Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: This study examined the benefits of a self-administered, clinician-guided, computer-based, cued naming therapy. Results of intense and nonintense treatment schedules were compared. METHOD: A single-participant design with multiple baselines across behaviors and varied treatment intensity for 2 trained lists was replicated over 4 participants. Two lists of words were treated sequentially. The same methods and equal numbers of treatment sessions were used, but the number of sessions per week differed across word lists: nonintense (2/week) or intense (5/week). Probes of performance on both word lists were carried out to examine acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. RESULTS: There was strong evidence of improved naming (acquisition) of trained words in 3 of the 4 participants regardless of treatment intensity. There was strong evidence of maintenance for 1 participant and moderate evidence for the remaining 3 participants. Evidence of generalization to untrained words was weak. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that self-administered, computer-based, cued naming therapy using a common mixed-cue protocol may be beneficial to a wide range of persons with aphasia regardless of treatment schedule. If results are replicated with a larger sample, treatments such as this may be a low-cost supplement or extension to traditional aphasia therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ramsberger et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: