↓ Skip to main content

Improving Production of Treated and Untreated Verbs in Aphasia: A Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 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
Improving Production of Treated and Untreated Verbs in Aphasia: A Meta-Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00468
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vânia de Aguiar, Roelien Bastiaanse, Gabriele Miceli

Abstract

Background: Demographic and clinical predictors of aphasia recovery have been identified in the literature. However, little attention has been devoted to identifying and distinguishing predictors of improvement for different outcomes, e.g., production of treated vs. untreated materials. These outcomes may rely on different mechanisms, and therefore be predicted by different variables. Furthermore, treatment features are not typically accounted for when studying predictors of aphasia recovery. This is partly due to the small numbers of cases reported in studies, but also to limitations of data analysis techniques usually employed. Method: We reviewed the literature on predictors of aphasia recovery, and conducted a meta-analysis of single-case studies designed to assess the efficacy of treatments for verb production. The contribution of demographic, clinical, and treatment-related variables was assessed by means of Random Forests (a machine-learning technique used in classification and regression). Two outcomes were investigated: production of treated (for 142 patients) and untreated verbs (for 166 patients). Results: Improved production of treated verbs was predicted by a three-way interaction of pre-treatment scores on tests for verb comprehension and word repetition, and the frequency of treatment sessions. Improvement in production of untreated verbs was predicted by an interaction including the use of morphological cues, presence of grammatical impairment, pre-treatment scores on a test for noun comprehension, and frequency of treatment sessions. Conclusion: Improvement in the production of treated verbs occurs frequently. It may depend on restoring access to and/or knowledge of lexeme representations, and requires relative sparing of semantic knowledge (as measured by verb comprehension) and phonological output abilities (including working memory, as measured by word repetition). Improvement in the production of untreated verbs has not been reported very often. It may depend on the nature of impaired language representations, and the type of knowledge engaged by treatment: it is more likely to occur where abstract features (semantic and/or grammatical) are damaged and treated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 142 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Student > Master 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Researcher 8 6%
Professor 7 5%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 64 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 15%
Neuroscience 16 11%
Linguistics 13 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 6%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 66 46%
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 21 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,697,083
of 23,325,355 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,339
of 7,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,456
of 322,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#108
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,325,355 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,266 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 322,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.