↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of semantic feature analysis and phonological components analysis for the treatment of naming impairments in aphasia

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
209 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A comparison of semantic feature analysis and phonological components analysis for the treatment of naming impairments in aphasia
Published in
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, October 2012
DOI 10.1080/09602011.2012.726201
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sophia van Hees, Anthony Angwin, Katie McMahon, David Copland

Abstract

Therapy for naming impairments post-stroke typically involves semantic and/or phonologically-based tasks. However, the relationship between individuals' locus of breakdown in word retrieval and their response to a particular treatment approach remains unclear, and direct comparisons of treatments with different targets (semantics, phonology) yet similar formats are lacking. This study examined eight people with aphasia who each received 12 treatment sessions; half the sessions involved a semantically-based treatment task, Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA), and the other half involved a phonologically-based treatment task, Phonological Components Analysis (PCA). Pre-therapy baseline accuracy scores were compared to naming accuracy post-treatment and at follow-up assessment. Seven of the eight participants showed significant improvements in naming items treated with PCA, with six of these seven participants maintaining improvements at follow-up. Four of the eight participants showed significant improvements for items treated with SFA, with three of the four maintaining improvements at follow-up. The semantic therapy was not beneficial for participants with semantic deficits. In contrast, the phonological therapy was beneficial for most participants, despite differences in underlying impairments. Understanding the relationship between an individual's locus of breakdown in word retrieval and response to different treatment tasks has the potential to optimise targeted treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 205 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 54 26%
Student > Bachelor 31 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 10%
Other 12 6%
Student > Postgraduate 11 5%
Other 34 16%
Unknown 46 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 13%
Psychology 28 13%
Linguistics 26 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 10%
Neuroscience 19 9%
Other 30 14%
Unknown 57 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 October 2014.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
#540
of 735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,576
of 202,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 735 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 202,002 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.