4.5 Article

The Influence of Phonomotor Treatment on Word Retrieval: Insights From Naming Errors

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH
Volume 62, Issue 11, Pages 4080-4104

Publisher

AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC
DOI: 10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-19-0014

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Veterans Administration Rehabilitation Research and Development Merit Review Grant [C6572R]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: An increasing number of anomia treatment studies have coupled traditional word retrieval accuracy outcome measures with more fine-grained analysis of word retrieval errors to allow for more comprehensive measurement of treatment-induced changes in word retrieval. The aim of this study was to examine changes in picture naming errors after phonomotor treatment. Method: Twenty-eight individuals with aphasia received 60 hr of phonomotor treatment, an intensive, phoneme-based therapy for anomia. Confrontation naming was assessed pretreatment, immediately posttreatment, and 3 months posttreatment for trained and untrained nouns. Responses were scored for accuracy and coded for error type, and error proportions of each error type (e.g., semantic, phonological, omission) were compared: pre- versus posttreatment and pretreatment versus 3 months posttreatment. Results: The group of treatment participants improved in whole-word naming accuracy on trained items and maintained their improvement. Treatment effects also generalized to untrained nouns at the maintenance testing phase. Additionally, participants demonstrated a decrease in proportions of omission and description errors on trained items immediately posttreatment. Conclusions: Along with generalized improved whole-word naming accuracy, results of the error analysis suggest that a global (i.e., both lexical-semantic and phonological) change in lexical knowledge underlies the observed changes in confrontation naming accuracy following phonomotor treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available