AbstractThis research aims to identify severaltreatments in facilitating the patients of anomic aphasia.
The design of this research was libraryresearch. The purpose of this design was to give some comparisons about some existing theories. The method which is used on this research wasdescriptive comparative study. This method was to help the researcher to make their researchreport was easily to be done.
The process of collecting the data is in many ways, the first was searching the research and browsing some literatures. There were severalstudies conducted in helping the anomic aphasia patients. These studies come toseveral treatments, namely Personalized Cueing, Semantic FeatureAnalysis (SFA) treatment and PhonologicalComponents Analysis (PCA) treatment.Introduction There are many topics throughout thisentire semester in Psycholinguistics class. One of the topic is discussionabout aphasia. There are several types of aphasia. One of them is anomia. Accordingto Ahlsen (2006), those who suffer from anomia have problems in naming objectswhich is from visually displayed, fromverbal descriptions, or from memory.
The anomic patients’ speech is fluent as well as theirlanguage understanding. Their grammatical speech is correct. The problem isonly in finding appropriateword to identify an object or person.
They usually speak in roundbout way inorder to express a certain word they cannot remember. Anomia can happen to anyone. There is noother way to predict when it happens. Once someone starts showing the symtoms,it means that this problem will inhibits the patients for the rest of theirlife. In worst scenario, it will leads to cronic aphasia. Anomia can be causedby several factors, such as genetic or brain damage in the part of parientallobe or the temporal lobe which is from an accident or a brain tumor.
Manyresearchers come to the conclusion that damage to the left hemisphere of the brain are more likely tohave anomic aphasia.However, several studies have beenconducted in facilitating the anomic patients. According to Ralph, Sage, andRobets (2000) the anomic patients can be helped, at least temporarily, byproviding appropriate cues. Presentingthe first sound of the target or a sentence tocomplete were the most effective types of cue.
In addition they foundthat the effectiveness of cueing (overall) was related to the degree of anomia. Still, there are numbers oftreatments in allevieting the anomic patients.Research MethodThe design of thisresearch was library research. The purpose of this design was to give some comparisons aboutsome existing theories. The method which is used on this research was descriptive comparative study. This method was to help the researcherto make their research report was easily to be done. The process of collecting the data is in many ways, the first was searching the research and browsing some literatures. Comparing thesome theories was the last step.
From those ways it can find the result or thedata. The data in this research was collected from some sources: The Effect of Personalized Cueing on Long-Term Naming of Realistic Visual Stimuli, Semantic FeatureAnalysis Treatment for Aphasic Word Retrieval Impairments: What’s in A Name? , Treating Naming Impairments in Aphasia:Findings from A Phonological Components Analysis Treatment, and A Comparison of Semantic Feature Analysis and PhonologicalComponents Analysis for The Treatment of Naming Impairments in Aphasia.Result and DiscussionThe first research was conducted by DonalB. Freed and Robert C. Marshall in 1995. The title is The Effect of Personalized Cueing on Long-Term Naming of Realistic Visual Stimuli. This study focuses on the benefits of encouraging people with anomic aphasia to create their own cues for recalling names.
The participant was tenadults with aphasia (APH) and 10 adults with no brain damage (NBD). All thesubjects are between 45 and 74 years old, are right-handed, are English nativespeaker, and between 12 and 16 years of education. The APH subject. The APH subjectwere confirmed by CT scan, MRI, or clinical neurologic examination to have asingle left-hemisphere stroke at least 12 months. They indicated languagedeficit as shown in diagnostic tests.
While none of the NBD subjects had anypast medical history of stroke, traumatic head injury, or brain tumor. In this experiment, for the first trial, thesubjects were asked to name up 60 photographs of dog and bird categories. Fromphotograpsh they could not name, 40 were selected randomly. Then, the subjectwere taught the names of 20 of the dogs pictured in the stimuli viapersonalized cueing, while other 20 items (10 additional dog pictures and 10bird pictures) served as untrained, sematically unrelated/control items.
Ashort paragraph about the general information and historical about the animalwas printed in the back of each paragraph. For the 20 trained items,the researcher verbally provided the personalized cues and asked the subjectsto name the dog in the photograph. Whenever the subject gave a correctresponse, the next picture was presented. If the response was incorrect, theresearcher verbally provide the correct response, and repeated the personalizedcue. For the 20 untrained items, the researcher simply presented the picturesand name for the subjects. The subjects did not have to give any verbal orgesture responses. The training were conducted three times a week for fourweeks. The result of thisresearch was NBD subjects performed significantly better than APH subjects, themost clinically relevant finding of this study is that the APH subjects areable to use personalized cueing to effectively learn the names of itemspictured in realistic visual stimuli.
The most important finding is that theeffect of training were durable over time. The strength of the APH subjects’long-term recall is seen in their scores for the trained items. They were55.25% correct one week after training was completed and 49.
75% correct after30 days. In conclusion, this study shows that personalized cueing can result inlong-term naming accuracy of realistic stimuli by NBD and APH subjects. The second research wasconducted by Mary Boyle in 2010. The title is Semantic FeatureAnalysis Treatment for Aphasic Word Retrieval Impairments: What’s in A Name?. this research looks at how teaching people to think aboutthe semantic properties of word helps them when trying to retrieve it.
Thebasic theory of SFA treatment is the model of lexical retrieval that concieveof the semantic system as a network ofconcepts. Onesemantic feature may be connected to a number of concepts. For instance, semantic features for APPLE include,
There were seven studies have applied SFA treatmentto individuals with aphasia at the naminglevel for nouns. Outcomes of these studies provides resulting in improved word retrieval of treated itemsfor most participants. These investigations reported the result of 17participants with aphasia. Sixteen of the 17participants improved their ability to name picturednouns. The third study was conducted by Carol Leonard,Elizabeth Rochon, and Laura Laird.
The title is Treatingnaming impairments in aphasia: Findings from a phonological components analysistreatment. This study was to document theeffectiveness of PCA treatment for the remediation of naming deficits inaphasia. PCA itself is a technique for helping the anomic aphasia to retrieve a word bythinking about how the word sounds.
The participants of this study were 6 men and 4 women. The average age was 61.7 years old. Thelevel of education was 13.9 years. The participantswere recruited from aphasia centres in the Toronto and Ottawa areas.
All the subjects were right-handed and andwere English-speaking individualswho had experienced a single left-hemisphere cerebrovascular accidentand were at least 1 year post-onsetat the time of enrolment.Based on diagnostic test, six individualspresented with Broca’s aphasia, two with anomic aphasia, one with mixednonfluent aphasia, and one with Wernicke’s aphasia. All participants had a namingimpairment defined by less than 75% accuracy. Allparticipants had visual perceptual abilities withinnormal limits as determined by the Minimal Feature Matching subtest of the BirminghamObject Recognition Battery and hearing for 8of the 10 participants was screened and found to be within normal limits. The stimuli of this experiment was consisted of 105 photographs. Each photographwas carefully chosen to be an unambiguous representative of the targeteditem. All photographs were pre-tested on a group of non-brain-damaged elderlyadults who were fluent speakers of English to ensure the photograph drew the desired targetword. For the first trial, participants werefirst shown all 105 coloured photographs and asked to name them in three serial sessions.
There were no cueing or feedback toprovide the photographs. Responses were scored as correctonly if the target word was produced completely accurately. Of the words thatwere in error in at least two of the three sessions, participants were asked to choosethe items that they would like to have treated. Of those words, 30 were chosenand divided into three lists of 10 words each. Participant 1 had fewer items in errorand it was only possible to construct two lists of six words each. The listsfor each participant were equated as much as possible by category,frequency, and number of syllables. In addition, when possible, each listcontained up to five words that theparticipant could name in order to ensure some success during treatment.In this study 7 of 10participants shows improvements in naming treated items.
Inaddition, the effects of treatment were found to be long lasting as all sevenparticipants showed somelevel of maintenance of treatment effects at 1-month follow-up. This finding is incontrast to a long-held view that the effects of phonological treatment foranomia are short lived although it must be acknowledged that the useof picture stimuli in this study meant that there was also a semantic component tothe therapy approach. Another finding is perhaps a more active engagement on the part of the participantin his/her therapy is necessaryto produce longer-lasting effects. Such an explanation may help to explain the results; the generation of the phonological components for PCAtherapy required of the participants such an engagement.
The fourth study was conducted by Sophia VanHees, Katie McMahon, and David Copland (2013). The title is A comparison of semantic feature analysis and phonologicalcomponents analysis for the treatment of naming impairments in aphasia. This study aims toinvestigate the relative effects of SFA andPCA therapy for naming in a group of people with aphasia. The participants were eight people withaphasia (five females and three males). All the participants were diagnosed asto have aphasia. The participants’ age range from 41 to 69 years old, and werebetween 17 and 170 months postsingle left cerebrovascular accident (CVA) atthe time of the study.
All participants had English asa first or primary language prior to stroke, were right handed, and had normalor corrected-to-normal vision and hearing. None of the participants hada history of any other neurological disease or disorder, mental illness, headtrauma, alcoholism, cerebral tumor or abscess, or any significant cognitivedeficits (e.g., memory, attention). None of the participants had a reportedhistory of moderate to severe apraxia of speech or dysarthria. Further,initial observations of each participant at the commencement of thestudy indicated that language production was not significantly impacted bymotor speech impairment for any participant.The treatment began with each participantchose 90 items that they were not able to name. The 90 items were then split into three sets of 30 items andeach set was assigned to either a treatment type (SFA or PCA) or tothe untreated control set.
For each participant, the three sets were matchedfor number of phonemes, syllables, and characters,age of acquisition, Centre for Lexical Information, imageability aswell as mean response time and percent name agreement. Additionally,each set was matched for number of correctly nameditems at baseline for each individual.Three therapy sessions were conducted each week for four weeks (12 sessions intotal). Each session continued until the full set of 30 items was completed. Afterevery fourth session, all treatment items as well as the untreated controlset were probed for naming performance.
Additionally, in a follow up session two to three weeksafter the final session, all items were re-assessed to examine maintenance oftreatment effects. In the treatment process, each picture was presented as a black line drawing in the centerof a matrix displayed onMicrosoft Office PowerPoint (2007).The instruction of the treatment tasks followed the sameprocedure as previous studies in SFA and PCA.First, participants were asked to name the item. Regardless of participants’ability to name the item, they were then asked to produce the features ofthe item according to each cue word in the matrix.
For SFA the cues were:group, use, action, properties, location, and association. Meanwhile, forPCA the cues were: first sound, syllables, last sound, association, and.As responses were provided, they were typed intothe relevant boxes by the reseachers. If a participant wasunable to produce a response, the reseachers provideda response both orally and in writtenform. After all the features were produced, the participant was askedto name the item again.
Regardless of correct/incorrect response, the reseachers then reviewed all the features of the object and asked theparticipant to name the item once more. If the participant still gave incorrect name the item, thereseachers provided a model that the participant then repeated. Eachsession continued until all items from the treatment set were completed.
The result was seven of the eight participants made significant improvementsimmediately post-treatment for items treated with PCA. Only four participantssignificantly improved in naming itemstreated with SFA. Both participants with primarily semantic impairments did notsignificantly improve on naming items treated with the semantic task. These results were likely to be impacted by severity of aphasia, whereparticipants with mild anomia may have been more likely to maximum effects compared to participants with more severe anomia. Theresults of the study do not support the hypothesis that the phonologically andsemantically-based tasks would benefit individuals with predominantlyphonological or semantic impairments. Conclusion Anomia which is categorized as mild aphasiacan happen to anyone. There are several factors that can cause someone sufferfrom anomic aphasia.
However, several studies have been conducted in how toalleviate the patients. The study conducted by Donal B. Freed and Robert C.
Marshall in 1995 shows that personalized cues can be one of the way. Thistherapy enables the patients toeffectively learn the names of items pictured in realistic visual stimuli.Another study conducted by Mary Boyle also shows an improvement to the anomicpatients.
This study focuses on the implementation of Semantic Feature Analysis(SFA) treatment which reflects that the semantic properties of aword helps the anomic patients in retrieving it. Thefollowing study is based on the previous study that is Phonological ComponentsAnalysis (PCA) treatment. This therapy helps an anomic patient to retrievea word by thinking about how the word sounds. To sumup, there are several treatment in facilitating patients of anomic aphasia.