4.6 Article

Bringing words back to mind - Improving word production in semantic dementia

期刊

CORTEX
卷 49, 期 7, 页码 1823-1832

出版社

ELSEVIER MASSON, CORP OFF
DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.09.014

关键词

Semantic dementia; Cognitive training; Naming; Neuropsychological rehabilitation

资金

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders [CE110001021]
  2. Australian Postgraduate Awards (APA)
  3. National Health and Medical Research Council [APP1022684]
  4. ARC [FF0776229]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients with semantic dementia (SD) have significant impairments in naming and comprehension, but demonstrate relatively intact attention, everyday memory, and visuospatial skills. Given these preserved skills, attempts have been made to help re-build vocabulary in SD patients, with promising results. Such reports, however, are generally based upon only one or two cases and have employed variable retraining methods. It is thus unclear which elements of practice are crucial to success. Over two studies, we assessed four patients undergoing a word training program, who ranged in severity from mild to severe impairments to semantic knowledge. All four participants showed significant improvements in their ability to name trained items, with no changes in untrained items over the same time period. Improvements were evident within 3 weeks of practice, and could be established from a simple, repetitive practice of word-picture pairing, carried out at the participant's home. Strong effect sizes of the treatment were found in patients with severe deficits. Maintenance of learning was observed on some follow-up assessments, although continued practice is likely to be needed to sustain naming performance. Incorporating generation tasks into the practice may be assistive, but was not essential to success. These data support the utility of implementing simple home-practice programs even for patients with significant language deficits. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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