Evidence Hub

Targeting Phonology or Semantics to Improve Reading Aloud Response Times and Accuracy: A Case Series Investigation of Stroke Survivors With Aphasia

Olga Boukrina, Elizabeth B Madden, N. Giordano, Dima Karim, Ryan Staples, William Graves

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2024

1 citation

Abstract

PURPOSE

Acquired reading deficits, or alexia, affect a significant proportion of individuals with aphasia. We sought to improve treatment for alexia by targeting specific cognitive information-processing components critical to reading (i.e., phonology or semantics).

METHOD

To target either phonological or semantic processing, we administered two anomia treatments, phonomotor treatment (PMT) and semantic feature analysis, modified to include a focus on reading throughout the therapy. Chronic left-hemisphere stroke survivors (N = 5) completed one or two 60-hr treatment rounds. Based on predictions from a computational reading model, three participants received the treatment recommended for their specific reading challenges (e.g., PMT for phonological deficits), while two participants had the nonrecommended treatment first, followed by the recommended model-matched treatment. Changes in reading aloud accuracy and response times (RTs) from before to after treatment were examined as a function of matching treatment to the deficit profile, type of treatment, therapy round, and word characteristics.

RESULTS

Participants' reading aloud accuracy improved after treatment relative to baseline with higher accuracy for high-frequency words and shorter words. After the first treatment round, participants' accuracy and RT improved, irrespective of whether treatment was matched to the deficit profile. Furthermore, participants who completed the second treatment round continued achieving…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free