1 / 1

Participants were Broca’s aphasic as per Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) 14

Go Aphasia!: Examining the efficacy of Constraint-Induced Language Therapy for agrammatic aphasia Christine Virion & Yasmeen Faroqi-Shah University of Maryland, College Park. Protocol. Discussion. Background. o-CILT produced limited gains, hence:

filomena-veagh
Download Presentation

Participants were Broca’s aphasic as per Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) 14

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Go Aphasia!:Examining the efficacy of Constraint-Induced Language Therapy for agrammatic aphasia Christine Virion & Yasmeen Faroqi-Shah University of Maryland, College Park Protocol Discussion Background • o-CILT produced limited gains, hence: • For agrammatic aphasia, constraint of compensatory strategies may not be sufficient to produce significant changes in test scores, structural and morphological measures. • g-cilt produced more significant gains that were maintained over 3 months, hence: • for individuals with agrammatic aphasia, morphosyntactic modifications such as an emphasis on tense marking, • enhance the benefit of CILT • enhance the longevity of benefits from CILT • Constraint-Induced Language Therapy (CILT)1,2 uses principles of • Constraint of compensatory strategies (e.g. gestures/writing) • Massed (intensive) practice in a group therapy format • Shaping of target behavior (i.e. cueing as necessary) • To overcome learned non-use &promote cortical reorganization4,5 • The evidence • Greater gains achieved and maintained with CILT vs. treatment allowing all modalities of communication, when matched for intensity (24 hours over 2 weeks)7 • Maintenance of gains with CILT even after 6 months8 • However, CILT groups in prior studies: • Included participants with heterogeneous profiles6,7 • Utilized activities that were not impairment-based • Given that: • In general, impairment-based treatments have well-demonstrated efficacy8 • Agrammatic aphasia is characterized by sentence structural and morphological (tense marking) impairments9,10 Future directions Questions • Would deficit specific modifications for other aphasic deficits demonstrate a benefit over o-CILT? • Would carryover activities and caregiver training increase maintenance of treatment effects? • What is the effectiveness of g-CILT in a clinical setting? • Is CILT in its original form (o-CILT) with emphasis on production constraints efficacious for individuals with agrammatic aphasia? • Does a modification to the o-CILT protocol, specifically the inclusion of a morphological constraint, increase the potential benefit for individuals with agrammatic aphasia? • . Results Methods References • Participants were • Broca’s aphasic as per Western Aphasia Battery (WAB)14 • Agrammatic speakers as per narrative analysis and Verb Inflection Test (VIT)11 scores under 70% • Assigned to one of two treatment groups (g-CILT, o-CILT) and matched based on baseline scores and other demographics • Repeated measures single-participant design • Baseline, Post-I(immediately following tx), Post-II(3-4 months post tx) • Assessments • Discourse measures: Proportion of sentences, proportion of well formed sentences, proportion of sentence types, noun:verb ratio, tense accuracy, tense variety, open class vs. closed class, & MLU • Bhogal, S.,et al. (2003). Stroke, 34, 987-993. • Morris, D., & Taub, E. (2001). Stroke Rehabilitation 8, 16-30. • Sterr, A., et al. (2006). Cognitive Behavioral Neurology, 19, 48-54. • Breier, J., et al. (2006). Neurocase, 12, 322-331. • Pulvermuller, F., et al. (2001). Stroke, 32, 1621-1626. • Maher, L., et al. (2006). J. of the International Neuropsychological Society,12, 843-852. • Meinzer, M., et al. (2005). Stroke, 36, 1462-1466. • Holland, A., et al.(1996). J. of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, S27-S36. • Faroqi-Shah, Y. & Thompson, C. (2007) J. of Memory and Language , 56, 129-151. • Thompson, C. & Shapiro, L. (2005). Aphasiology, 19. 1021-1036. • Faroqi-Shah, Y. (unpublished). Verb Inflection Pretest. • Goodglass, H., et al. (2000). Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination. • Kaplan, E., et al. (2000). Boston Naming Test. • Kertesz, A. (1982). Western Aphasia Battery. • Druks, J. & Masterson, J. (2000). An Object and Action Naming Battery. • 16. Szekely, A. et al. (2004). J. of Memory and Language,51, 247-250. Acknowledgements • This work was supported by a University of Maryland MCM Student Research Grant. • Special thanks to the participants, their caregivers, and families for their involvement in this study. • For further information, email: Yasmeen Farqoi-Shah at yshah@hesp.umd.edu or Christine Virion at christinevirion@gmail.com

More Related