View clinical trials related to Aphasia.
Filter by:Communication Partner Training (CPT) is an evidence-based intervention that teaches communication partners (e.g., family members, friends, healthcare workers) how to best support conversation and interaction for a person with aphasia. It does not matter how mild or severe a person's aphasia is, they can be a good candidate for CPT as long as their communication partner is motivated and willing to adapt their communication style. The objective of this study is to see the effects of communication partner training for the management of persons with aphasia. A randomized controlled trial will be conducted. In total, 6 dyads will be randomly assigned to the intervention (CPT program) or usual care (control) group. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) V 25. will be used for Data analysis. Results will be extracted. Conclusion will be made after comparing the pre and post treatment results on person with aphasia.
The aim of the trial is to determine whether 75Hz transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) synchronized with therapeutic linguistic tasks is an effective form of therapy for post-stroke aphasia.
Aphasia, or language impairment after a stroke, affects approximately 2 million people in the United States, with an estimated 180,000 new cases each year. The medical community cannot predict how well someone with aphasia will respond to treatment, as some people with aphasia are poor responders to intervention even when participating in empirically supported treatments. There is a strong likelihood that genetics play a role in language recovery after stroke, but very little research has been dedicated to investigating this link. This study will investigate whether two genes and cognitive abilities, such as memory, predict responsiveness to aphasia therapy for word-retrieval difficulties.
The observational study aims to investigate the effect of two factors that influence the ease with which aphasic and healthy participants name visual stimuli. The main factors investigated here are the image type of the visual stimulus (drawing or photographic image) and the response variety (standard language vs dialect). The hypothesis is formulated as follows: The image type of the visual stimulus (drawing or photographic image) and the response variety (standard language or dialect) will have an effect on naming correctness and/or naming latencies in people with aphasia within the picture naming test. The experiment was as follows: Persons with aphasia and healthy participants were presented with objects and verbs depicted as photographs or illustrations on a tablet. All participants were asked to name the depicted term in two different language varieties as correctly and as fast as possible. Answers were recorded synchronously. No feedback should be given to the participants (=no therapy). The results of picture naming were not analyzed patient-specifically in relation to their condition or therapy. Naming performance was collected as a momentary data set in order to investigate the speed of naming in general. The ethic committee Northwestern and Central Switzerland approved the study to be observational as no effect of intervention(s) on biomedical or other health related outcomes were evaluated, but only the influence of type of the visual stimulus and the response variety on correctness and naming latencies in the two participant groups.
Although there is evidence that speech-language therapy may improve speech in language disorders following left hemisphere stroke there is still a lack of evidence for which types of therapy are effective. Furthermore, in Sweden, as well as in several other countries, access to speech-language therapy is limited. The purpose of this clinical trial is to compare outcome from Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) provided as In-Clinic therapy (I-CT) or as synchronous telepractice therapy (TP-T).
Aphasia is an impairment in the expression or comprehension of language that results from stroke, traumatic brain injury or progressive neurological disease. Approximately two million people in the United States suffer from aphasia, which has profound impacts on quality of life, the ability to return to work and participation in life activities. Research has shown that speech-language therapy, the treatment for aphasia, can significantly improve people's ability to communicate. However, a major limitation in the field of aphasia rehabilitation is the lack of predictability in patients' response to therapy and the inability to tailor treatment to individuals. Currently, aphasia treatments are selected largely based on patient's language abilities and language deficits with little consideration of learning ability, which this study refers to as learning phenotype. Learning phenotype has been used to inform rehabilitation approaches in other domains but is not currently considered in aphasia. The overarching hypothesis of this work is that poor alignment of learning ability and language therapy limits progress for patients and presents a barrier to individualizing treatment. The objectives of the proposed study are to (1) determine the learning phenotype of individuals with aphasia, and (2) examine how lesion characteristics (size and location of damage to the brain), language ability and cognitive ability relate to learning ability. To accomplish objectives, investigators propose to measure implicit (observational) and explicit (rule-based) learning ability in people with aphasia via computer-based tasks. Regression models will be used to examine brain and behavioral factors that relate to learning ability.
The proposed research will test the efficacy of group conversation treatment for people with aphasia and explore whether the effects of treatment differ as a result of the following factors: 1. Group size: Do large groups of 6-8 people with aphasia or dyads of 2 people with aphasia demonstrate different levels of improvement with this treatment? 2. Group composition: Do effects of conversation group treatment differ if the groups include members with similar or different types of aphasia? 3. Aphasia severity: Do effects of conversation group treatment differ if the individuals within the group have mild-moderate or moderate-severe profiles of aphasia? Treatment sessions will occur in groups of 6-8 people with aphasia or with 2 people with aphasia. During treatment sessions, discourse will be facilitated on a focused set of every day topics, such as current events or travel. Linguistic and multi modal cueing hierarchies will be tailored to individual client goals and used to maximize communication success. The prediction is that conversation treatment is an effective method for improving communication in people with aphasia, but that specific benefits may differ based on variables such as group size, group composition, and aphasia severity. The results will help inform best practices for aphasia treatment and refine a hypothesized model about the mechanisms underlying conversation treatment.
Aphasia is a devastating acquired language impairment mainly caused by stroke, in which anomia is a quintessential clinical feature. If speech-language therapy (SLT) has been shown to be effective for persons with aphasia, the relative efficiency of one SLT strategy over another remains a matter of debate. The influential relationship between language, executive functions and aphasia rehabilitation outcomes has been addressed in a number of studies, but only few of them have studied the effect of adding an executive training to linguistic therapies.The aim of this study is to measure the efficiency of a protocol combining anomia therapy and executive training on naming skills and discourse in post-stroke aphasic persons at the chronic stage
The optimal site of neuromodulation for post-stroke aphasia has yet to be established. This study will investigate whether multiple sessions of cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) boosts language therapy in helping people recover from aphasia as well as predict who is likely to respond to cerebellar tDCS.
Strokes often cause a loss of communication ability, referred to as aphasia, as well as cognitive difficulties. Each stroke survivor has a unique pattern of strengths and weaknesses in communication and cognition, and a unique course of recovery. The BUILD study aims to understand the brain basis of these individual differences in stroke outcome. Participants with stroke as well as controls matched in age, educational background, race, and sex are examined using a combination of standardized and in-house tests of language and cognition to provide a detailed profile of strengths and weaknesses. Each participant will have between three and six sessions, including an MRI to measure details of the structure, function, and connections in the brain. The data are analyzed to test how patterns in the stroke lesion explain the patterns of communication and cognitive difficulties, and how patterns in the uninjured parts of the brain explain resilience and recovery from the stroke. Ultimately, we hope that BUILD will guide us toward new targets for brain stimulation treatments or other biologically based treatments that improve language and cognitive abilities after stroke.