AphasiaNCT00125242
Word-Retrieval Treatment for Aphasia: Semantic Feature Analysis
A study testing Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA)Training in people with Aphasia and Language Disorders, run by US Department of Veterans Affairs at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The purpose of this investigation is to further develop and test a treatment for word-finding problems in aphasia. The treatment is designed to strengthen meaning associations within categories of words (e.g., animals, tools, fruits). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 21 to 80 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Aphasia, Language Disorders, Speech Disorders
- What is being tested?
- Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA)Training
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 110 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Jul 2005to Apr 2013
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 21 to 80 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Diagnosis of Wernicke's, Broca's, or Conduction aphasia with significant word-retrieval deficits
- At least 6 months post-onset of single, left-hemisphere stroke
- Minimum of high-school education
- Visual and auditory acuity sufficient for experimental tasks
- Nonverbal intelligence within normal limits
Who cannot join
- Diagnosed mental illness other than depression
- Neurological condition other than that which resulted in aphasia
- History of alcohol or substance abuse
- Non-native English speaker
- Premorbid history of speech/language disorder
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City, Utah, 84148
About this study
Official title: Word-Retrieval for Aphasia: Facilitation of Generalization
The purpose of this investigation is to further develop and test a treatment for word-finding problems in aphasia. The treatment is designed to strengthen meaning associations within categories of words (e.g., animals, tools, fruits). The treatment is also designed to be used as a search strategy in instances of word-finding difficulty. The study was devised to evaluate the extent to which treatment increases the ability to recall trained, as well as untrained, words.
Read the detailed description
The purpose of the proposed research is to examine the effects of a semantically-oriented treatment on word retrieval in persons with aphasia. The planned investigations are designed to further the development of semantic feature training so that it may serve as not only a mechanism for improving disrupted lexical semantic processing, but also as a compensatory strategy during word retrieval failures. The proposed research will also address the issue of exemplar typicality (Kiran \& Thompson, 2003) by examining the effects of training typical versus atypical exemplars of various categories with individuals with different types of aphasia. A series of 24 single subject experimental designs will be conducted in the context of a group design to address the following experimental questions:
- Will training atypical examples of living and artifact noun categories using semantic feature training result in a significantly different outcome* than training typical examples of living and artifact noun categories?
- Will training of one category of nouns using semantic feature training result in improved retrieval of untrained categories of nouns?
- Will effects of semantic feature training vary across aphasia types?
- Will semantic feature training result in increased production of content during discourse?
- Will generalization to untrained typical examples vary across generalization lists that are repeatedly exposed and those that are limited in exposure? (i.e., Does repeated exposure appear to contribute to generalization?)
- Outcome measure will reflect acquisition, response generalization within category, and response generalization across category effects of treatment.
- Conditions
- Aphasia, Language Disorders, Speech Disorders
- Being tested
- Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA)Training
- Keywords
- Aphasia, Language therapy, Rehabilitation of speech and language disorders, Speech-language pathology
- Medical subject headings
- Aphasia, Language Disorders, Speech Disorders
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA)TrainingBehavioural
SFA entails having the speech-language pathologist (SLP) guide the participant through generation of pertinent semantic features for pictured treatment items (e.g., category membership, physical description, location of item in context, personal associations, action associated with item). For some participants, treatment items were grouped according to typicality of category membership (e.g,, a robin-typical bird and penguin-atypical bird). Training of atypical items may stimulate a broader semantic activation of the category and thus, may promote greater generalization. Treatment was applied sequentially to sets of items in the context of single-subject, multiple baseline designs. In this way, replication of treatment effects could be evaluated within and across participants. Treatment was administered by certified SLPs three times per week until prescribed accuracy levels were met during nontreatment probes or a maximum number of treatment sessions was completed.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) | Experimental | Word retrieval treatment for aphasia. Receives: Behavioral: Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA)Training |
| Participants for Stimuli Development | No intervention | Non-brain-injured participants provided data for development of treatment stimuli. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Word Retrieval Accuracy
Accuracy of naming of pictured treated and untreated items was assessed in probes conducted separate from treatment. Probes were conducted repeatedly throughout the study, from baseline (prior to treatment) to follow-up (6 weeks following treatment). All naming responses were scored using a 0-10 scale reflecting promptness and presence of errors; scores of 8-10 received an "accuate" score and scores of 0-7 received an "inaccurate" score. A percentage accuracy score was calculated for each experimental set of items for every probe session. Baseline probe scores were compared to end of treatment and follow-up probe scores to obtain individual effect sizes for each experimental list of items for each participant (i.e., several effect sizes were calculated for each participant). All effect sizes were utlized to obtain an average effect size for each participant; these averages were then utlized to obtain a group average.
Measured: End of treatment and at 6 weeks post treatment
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted29 Jul 2005 (estimated)
- Study startJul 2005
- Primary completionFeb 2009
- Study completionApr 2013
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for AphasiaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 110 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- US Department of Veterans Affairs
- Sponsor type
- US federal agency
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Julie L. Wambaugh, PhD, Principal investigator, VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00125242
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- C3826-R
- Status last verified
- Dec 2014
- First submitted
- 27 Jul 2005
- Last updated
- 24 Dec 2014
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Wambaugh JL, Mauszycki S, Cameron R, Wright S, Nessler C. Semantic feature analysis: incorporating typicality treatment and mediating strategy training to promote generalization. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2013 May;22(2):S334-69. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2013/12-0070).
PubMed 23695909Wambaugh JL, Mauszycki S, Wright S. Semantic feature analysis: Application to confrontation naming of actions in aphasia. Aphasiology. 2013 Oct 28; 28(1):DOI:10.1080/02687038.2013.845739.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 24 Dec 2014. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Word-Retrieval for Aphasia: Facilitation of Generalization
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00125242
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- C3826-R
- Conditions
- Aphasia, Language Disorders, Speech Disorders
- Keywords
- Aphasia, Language therapy, Rehabilitation of speech and language disorders, Speech-language pathology
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 110 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- US Department of Veterans AffairsUS federal agency
- Study start
- Jul 2005
- Primary completion
- Feb 2009 (actual)
- Study completion
- Apr 2013 (actual)
- First posted
- 29 Jul 2005 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 24 Dec 2014
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of this investigation is to further develop and test a treatment for word-finding problems in aphasia. The treatment is designed to strengthen meaning associations within categories of words (e.g., animals, tools, fruits). The treatment is also designed to be used as a search strategy in instances of word-finding difficulty. The study was devised to evaluate the extent to which treatment increases the ability to recall trained, as well as untrained, words.
Detailed description
The purpose of the proposed research is to examine the effects of a semantically-oriented treatment on word retrieval in persons with aphasia. The planned investigations are designed to further the development of semantic feature training so that it may serve as not only a mechanism for improving disrupted lexical semantic processing, but also as a compensatory strategy during word retrieval failures. The proposed research will also address the issue of exemplar typicality (Kiran \& Thompson, 2003) by examining the effects of training typical versus atypical exemplars of various categories with individuals with different types of aphasia. A series of 24 single subject experimental designs will be conducted in the context of a group design to address the following experimental questions:
- Will training atypical examples of living and artifact noun categories using semantic feature training result in a significantly different outcome* than training typical examples of living and artifact noun categories?
- Will training of one category of nouns using semantic feature training result in improved retrieval of untrained categories of nouns?
- Will effects of semantic feature training vary across aphasia types?
- Will semantic feature training result in increased production of content during discourse?
- Will generalization to untrained typical examples vary across generalization lists that are repeatedly exposed and those that are limited in exposure? (i.e., Does repeated exposure appear to contribute to generalization?)
- Outcome measure will reflect acquisition, response generalization within category, and response generalization across category effects of treatment.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) | Experimental | Behavioral: Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA)TrainingWord retrieval treatment for aphasia. |
| Participants for Stimuli Development | No intervention | –Non-brain-injured participants provided data for development of treatment stimuli. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 21 to 80 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Diagnosis of Wernicke's, Broca's, or Conduction aphasia with significant word-retrieval deficits
- At least 6 months post-onset of single, left-hemisphere stroke
- Minimum of high-school education
- Visual and auditory acuity sufficient for experimental tasks
- Nonverbal intelligence within normal limits
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Diagnosed mental illness other than depression
- Neurological condition other than that which resulted in aphasia
- History of alcohol or substance abuse
- Non-native English speaker
- Premorbid history of speech/language disorder
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA)TrainingSFA entails having the speech-language pathologist (SLP) guide the participant through generation of pertinent semantic features for pictured treatment items (e.g., category membership, physical description, location of item in context, personal associations, action associated with item). For some participants, treatment items were grouped according to typicality of category membership (e.g,, a robin-typical bird and penguin-atypical bird). Training of atypical items may stimulate a broader semantic activation of the category and thus, may promote greater generalization. Treatment was applied sequentially to sets of items in the context of single-subject, multiple baseline designs. In this way, replication of treatment effects could be evaluated within and across participants. Treatment was administered by certified SLPs three times per week until prescribed accuracy levels were met during nontreatment probes or a maximum number of treatment sessions was completed. | Behavioural | Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) |
Primary outcome
Word Retrieval Accuracy
Time frame: End of treatment and at 6 weeks post treatment
Accuracy of naming of pictured treated and untreated items was assessed in probes conducted separate from treatment. Probes were conducted repeatedly throughout the study, from baseline (prior to treatment) to follow-up (6 weeks following treatment). All naming responses were scored using a 0-10 scale reflecting promptness and presence of errors; scores of 8-10 received an "accuate" score and scores of 0-7 received an "inaccurate" score. A percentage accuracy score was calculated for each experimental set of items for every probe session. Baseline probe scores were compared to end of treatment and follow-up probe scores to obtain individual effect sizes for each experimental list of items for each participant (i.e., several effect sizes were calculated for each participant). All effect sizes were utlized to obtain an average effect size for each participant; these averages were then utlized to obtain a group average.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 24 Dec 2014.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Results publication: PubMed 23695909Wambaugh JL, Mauszycki S, Cameron R, Wright S, Nessler C. Semantic feature analysis: incorporating typicality treatment and mediating strategy training to promote generalization. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2013 May;22(2):S334-69. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2013/12-0070).
- Results publicationWambaugh JL, Mauszycki S, Wright S. Semantic feature analysis: Application to confrontation naming of actions in aphasia. Aphasiology. 2013 Oct 28; 28(1):DOI:10.1080/02687038.2013.845739.
Related trials for Aphasia
Not yet recruiting
BrainGate2: Feasibility Study of an Intracortical Neural Interface System for Persons With Aphasia (BG-Aphasia-01)
Expressive Aphasia, Aphasia Following Cerebral Infarction
Recruiting
Effect of Anomia Rehabilitation Combined With Metacognitive Training in Patients With Chronic Vascular Aphasia
Aphasia, Stroke
Not yet recruiting
Restoring Speech With an Intracortical Neuroprosthesis for Post-Stroke Agrammatic Aphasia (BG-Aphasia-02)
Aphasia, ALS
Not yet recruiting
Cerebellar Brain Stimulation Plus Language Therapy for People at Risk of Poor Aphasia Recovery After Stroke
Aphasia, Stroke
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Detecting and Predicting Post-stroke Cognitive Impairment Using the Oxford Cognitive Screen
Stroke, Ischemic Stroke
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Julie L. Wambaugh, PhD principal investigator
VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA)Training in people with Aphasia and Language Disorders, run by US Department of Veterans Affairs at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 Dec 2014. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 24 Dec 2014). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Word Retrieval Accuracy (time frame: End of treatment and at 6 weeks post treatment). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00125242, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 24 Dec 2014.