1) Case-level data presented in this paper can be used by clinicians as references to gauge whether specific clients would best benefit from orthographic or combined orthographic-phonological cues. Understanding that an orthographic cue may have a durability of a week for a specific profile of individuals will also help clinicians develop more realistic intervention plans. All these are in keeping with efficient case management and evidence-based practice. (2) A reading task can determine who is able to rely on the multiple pathways to utilise an orthographic cue. To more effectively identify people with aphasia suitable for written-only cues, individuals may be screened on a reading-aloud task. (3) There is at least one participant who improved on naming through mere exposure to pictures without cueing, and this exposure was limited to a one-off encounter. Accounting for effects from repeated priming is thus necessary before one draws conclusions about the effects of cues on spoken word retrieval.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":49182,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders","volume":"60 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1460-6984.70048","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Current clinical approaches to the treatment of spoken word-finding difficulties in acquired aphasia encourage multimodal cueing, especially the joint application of written and spoken forms. Research that exclusively examines the effects and mechanisms of written cues is limited, with most studies engaging written forms only as part of a multimodal therapy. Parameters for ideal orthographic cue size and mode of delivery have yet to be determined, and the duration of orthographic facilitation effects needs to be clarified.

Aims

(1) What is the optimal unit of orthographic cueing (single letter or the entire word) and how durable are the effects (length of time that naming remains successful post-cueing)? (2) Are orthographic cues alone less effective when compared to orthographic-and-phonological cue combinations?

Method and Procedures

Five English-speaking monolinguals with post-stroke anomia completed a facilitation study, focusing on cued single spoken-word picture-naming. Linguistic unit (initial letter of the word vs. whole word) and cueing medium (‘orthographic-only’ vs. ‘combined orthographic and phonological’) were manipulated, with naming accuracy and response times (RTs) measured. Naming performance was evaluated at baseline and at two post-facilitation time points (15 min and 1 week post-facilitation).

Outcomes and Results

Three outcome measures—number of items accurately named as initial and final naming responses (accuracy scores), as well as RTs—were analysed for each participant, with effects of repeated exposure (if any) taken into account. Three participants significantly improved following whole word ‘orthography-only’ cues on at least one of the outcomes, whilst one participant improved following initial letter written-only cues. For ‘combined orthographic-and-phonological’ cues, two participants also benefitted when given the entire word, but none significantly improved with initial letter multimodal cueing.

Conclusions and Implications

(1) This study provides case-level evidence on the efficacy of ‘orthography-only’ cues (both ‘Initial letter’ and ‘Whole word’ levels) to improve spoken naming, extending previously documented effects of a single application of a written cue to potentially 1 week later. This suggests a one-off application of a written cue could potentially be more durable than previously thought. (2) There is also evidence from two participants who benefitted from a combined orthographic-and-phonological cue, although these effects were comparatively short-lived. Taken together, these results caution a need to be sensitive to individuals’ residual strengths/weaknesses post-stroke, rather than advocating the same strategy for all, including the indiscriminate use of multimodal cues. Our findings also provide a basis for further exploration of orthographic cueing as a therapeutic intervention for post-stroke word-finding deficits.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on this subject
  • Compared to research on other types of cues (e.g., semantic prompts), the literature on ‘orthography only’ cues is slim. Recent research, however, indicated that written cues are effective in treating word-finding difficulties. Outstanding questions remain, including the efficacy of different orthographic units and the corresponding duration of their effects. It is also unclear which language pathway(s) underpin(s) successful orthographic cueing.
What this study adds
  • The paper addresses gaps in our knowledge: (1) It provides fresh evidence to support the use of two units of orthographic prompts, that is, initial letter and whole word cues. (2) There is clarification that a single application of a written whole word can last for at least 1 week, which is a significant advancement from the previously evidenced duration of 10 min for written cues in general. (3) As far as we are aware, this study is the first in aphasiology that distinguishes and analyses naming accuracies of both initial and final responses.
What are the clinical implications of this study?
  • (1) Case-level data presented in this paper can be used by clinicians as references to gauge whether specific clients would best benefit from orthographic or combined orthographic-phonological cues. Understanding that an orthographic cue may have a durability of a week for a specific profile of individuals will also help clinicians develop more realistic intervention plans. All these are in keeping with efficient case management and evidence-based practice. (2) A reading task can determine who is able to rely on the multiple pathways to utilise an orthographic cue. To more effectively identify people with aphasia suitable for written-only cues, individuals may be screened on a reading-aloud task. (3) There is at least one participant who improved on naming through mere exposure to pictures without cueing, and this exposure was limited to a one-off encounter. Accounting for effects from repeated priming is thus necessary before one draws conclusions about the effects of cues on spoken word retrieval.
促进慢性失语症的口语单词检索:有和没有语音支持的正字法线索的案例系列研究
目前临床治疗获得性失语症口语找词困难的方法鼓励多模态线索,特别是书面和口语形式的联合应用。专门研究书面线索的影响和机制的研究是有限的,大多数研究只将书面形式作为多模式治疗的一部分。理想的正字法提示尺寸和传递方式的参数尚未确定,正字法促进效应的持续时间需要澄清。(1)正字法提示的最佳单位是什么(单个字母还是整个单词),其效果有多持久(提示后成功命名的时间长度)?(2)与正字法和语音提示组合相比,单独的正字法提示效果较差吗?方法与步骤5例英语单语脑卒中后失语症患者完成了一项促进性研究,重点是提示单个口语单词图片命名。语言单位(单词的首字母vs.整个单词)和提示媒介(“纯正字法”vs.“正字法和语音相结合”)被操纵,命名准确性和反应时间(RTs)被测量。在基线和诱导后两个时间点(诱导后15分钟和1周)评估命名表现。结果和结果对每个参与者分析了三个结果测量-准确命名为初始和最终命名反应的项目数量(准确性得分),以及rt -考虑了重复暴露的影响(如果有的话)。三名参与者在“只写正字法”的提示下,至少有一项结果显著改善,而一名参与者在只写首字母的提示下,结果有所改善。对于“拼写和语音相结合”的提示,两名参与者在给出整个单词时也有所受益,但没有人在给出首字母多模态提示时有明显改善。(1)本研究提供了个案层面的证据,证明“纯拼写”提示(包括“首字母”和“整个单词”级别)对改善口语命名的效果,将先前记录的单次使用书面提示的效果延长到可能一周后。这表明,一次性的书面提示可能比之前认为的更持久。(2)也有来自两个参与者的证据表明,他们受益于正字法和语音的联合提示,尽管这些影响相对短暂。综上所述,这些结果提醒我们需要对个体中风后的剩余优势/弱点敏感,而不是提倡对所有人都采用相同的策略,包括不加区分地使用多模态线索。我们的研究结果也为进一步探索正字法提示作为中风后单词发现缺陷的治疗干预提供了基础。与其他类型的线索(例如,语义提示)的研究相比,关于“仅限拼写”的线索的文献很少。然而,最近的研究表明,书面提示在治疗找词困难方面是有效的。悬而未决的问题仍然存在,包括不同的正字法单位的功效和相应的效果持续时间。目前还不清楚哪一种语言通路是成功的正字法提示的基础。本文解决了我们知识上的空白:(1)它提供了新的证据来支持正字法提示的两种单位的使用,即首字母和整个单词提示。(2)明确了单次使用一个书写完整的单词可以持续至少1周,这比之前证明的一般10分钟的书写提示时间有了显著的进步。(3)据我们所知,本研究是失语学中第一个区分和分析初始反应和最终反应命名准确性的研究。这项研究的临床意义是什么?(1)本文提供的个案数据可作为临床医生的参考,以衡量特定客户是否最受益于正字法或正字法-语音组合提示。 了解正字法提示对特定个体可能具有一周的持久性,也有助于临床医生制定更现实的干预计划。所有这些都符合有效的病例管理和循证实践。(2)阅读任务可以决定谁能够依靠多种途径来利用正字法线索。为了更有效地识别那些只适合书写提示的失语症患者,个体可以在大声朗读任务中进行筛选。(3)至少有一名参与者在没有提示的情况下仅仅接触图片就提高了命名能力,而且这种接触仅限于一次性接触。因此,在得出提示对口语单词检索的影响的结论之前,有必要考虑重复启动的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders (IJLCD) is the official journal of the Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists. The Journal welcomes submissions on all aspects of speech, language, communication disorders and speech and language therapy. It provides a forum for the exchange of information and discussion of issues of clinical or theoretical relevance in the above areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信