Rehabilitation of lexical retrieval in aphasia: Evidence ...

Rehabilitation of
in aphasia: E
semantic c

Swathi
Boston U

Funding support from NIH/NI
ASHF New Century Researc
New Investigator Grant, ASH

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

f lexical retrieval
Evidence from
complexity

i Kiran
University

IDCD RO3, R21.
ch Scholars Grant; ASHF
HF Clinical Research Grant

Treatment for lexic

Restitutive Treatme
Reactivate or Impairme
relearn aspects of
language

Outpu

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA Rothi (19
RESEARCH LABORATORY

cal retreival deficits

ent

ent Substitutive
ut treatment
995)
Engage intact
systems to
compensate for
language
impairment

• Start with objects and provide
tactile cues– start with repetition
and fade repetition cues

• Semantic map for each item

– Pre-set attributes, function, color,
category, location,

• Semantic map for a specific
category- have them name and
generate

• Minimal pair contrast
• Rhyme judgment/processing
• Neologisms- work towards

awareness
• Give them functional cues or assist

with a gesture
• Use written naming as a self cue
• Ask them to visualize the target-
• Give them carrier phrases to

choose
• Drawing the target word

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

• Categorization
• Semantic feature discrimination
• Generate features for superordinate

category/example
• Category generation-describe

category boundaries
• Synonyms and antonyms
• Connect semantic features to Phon

Representation
• Phonemic Cueing
• Self Cueing
• Memorizing spelling of words
• Generate the initial grapheme of

target
• Specific category features, separate

out trained and untrained
• Have them write the target and read

what they have written
• Rely on pictures
• Naming to definition task
• Verbal analogies

• Start with objects and provide
tactile cues– start with repetition
and fade repetition cues

• Semantic map for each item

– Pre-set attributes, function, color,
category, location,

• Semantic map for a specific
category- have them name and
generate

• Minimal pair contrast
• Rhyme judgment/processing
• Neologisms- work towards

awareness
• Give them functional cues or assist

with a gesture
• Use written naming as a self cue
• Ask them to visualize the target-
• Give them carrier phrases to

choose
• Drawing the target word

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

• Categorization
• Semantic feature discrimination
• Generate features for superordinate

category/example
• Category generation-describe

category boundaries
• Synonyms and antonyms
• Connect semantic features to Phon

Representation
• Phonemic Cueing
• Self Cueing
• Memorizing spelling of words
• Generate the initial grapheme of

target
• Specific category features, separate

out trained and untrained
• Have them write the target and read

what they have written
• Rely on pictures
• Naming to definition task
• Verbal analogies

Why is this distin

• Generalization to unt

• Long term maintenan
effects

• Comparative effectiv
approaches

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

nction important?

trained items/contexts
nce of treatment

veness of treatment

What is gene

Apple

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

eralization??

TREATMENT

Orange

Generaliz

Within category Cross modal
generalization
1. Reading->
1. Complex to simple 2. Writing-> r

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

zation

l generalization Cross language
generalization
> naming, writing
reading, naming 1. Trained to untrained
language

Generaliz

Within category Cross modal
generalization
1. Reading->
1. Complex to simple 2. Writing-> r

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

zation

l generalization Cross language
generalization
> naming, writing
reading, naming 1. Trained to untrained
language

Generalization bas

Semantic Sy

Fruits Tools
Vegetables

Birds Animals

The man pushed the woman Syntactic s

(___) VERB (____)

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

sed on complexity

ystem

structure

Complexity in Sentence structure
• Thompson et al., (1993).

– WHO  WhaT

• Thompson et al., (1996).

– WHO <-> WHAT
– WHERE <-> WHEN

• Thompson et al., (1997)

– Object clefts -> who questions

• It was the artist who the thief cha
• Who did the thief chase?

– Passives -> subject raising
– The thief was chased by the artis
– The thief seems to have been cha

• Thompson, Shapiro, Kiran & Sobe
• Object relative sentence -> Objec

– The man saw the artist who the th
– It was the artist who the thief chas
– Who did the thief chase?

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

ased

st
ased by the artist

ecks (2003):
ct clefts, WHO questions

hief chased
sed

Generaliz

Within category Cross modal
generalization
1. Reading->
1. Complex to simple 2. Writing-> r

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

zation

l generalization Cross language
generalization
> naming, writing
reading, naming 1. Trained to untrained
language

Generaliz

Within category Cross modal
generalization
1. Reading->
1. Complex to simple 2. Writing-> r

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

zation

l generalization Cross language
generalization
> naming, writing
reading, naming 1. Trained to untrained
language

Cross modal g

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA Kiran, Thompson
RESEARCH LABORATORY Kiran, 2005;
Kiran & Viswanat

generalization

Oral Naming

Oral Reading Written Naming

Oral spelling

n, Hashimoto, 2001;
than, 2008

Generaliz

Within category Cross modal
generalization
1. Reading->
1. Complex to simple 2. Writing-> r

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

zation

l generalization Cross language
generalization
> naming, writing
reading, naming 1. Trained to untrained
language

Cross language

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA Edmonds & K
RESEARCH LABORATORY Kiran & Robe

e generalization

Kiran, 2006;
erts, in press

Generalization
The effect of exe

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

within category
emplar typicality

Representatio

In normal individuals
• 1. Some examples are consi

the category than others (Ros
• 2. Typical examples are prod

name (e.g., Hampton, 1995)
• 3. Typical examples are verif

examples (Hampton, 1979, 1993; Rip

1974)

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

on of typicality

istently rated more typical of

sch, 1975; Uyeda & Mandler, 1981)

duced more often to a category

fied faster than atypical

ps et al., 1973; Rosch, 1975; Smith et al.,

In Aph

• Patients with posterio
with difficulty at categ
at activating the cate

1980, Grossman, 1981)

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

hasia

or aphasia present
gory boundaries and
egory prototype (Grober et al.,

Typicality effect i
and in patients w

Evidence for the typicality effect

Category verification: “is robin a bird”?
Feature verification: “Does this bird fly?

Oral Naming: What kind of bird is this?

Treatment for naming deficits Kir

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

in normal individuals
with aphasia

Kiran & Thompson, 2003b;
Kiran, Ntorou, & Eubank, 2007;

Sebastian & Kiran (submitted)
Kiran & Allison (submitted)

Kiran & Allison (submitted)

ran & Thompson (2003a); Kiran, (under revision)
Kiran & Johnson, (submitted)

Assum

Atypical examples represe
in sp

Measured by longer time
compared

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

mption 1

ented further from the center
pace
es for atypical examples
d to typical

Animate c

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

categories

Clothing

Inanimate

Used t

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

categories

•Optional
•Decorative accessory

•Covers legs
•Present in any wardrobe
•Used to protect body

toCplortohtinegct body

•Worn in warm weather
•Present in any wardrobe
•Used to protect body

•Optional
•Decorative accessory
•Worn on special occasions

Assump

The nature and extent o
different c

BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
RESEARCH LABORATORY

ption 2:

of typicality varies across
categories

Category

750 ms ISI: 200 ms Category-Typ

Shapes Females
Q
Cylinder
Category-Aty
Shapes
Crescent Females
C

Shapes Category-Non
Canary
Females

Shapes Category-No
RhuggedBOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
Female
RESEARCH LABORATORY

verification task

pical Body parts
Finger
Queen
Body parts
ypical Liver

Cowgirl Body parts
Shark
nmember
Body parts
Ferry Yaked

onword

Skorks

Probability of category PProrboabbailibtyiloitfycaotfecgoartyemgoermyber Probability of category member
member member
BOSTON UNIVERSITY APHASIA
Typical Typical
TypRicEaSElARCH LABORAATOtyRpYical
Atypical Atypical

Nonmembe Non Nonmemb

Living categories: Birds
(Kiran & Thompson, 2003)
Nonliving categories: Clothing
(Kiran, Ntourou, & Eubank, 2007)

bers

nmembers Well defined categories: Odd
Numbers
(Kiran, Johnson & Bassetto,
2006)

Ad hoc categories: Things at
a garage sale
(Sebastian & Kiran, 2007)

ers