Skip to content

Effect of Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) on Lexical Retrieval in Aphasia

Effect Of Verb Network Strengthening Treatment on Lexical Retrieval in Aphasia

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01300624
Acronym
VNeST
Enrollment
11
Registered
2011-02-21
Start date
2011-03-31
Completion date
2014-07-31
Last updated
2015-06-09

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Aphasia

Keywords

Aphasia, therapy, treatment, verbs, sentences

Brief summary

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) on the ability to produce sentences and connected speech in persons with aphasia.

Detailed description

Stroke is the leading cause of disability in the United States today, and aphasia, a language disorder that affects production and comprehension of language, remains one of the most devastating aspects of stroke recovery. The most prominent symptom of aphasia is difficulty retrieving words, especially in sentence production and connected speech (e.g., telling a story, having a conversation). The current project examines the effect Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST), a language therapy, on the ability of persons with moderate aphasia to retrieve words in sentences and connected speech. The primary goals of VNeST are to 1) increase the specificity of nouns and verbs in sentences, 2) maximize improvement to untrained words across a variety of language tasks, and 3) engage and challenge participants with salient and relevant treatment materials and activities. Persons with aphasia who are enrolled in the study will receive VNeST for 10 weeks for 4 hours per week. Treatment tasks involve the retrieval of nouns related to a target verb. For example, for the verb measure, participants would come up with people who measure and what they measure (e.g., carpenter/lumber, chef/sugar). They would then answer questions related to why, where, and when these things might occur (e.g., for carpenter/measure, they might say to get the right length of board, (why) at a construction site, (where) and when building a house (where)). Cues and assistance are provided to the participants when they are unable to complete any given task. As the participants improve, cues are reduced. Prior to treatment, testing will be conducted on participants to establish their abilities to retrieve words in the following contexts: 1) naming pictures of objects and actions, 2) sentences, and 3) connected speech. Participants and a family member or friend (i.e., proxy) will also complete a questionnaire about how the participant is able to communicate in everyday tasks (e.g., indicating yes or no, providing medical information). During the treatment phase, sentence production abilities on items related to treatment will be examined in order to determine how word retrieval abilities are changing with treatment. After the completion of treatment, all measures examined prior to treatment (including the questionnaire) will be re-examined in order to determine whether improvement was observed. Additionally, participants will complete testing one more time 3 months after the completion of treatment to determine if post-treatment improvements were maintained. Finally, an analysis of improvement over time across the treatment phase will be examined in order to determine the rate of improvement (or lack of it) over time. All statistical analyses will use group data (i.e., group design), but additional examination of improvements for each participant (i.e., single subject design) will also be conducted. Thus, the overall experimental design is a mix of group and single subject analyses. The findings from this study will help to inform aphasia treatment practices and potentially allow for a larger study with more participants in a clinical trial.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALVerb Network Strengthening Treatment

Treatment to improve word retrieval in sentences and discourse for persons with aphasia due to stroke.

Sponsors

US Department of Veterans Affairs
Lead SponsorFED

Study design

Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 89 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Veterans with a diagnosis of aphasia * primary language is English * aphasia due to stroke

Exclusion criteria

* Functionally bilingual

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Trained Sentence Probepre-treatment, post-treatment and 3-months post-treatment (maintenance)Picture description task that include trained words.
Untrained Sentence Probespre-treatment, post-treatment and 3-months post-treatment (maintenance)Picture description with sentences containing untrained words.
Complete Utterances in Discoursepre-treatment, post-treatment and 3-months post-treatment (maintenance)Sentence in discourse that were relevant to topic and syntactically correct

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Noun Namingpre-treatment and post-treatmentConfrontation naming of 162 objects
Communicative Effectiveness Ratingspre-treatment, post-treatment and 3-months post-treatment (maintenance)This questionnaire (Lomas et al, 1989) was provided to persons who communicated with the treatment participant regularly (e.g., a spouse). They rated how well the participant was able to perform on 16 common communication tasks (e.g., participating in a conversation over coffee). They rated each scenario along a line that spanned between the two extremes of ability, from not at all able to as able as before the stroke. The line was 100 mm. To score responses, the place where they bisected the line was measured. An average of their responses across the 16 questions was calculated.
Verb Namingpre-treatment and post-treatmentConfrontation of 100 action pictures
Western Aphasia Batterypre-treatment and post-treatmentStandardized measure of aphasia severity

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Verb Network Strengthening Treatment
Treatment tasks involve the retrieval of nouns related to a target verb. For example, for the verb measure, participants would come up with people who measure and what they measure (e.g., carpenter/lumber, chef/sugar). They would then answer questions related to why, where, and when these things might occur (e.g., for carpenter/measure, they might say to get the right length of board, (why) at a construction site, (where) and when building a house (where). Cues and assistance are provided to the participants when they are unable to complete any given task. As the participants improve, cues are reduced.
11
Total11

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicVerb Network Strengthening Treatment
Age, Continuous63.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.4
Communicative Effectiveness Ratings32.6 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 65.3
Complete Utterances in discourse39.7 Percentage of complete utterances
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.9
Noun naming79.9 Percentage of correct naming
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.3
Region of Enrollment
United States
11 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
4 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
7 Participants
Trained sentence probes20.4 Percentage correct sentence production
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.3
Untrained sentence probe19.8 Percentage correct sentence production
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11
Verb naming64.6 Percentage of correct naming
STANDARD_DEVIATION 18.2
Western Aphasia Battery75.9 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.4

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 11
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 11

Outcome results

Primary

Complete Utterances in Discourse

Sentence in discourse that were relevant to topic and syntactically correct

Time frame: pre-treatment, post-treatment and 3-months post-treatment (maintenance)

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Verb Network Strengthening TreatmentComplete Utterances in DiscoursePre-treatment39.7 percentage of complete utterancesStandard Deviation 11.9
Verb Network Strengthening TreatmentComplete Utterances in DiscoursePost-treatment46.7 percentage of complete utterancesStandard Deviation 16
Verb Network Strengthening TreatmentComplete Utterances in Discourse3 months post-treatment (maintenance)47.9 percentage of complete utterancesStandard Deviation 13.8
Primary

Trained Sentence Probe

Picture description task that include trained words.

Time frame: pre-treatment, post-treatment and 3-months post-treatment (maintenance)

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Verb Network Strengthening TreatmentTrained Sentence ProbePre-treatment20.4 percentage of correct sentencesStandard Deviation 13.3
Verb Network Strengthening TreatmentTrained Sentence ProbePost-treatment58.8 percentage of correct sentencesStandard Deviation 33.9
Verb Network Strengthening TreatmentTrained Sentence Probe3 months post-treatment (maintenance)56.0 percentage of correct sentencesStandard Deviation 29.9
Primary

Untrained Sentence Probes

Picture description with sentences containing untrained words.

Time frame: pre-treatment, post-treatment and 3-months post-treatment (maintenance)

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Verb Network Strengthening TreatmentUntrained Sentence ProbesPre-treatment19.8 percentage of correct sentencesStandard Deviation 11
Verb Network Strengthening TreatmentUntrained Sentence ProbesPost-treatment40.9 percentage of correct sentencesStandard Deviation 24.9
Verb Network Strengthening TreatmentUntrained Sentence Probes3 months post-treatment (maintenance)43.0 percentage of correct sentencesStandard Deviation 27.5
Secondary

Communicative Effectiveness Ratings

This questionnaire (Lomas et al, 1989) was provided to persons who communicated with the treatment participant regularly (e.g., a spouse). They rated how well the participant was able to perform on 16 common communication tasks (e.g., participating in a conversation over coffee). They rated each scenario along a line that spanned between the two extremes of ability, from not at all able to as able as before the stroke. The line was 100 mm. To score responses, the place where they bisected the line was measured. An average of their responses across the 16 questions was calculated.

Time frame: pre-treatment, post-treatment and 3-months post-treatment (maintenance)

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Verb Network Strengthening TreatmentCommunicative Effectiveness RatingsPre-treatment32.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.7
Verb Network Strengthening TreatmentCommunicative Effectiveness RatingsPost-treatment65.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.2
Verb Network Strengthening TreatmentCommunicative Effectiveness Ratings3 months post-treatment (maintenance)58.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.6
Secondary

Noun Naming

Confrontation naming of 162 objects

Time frame: pre-treatment and post-treatment

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Verb Network Strengthening TreatmentNoun NamingPre-treatment79.9 percentage of correct namingStandard Deviation 12.3
Verb Network Strengthening TreatmentNoun NamingPost-treatment85.1 percentage of correct namingStandard Deviation 12.6
Secondary

Verb Naming

Confrontation of 100 action pictures

Time frame: pre-treatment and post-treatment

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Verb Network Strengthening TreatmentVerb NamingPre-treatment64.6 percentage of correct namingStandard Deviation 18.2
Verb Network Strengthening TreatmentVerb NamingPost-treatment74.2 percentage of correct namingStandard Deviation 16
Secondary

Western Aphasia Battery

Standardized measure of aphasia severity

Time frame: pre-treatment and post-treatment

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Verb Network Strengthening TreatmentWestern Aphasia BatteryPre-treatment75.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.4
Verb Network Strengthening TreatmentWestern Aphasia BatteryPost-treatment82.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.6

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026