↓ Skip to main content

Semantic Feature Training for the Treatment of Anomia in Alzheimer Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Semantic Feature Training for the Treatment of Anomia in Alzheimer Disease
Published in
Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, March 2016
DOI 10.1097/wnn.0000000000000088
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kieran J. Flanagan, David A. Copland, Sophia van Hees, Gerard J. Byrne, Anthony J. Angwin

Abstract

This is a preliminary investigation into the effectiveness of semantic feature training for the treatment of anomia in Alzheimer disease (AD). Anomia is a common clinical characteristic of AD. It is widely held that anomia in AD is caused by the combination of cognitive deficits and progressive loss of semantic feature information. Therapy that aims to help participants relearn or retain semantic features should, therefore, help treat anomia in AD. Two men with AD and one man with progressive nonfluent aphasia received 10 treatment sessions focused on relearning the names of 20 animals and 20 fruits. Within each category, half of the items were of high and half were of low typicality. We individualized treatment items to each participant, using items that each had not named correctly at baseline. Treatment sessions consisted of naming, category sorting, and semantic feature verification tasks. Both participants with AD showed post-treatment improvements in naming, and one maintained the treatment effects at 6-week follow-up. The semantic category of the treatment items influenced post-treatment outcomes, but typicality did not. In contrast to the participants with AD, the man with progressive nonfluent aphasia had no improvement in naming ability. Our results suggest the potential viability of semantic feature training to treat anomia in AD and, therefore, the need for further research.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 22%
Student > Master 18 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Researcher 3 3%
Student > Postgraduate 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 32 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 34 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Linguistics 2 2%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 33 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 25 March 2016.
All research outputs
#4,835,823
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology
#79
of 324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,041
of 312,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 324 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
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 312,604 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them