↓ Skip to main content

Relearning and Retaining Personally-Relevant Words using Computer-Based Flashcard Software in Primary Progressive Aphasia

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Relearning and Retaining Personally-Relevant Words using Computer-Based Flashcard Software in Primary Progressive Aphasia
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00561
Pubmed ID
Authors

William S. Evans, Megan Quimby, Michael Walsh Dickey, Bradford C. Dickerson

Abstract

Although anomia treatments have often focused on training small sets of words in the hopes of promoting generalization to untrained items, an alternative is to directly train a larger set of words more efficiently. The current case study reports on a novel treatment for a patient with semantic variant Primary Progressive Aphasia (svPPA), in which the patient was taught to make and practice flashcards for personally-relevant words using an open-source computer program (Anki). Results show that the patient was able to relearn and retain a large subset of her studied words for up to 20 months, the full duration of the study period. At the end of treatment, she showed good retention for 139 words. While only a subset of the 591 studied overall, this is still far more words than is typically targeted in svPPA interventions. Furthermore, she showed evidence of generalization to perceptually distinct stimuli during confrontation naming and temporary gains in semantic fluency, suggesting limited gains in semantic knowledge as a result of training. This case represents a successful example of patient-centered treatment, where the patient used a computer-based intervention independently at home. It also illustrates how data captured from computer-based treatments during routine clinical care can provide valuable "practice-based evidence" for motivating further treatment research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 71 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Other 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Professor 6 8%
Other 17 24%
Unknown 13 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 11%
Neuroscience 6 8%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 20 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 November 2016.
All research outputs
#13,482,115
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,072
of 7,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,788
of 270,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#99
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,174 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 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 270,377 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.