4.5 Article

Errorless Learning Therapy in Semantic Variant of Primary Progressive Aphasia

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASE
卷 79, 期 1, 页码 415-422

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-200904

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; anomia; errorless learning; relearning; semantic dementia; semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia; speech therapy

资金

  1. Pla Estrategic de Recerca I Innovacio en Salut from Generalitat de Catalunya [PERIS SLT002/16/00408, SLT008/18/00061]
  2. Fundacio Marato de TV3, Spain [20143810]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that errorless learning speech therapy can improve naming ability in patients with svPPA, but the improvement diminishes progressively after therapy ends, with no improvement found in comprehension tasks.
Background: The semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia (svPPA) is characterized by a progressive loss of semantic knowledge impairing the ability to name and to recognize the meaning of words. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the immediate and short-term effect of errorless learning speech therapy on the naming and recognition of commonly used words in patients with svPPA. Methods: Eight participants diagnosed with svPPA received 16 sessions of intensive errorless learning speech therapy. Naming and word comprehension tasks were evaluated at baseline, immediately postintervention, and at follow-up after 1, 3, and 6 months. These evaluations were performed using two item sets (a trained list and an untrained list). Results: In the naming tasks, patients showed a significant improvement in trained items immediately after the intervention, but that improvement decayed progressively when therapy ended. No improvements were found either in trained comprehension or in untrained tasks. Conclusion: Errorless learning therapy could improve naming ability in patients with svPPA. This effect may be due to the relative preservation of episodic memory, but the benefit is not maintained over time, presumably because there is no consolidation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据