Aphasia Signs and Symptoms Aphasia
Conditions
Interventions
Participants were recruited in 4 cohorts. Two cohorts (1 and 4) were randomly allocated to the immediate group and two (2 and 3) to the waitlist control group. Assignment of the cohorts was determin
i.e. the first five recruits were assigned to cohort one, the next five to cohort two and so on. This meant that there were four periods of intervention, one for each cohort. Testing occurred at thr
but received the intervention between week 8 and week 12. The intervention consisted of five weeks (25 hours) of language stimulation provided in a bespoke virtual communication environment called Eva
Sponsors
City University London
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: 1. Diagnosis of aphasia following a stroke that occurred at least 4 months prior to the study 2. Fluent users of English prior to their stroke 3. Some spoken output (scoring at least 20% correct on the picture naming subtest of the Comprehensive Aphasia Test (Swinburn et al, 2004) 4. Impaired functional communication
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: 1. No uncorrected visual impairment 2. No hearing loss above 40Db 3. No severe impairments of speech comprehension (scoring above 70% correct on the CAT test of Spoken Word to Picture Matching; and above chance on the CAT test of Sentence to Picture Matching).
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| 1. Functional communication, assessed by the Communication Activities of Daily Living - 2 Test (CADL-2, Holland et al, 1999) 2. Communicative confidence, assessed by the Communication Confidence Rating Scale for Aphasia (CCRSA, Babbitt & Cherney, 2010) 3. Feelings of social isolation, assessed by the Friendship Scale (Hawthorn, 2006) Measures were administered at three time points post participant recruitment: week 1, week 7 and week 13 | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| 1. Verbal fluency, using a category naming task 2. Word retrieval in conversation, using indices from the Profile of Word Errors and Retrieval in Speech (POWERS, Herbert et al, 2013) 3. Word production in narrative, using indices from the Quantitative Production Analysis, Berndt et al, 2000) 4. The Social Network Analysis (Antonucci & Akiyama, 1987) examined whether participants’ social contacts expanded as a result of the intervention All measures were administered at week 1, week 7 and week 13 Participants' views about the intervention were also probed with post intervention interviews Human Computer Interaction assessments, involving structured observations during intervention, explored their use of Eva Park | — |
Countries
England, United Kingdom
Contacts
Public ContactJane Marshall
Outcome results
None listed