Volume 15, Issue 3 (September 2017)                   Iranian Rehabilitation Journal 2017, 15(3): 259-268 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Sadeghi Z, Baharloei N, Moddarres Zadeh A, Ghasisin L. Comparative Effectiveness of Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) and Phonological Components Analysis (PCA) for Anomia Treatment in Persian Speaking Patients With Aphasia. Iranian Rehabilitation Journal 2017; 15 (3) :259-268
URL: http://irj.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-732-en.html
Comparative Effectiveness of Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) and Phonological Components Analysis (PCA) for Anomia Treatment in Persian Speaking Patients With Aphasia
Zahra Sadeghi1 , Nahid Baharloei2 , Amin Moddarres Zadeh3 , Leila Ghasisin * 1
1- Student Research Committee, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
2- Communication Disorders Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
3- Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract:   (9140 Views)

Objectives: Anomia is one of the most common and persistent symptoms of aphasia. Although treatments of anomia usually focus on semantic and/or phonological levels, which both have been demonstrated to be effective, the relationship between the underlying functional deficit in naming and response to a particular treatment approach remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between the effects of specific treatments (Semantic feature Analysis and Phonological Components Analysis) and their underlying functional deficit patterns within the framework of a cognitive processing model.
Methods: In an ABCB reversal control task design, four participants with aphasia were selected according to the criteria based on using a cognitive model of lexical processing. Each patient received two types of treatment. In SFA, features semantically associated to the target words were elicited from the patient, whereas in PCA treatment, the phonological components of the target words were the focus of treatment. Naming accuracy scores obtained in pre-treatment baseline phase were compared to post-treatment accuracy scores. Here, both item-specific effects and generalization of untrained items were analyzed.
Results: Both SFA and PCA treatments have the potential to improve naming ability in participants; however, the treatment approach that corresponds exactly to the underlying deficit causing failure in word retrieval is more effective.
Discussion: While PCA is more effective for participants with phonological impairments, SFA is more effective for participants with semantic impairments. Therefore, a direct relationship between underlying functional deficit and response to specific treatment was established for all participants.

Keywords: Anomia, Aphasia, Semantic feature analysis, Phonological analysis
Full-Text [PDF 547 kb]   (3526 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (3519 Views)  
Article type: Original Research Articles | Subject: Speech therapy
Received: 2017/07/1 | Accepted: 2017/08/20 | Published: 2017/10/2
References
1. Goodglass H, Wingfield A. Anomia: Neuroanatomical and cognitive correlates. Cambridge: Academic Press; 1997.
2. Foygel D, Dell GS. Models of impaired lexical access in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language. 2000; 43(2):182–216. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2716 [DOI:10.1006/jmla.2000.2716]
3. Laine M, Martin N. Anomia: Clinical and theoretical aspects.Hove: Psychology Press; 2006.
4. Miceli G, Amitrano A, Capasso R, Caramazza A. The treatment of anomia resulting from output lexical damage: Analysis of two cases. Brain and Language. 1996; 52(1):150–74. doi: 10.1006/brln.1996.0008 [DOI:10.1006/brln.1996.0008]
5. Nettleton J, Lesser R. Therapy for naming difficulties in aphasia: Application of a cognitive neuropsychological model. Journal of Neurolinguistics. 1991; 6(2):139–57. doi: 10.1016/0911-6044(91)90004-3 [DOI:10.1016/0911-6044(91)90004-3]
6. Boyle M, Coelho CA. Application of semantic feature analysis as a treatment for aphasic dysnomia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 1995; 4(4):94. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360.0404.94 [DOI:10.1044/1058-0360.0404.94]
7. Collins AM, Loftus EF. A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review. 1975; 82(6):407–28. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.82.6.407 [DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407]
8. Massaro M, Tompkins CA. Feature analysis for treatment of communication disorders in traumatically brain-injured patients: An efficacy study. Clinical Aphasiology. 1994; 22:245-56.
9. Ylvisaker M, Szekeres S. Cognitive language intervention with brain-injured adolescents and adults. Paper presented at: The Annual Convention of the Illinois Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 11 November 1985; Chicago, Illinois, United States.
10. Coelho CA, McHugh RE, Boyle M. Semantic feature analysis as a treatment for aphasic dysnomia: A replication. Aphasiology. 2000; 14(2):133–42. doi: 10.1080/026870300401513 [DOI:10.1080/026870300401513]
11. Boyle M. Semantic feature analysis treatment for anomia in two fluent aphasia syndromes. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology. 2004; 13(3):236. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2004/025) [DOI:10.1044/1058-0360(2004/025)]
12. Maddy KM, Capilouto GJ, McComas KL. The effectiveness of semantic feature analysis: An evidence-based systematic review. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. 2014; 57(4):254–67. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2014.03.002 [DOI:10.1016/j.rehab.2014.03.002]
13. Leonard C, Rochon E, Laird L. Treating naming impairments in aphasia: Findings from a phonological components analysis treatment. Aphasiology. 2008; 22(9):923–47. doi: 10.1080/02687030701831474 [DOI:10.1080/02687030701831474]
14. Van Hees S, Angwin A, McMahon K, Copland D. A comparison of semantic feature analysis and phonological components analysis for the treatment of naming impairments in aphasia. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation. 2013; 23(1):102–32. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2012.726201 [DOI:10.1080/09602011.2012.726201]
15. Raymer AM, Thompson CK, Jacobs B, Le Grand HR. Phonological treatment of naming deficits in aphasia: Model-based generalization analysis. Aphasiology. 1993; 7(1):27–53. doi: 10.1080/02687039308249498 [DOI:10.1080/02687039308249498]
16. Nickels L, Best W. Therapy for naming disorders (Part II): Specifics, surprises and suggestions. Aphasiology. 1996; 10(2):109–36. doi: 10.1080/02687039608248401 [DOI:10.1080/02687039608248401]
17. Drew RL, Thompson CK. Model based semantic treatment for naming deficits in aphasia. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research. 1999; 42(4):972. doi: 10.1044/jslhr.4204.972 [DOI:10.1044/jslhr.4204.972]
18. Ghasisin L, Yadegari F, Rahgozar M, Nazari A, Rastegarianzade N. A new set of 272 pictures for psycholinguistic studies: Persian norms for name agreement, image agreement, conceptual familiarity, visual complexity, and age of acquisition. Behavior Research Methods. 2014; 47(4):1148–58. doi: 10.3758/s13428-014-0537-0 [DOI:10.3758/s13428-014-0537-0]
19. Nilipour R, Pourshahbaz A, Ghoreyshi ZS. Reliability and validity of bedside version of Persian WAB (P-WAB-1). Basic and Clinical Neuroscience. 2014; 5(4):253-8. PMCID: PMC4656930 [PMID] [PMCID]
20. Roach A, Schwartz MF, Martin N, Grewal RS, Brecher A. The Philadelphia naming test: Scoring and rationale. Clinical Aphasiology. 1996; 24:121-33. doi: 10.1037/t56477-000 [DOI:10.1037/t56477-000]
21. Dell G, Lawler E, Harris H, Gordon J. Models of errors of omission in aphasic naming. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 2004; 21(2):125–45. doi: 10.1080/02643290342000320 [DOI:10.1080/02643290342000320]
22. Laganaro M, Morand S, Schnider A. Time course of evoked-potential changes in different forms of anomia in aphasia. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2009; 21(8):1499–510. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21117 [DOI:10.1162/jocn.2009.21117]
23. Kinugasa T, Cerin E, Hooper S. Single subject research designs and data analyses for assessing elite athletes conditioning. Sports Medicine. 2004; 34(15):1035–50. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200434150-00003 [DOI:10.2165/00007256-200434150-00003]
24. Kennedy CH. Single case designs for educational research. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2005.
25. Scruggs TE, Mastropieri MA, Cook SB, Escobar C. Early intervention for children with conduct disorders: A quantitative synthesis of single-subject research. Behavioral Disorders. 1986; 11(4):260-71.
26. Franklin S. Designing single case treatment studies for aphasic patients. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation. 1997; 7(4):401–18. doi: 10.1080/713755544 [DOI:10.1080/713755544]
27. Hillis AE. Efficacy and generalization of treatment for aphasic naming errors. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1989; 70(8):632-6. PMID: 2764694 [PMID]
Send email to the article author

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb