↓ Skip to main content

Relationship between Self-Administered Cues and Rehabilitation Outcomes in Individuals with Aphasia: Understanding Individual Responsiveness to a Technology-Based Rehabilitation Program

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2017
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 (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Relationship between Self-Administered Cues and Rehabilitation Outcomes in Individuals with Aphasia: Understanding Individual Responsiveness to a Technology-Based Rehabilitation Program
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carrie A. Des Roches, Annette Mitko, Swathi Kiran

Abstract

An advantage of rehabilitation administered on computers or tablets is that the tasks can be self-administered and the cueing required to complete the tasks can be monitored. Though there are many types of cueing, few studies have examined how participants' response to rehabilitation is influenced by self-administered cueing, which is cueing that is always available but the individual decides when and which cue to administer. In this study, participants received a tablet-based rehabilitation where the tasks were selfpaced and remotely monitored by a clinician. The results of the effectiveness of this study were published previously (Des Roches et al., 2015). The current study looks at the effect of cues on accuracy and rehabilitation outcomes. Fifty-one individuals with aphasia completed a 10-week program using Constant Therapy on an iPad targeted at improving language and cognitive deficits. Three questions were examined. The first examined the effect of cues on accuracy collapsed across time. Results showed a trend where the greater the cue use, the lower the accuracy, although some participants showed the opposite effect. This analysis divided participants into profiles based on cue use and accuracy. The second question examined how each profile differed in percent cue use and on standardized measures at baseline. Results showed that the four profiles were significantly different in frequency of cues and scores on WAB-R, CLQT, BNT, and ASHA-FACS, indicating that participants with lower scores on the standardized tests used a higher percentage of cues, which were not beneficial, while participants with higher scores on the standardized tests used a lower frequency of cues, which were beneficial. The third question examined how the relationship between cues and accuracy was affected by the course of treatment. Results showed that both more and less severe participants showed a decrease in cue use and an increase in accuracy over time, though more severe participants continued to used a greater number of cues. It is possible that self-administered cues help some individuals to access information that is otherwise inaccessible, even if there is not an immediate effect. Ultimately, the results demonstrate the need for individually modifying the levels of assistance during rehabilitation. time, though more severe participants continued to used a greater number of cues. It is possible that self-administered cues help some individuals to access information that is otherwise inaccessible, even if there is not an immediate effect. Ultimately, the results demonstrate the need for individually modifying the levels of assistance during rehabilitation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Researcher 7 11%
Other 5 8%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Linguistics 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 16 25%
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 01 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,028,501
of 24,807,923 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,286
of 7,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,658
of 430,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#57
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,807,923 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,553 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 430,144 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 182 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 69% of its contemporaries.