↓ Skip to main content

Assessment and treatment of short‐term and working memory impairments in stroke aphasia: a practical tutorial

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
250 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
Assessment and treatment of short‐term and working memory impairments in stroke aphasia: a practical tutorial
Published in
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, June 2015
DOI 10.1111/1460-6984.12172
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christos Salis, Helen Kelly, Chris Code

Abstract

Aphasia following stroke refers to impairments that affect the comprehension and expression of spoken and/or written language, and co-occurring cognitive deficits are common. In this paper we focus on short-term and working memory impairments that impact on the ability to retain and manipulate auditory-verbal information. Evidence from diverse paradigms (large group studies, case studies) report close links between short-term/working memory and language functioning in aphasia. This evidence leads to the hypothesis that treating such memory impairments would improve language functioning. This link has only recently been acknowledged in aphasia treatment but has not been embraced widely by clinicians. To examine the association between language, and short-term and working memory impairments in aphasia. To describe practical ways of assessing short-term and working memory functioning that could be used in clinical practice. To discuss and critically appraise treatments of short-term and working memory reported in the literature. Taking a translational research approach, this paper provides clinicians with current evidence from the literature and practical information on how to assess and treat short-term and working memory impairments in people with aphasia. Published treatments of short-term and/or working memory in post-stroke aphasia are discussed through a narrative review. This paper provides the following. A theoretical rationale for adopting short-term and working memory treatments in aphasia. It highlights issues in differentially diagnosing between short-term, working memory disorders and other concomitant impairments, e.g. apraxia of speech. It describes short-term and working memory assessments with practical considerations for use with people with aphasia. It also offers a description of published treatments in terms of participants, treatments and outcomes. Finally, it critically appraises the current evidence base relating to the treatment of short-term and working memory treatments. The links between short-term/working memory functioning and language in aphasia are generally acknowledged. These strongly indicate the need to incorporate assessment of short-term/working memory functioning for people with aphasia. While the supportive evidence for treatment is growing and appears to highlight the benefits of including short-term/working memory in aphasia treatment, the quality of the evidence in its current state is poor. However, because of the clinical needs of people with aphasia and the prevalence of short-term/working memory impairments, incorporating related treatments through practice-based evidence is advocated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 246 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 20%
Student > Bachelor 40 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 12%
Researcher 16 6%
Student > Postgraduate 13 5%
Other 42 17%
Unknown 58 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 55 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 14%
Neuroscience 29 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 6%
Linguistics 13 5%
Other 37 15%
Unknown 67 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 14 July 2015.
All research outputs
#6,353,664
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
#476
of 1,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,705
of 277,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
#5
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 277,309 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.