Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
RECRUITING
NA
100 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2021-05-05
2026-03-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Efficacy of Telerehabilitation in the Patients With Aphasia
NCT02694133
Speech-Language Treatment With Remotely Supervised Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Primary Progressive Aphasia
NCT05901233
Primary Progressive Aphasia Multicomponent Language Treatment Study
NCT06649084
Aphasia Telerehabilitation
NCT02768922
Speech Rehabilitation Based on Mobile Applications
NCT06592183
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Aphasia Remote Therapy (ART)
All participants in this group will receive 3 weeks of daily semantically-focused treatment (semantic feature analysis, semantic barrier task and verb network strengthening therapy) and 3 weeks of daily phonologically-focused treatment (phonological components analysis, phonological production task, phonological judgment task). Participants will be randomized to order of treatment.
All treatment will be done remotely with a speech-language pathologist through an online platform using therapy applications. Participants will be provided with teletherapy kits (including an Internet hotspot if needed) to complete the therapy tasks.
Semantically-focused therapy tasks
1\) Semantic feature analysis (SFA; Boyle \& Coelho, 1995; Boyle, 2004). For each pictured stimulus the participant is prompted to name the picture. Then, s/he is encouraged to produce semantically related words that represent features similar to the target word. 2) Semantic barrier task. This approach includes features of the Promoting Aphasics' Communication Effectiveness (PACE; Davis \& Wilcox,1985). The goal of the task is for one participant (e.g., person with aphasia) to describe each card so that the other participant (e.g., clinician) can guess the picture on the card. 3) Verb network strengthening therapy (VNeST; Edmonds et al., 2009; 2014) targets lexical retrieval of verbs and their thematic nouns. The objective of VNeST is for the participant to generate verb-noun associates with the purpose of strengthening the connections between the verb and its thematic roles.
Phonologically-focused therapy tasks
1\) Phonological components analysis task (PCA; Leonard et al., 2008). The participant first attempts to name a given picture and then to identify the phonological features of the target words. 2) Phonological production task focuses on the identification of phonological features of targeted, imageable nouns and verbs. It requires the participant to sort picture stimuli based on the number of syllables and then to identify a hierarchy of phonological features. Once each targeted feature is identified for the pair of words, the participant is required to blend the syllables/sounds together. 3) Phonological judgment task relies on computerized presentation of verbs and nouns where participants are required to judge whether pairs of words include similar phonological features (e.g. # of syllables, initial phonemes, final phonemes, rhyming).
In-Clinic Therapy (I-CT)
All participants in this group will receive 3 weeks of daily semantically-focused treatment (semantic feature analysis, semantic barrier task and verb network strengthening therapy) and 3 weeks of daily phonologically-focused treatment (phonological components analysis, phonological production task, phonological judgment task). Participants will be randomized to order of treatment.
All treatment will be done in person with a speech-language pathologist at the UofSC Aphasia Lab.
Semantically-focused therapy tasks
1\) Semantic feature analysis (SFA; Boyle \& Coelho, 1995; Boyle, 2004). For each pictured stimulus the participant is prompted to name the picture. Then, s/he is encouraged to produce semantically related words that represent features similar to the target word. 2) Semantic barrier task. This approach includes features of the Promoting Aphasics' Communication Effectiveness (PACE; Davis \& Wilcox,1985). The goal of the task is for one participant (e.g., person with aphasia) to describe each card so that the other participant (e.g., clinician) can guess the picture on the card. 3) Verb network strengthening therapy (VNeST; Edmonds et al., 2009; 2014) targets lexical retrieval of verbs and their thematic nouns. The objective of VNeST is for the participant to generate verb-noun associates with the purpose of strengthening the connections between the verb and its thematic roles.
Phonologically-focused therapy tasks
1\) Phonological components analysis task (PCA; Leonard et al., 2008). The participant first attempts to name a given picture and then to identify the phonological features of the target words. 2) Phonological production task focuses on the identification of phonological features of targeted, imageable nouns and verbs. It requires the participant to sort picture stimuli based on the number of syllables and then to identify a hierarchy of phonological features. Once each targeted feature is identified for the pair of words, the participant is required to blend the syllables/sounds together. 3) Phonological judgment task relies on computerized presentation of verbs and nouns where participants are required to judge whether pairs of words include similar phonological features (e.g. # of syllables, initial phonemes, final phonemes, rhyming).
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Semantically-focused therapy tasks
1\) Semantic feature analysis (SFA; Boyle \& Coelho, 1995; Boyle, 2004). For each pictured stimulus the participant is prompted to name the picture. Then, s/he is encouraged to produce semantically related words that represent features similar to the target word. 2) Semantic barrier task. This approach includes features of the Promoting Aphasics' Communication Effectiveness (PACE; Davis \& Wilcox,1985). The goal of the task is for one participant (e.g., person with aphasia) to describe each card so that the other participant (e.g., clinician) can guess the picture on the card. 3) Verb network strengthening therapy (VNeST; Edmonds et al., 2009; 2014) targets lexical retrieval of verbs and their thematic nouns. The objective of VNeST is for the participant to generate verb-noun associates with the purpose of strengthening the connections between the verb and its thematic roles.
Phonologically-focused therapy tasks
1\) Phonological components analysis task (PCA; Leonard et al., 2008). The participant first attempts to name a given picture and then to identify the phonological features of the target words. 2) Phonological production task focuses on the identification of phonological features of targeted, imageable nouns and verbs. It requires the participant to sort picture stimuli based on the number of syllables and then to identify a hierarchy of phonological features. Once each targeted feature is identified for the pair of words, the participant is required to blend the syllables/sounds together. 3) Phonological judgment task relies on computerized presentation of verbs and nouns where participants are required to judge whether pairs of words include similar phonological features (e.g. # of syllables, initial phonemes, final phonemes, rhyming).
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
2. Participants must primarily speak English for at least the past 20 years.
3. Participants must be capable of giving informed consent or indicating another to provide informed consent.
4. Participants must be between 21-80 years of age.
5. Participants must be magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compatible (e.g., no metal implants, not claustrophobic) on a 3-Tesla (3T) scanner.
Exclusion Criteria
2. Participants must not have severely limited speech production (severe unintelligibility) and/or auditory comprehension that interferes with adequate participation in the therapy provided (i.e., WAB-R Spontaneous Speech rating scale score of 0-1 or WAB-R Comprehension score of 0-1).
3. Participants must not have a history of stroke to the right hemisphere of the brain.
4. Participants must not have a bilateral, cerebellar or brainstem stroke.
5. Participants must not have anything that makes them be 3T MRI incompatible
6. Insufficient intelligible speech to provide accurate responses with discourse/naming.
21 Years
80 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
NIH
Medical University of South Carolina
OTHER
University of South Carolina
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Julius Fridriksson
Primary Investigator
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Julius Fridriksson, Ph.D.
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of South Carolina
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University of South Carolina Aphasia Lab
Columbia, South Carolina, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Bak TH, Hodges JR. Kissing and dancing-a test to distinguish the lexical and conceptual contributions to noun/verb and action/object dissociation. Preliminary results in patients with frontotemporal dementia. Journal of Neurolinguistics. 2003; 16(2): 169-181.
Breitenstein C, Grewe T, Floel A, Ziegler W, Springer L, Martus P, Huber W, Willmes K, Ringelstein EB, Haeusler KG, Abel S, Glindemann R, Domahs F, Regenbrecht F, Schlenck KJ, Thomas M, Obrig H, de Langen E, Rocker R, Wigbers F, Ruhmkorf C, Hempen I, List J, Baumgaertner A; FCET2EC study group. Intensive speech and language therapy in patients with chronic aphasia after stroke: a randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint, controlled trial in a health-care setting. Lancet. 2017 Apr 15;389(10078):1528-1538. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30067-3. Epub 2017 Mar 1.
Brady MC, Kelly H, Godwin J, Enderby P, Campbell P. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jun 1;2016(6):CD000425. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000425.pub4.
Brady MC, Kelly H, Godwin J, Enderby P. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 May 16;(5):CD000425. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000425.pub3.
Boyle M. Semantic feature analysis treatment for anomia in two fluent aphasia syndromes. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2004 Aug;13(3):236-49. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2004/025).
Boyle M, Coelho CA. Application of semantic feature analysis as a treatment for aphasic dysnomia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 1995; 4(4): 913-919.
Cho-Reyes S, Thompson CK. Verb and sentence production and comprehension in aphasia: Northwestern Assessment of Verbs and Sentences (NAVS). Aphasiology. 2012;26(10):1250-1277. doi: 10.1080/02687038.2012.693584.
Conners C, Connelly V, Campbell S, MacLean M, Barnes J. Conners' Continuous Performance Test. Multi-Health Systems, Inc. 2000.
Davis JD. The Boston Cooking School Magazine of Culinary Science and Domestic Economics. Boston, MA: Boston Cooking-School Magazine. 1901.
Davis A, Wilcox J. Adult Aphasia Rehabilitation: Applied Pragmatics. San Diego, CA: Singular. 1985.
Dell GS, Schwartz MF, Martin N, Saffran EM, Gagnon DA. Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychol Rev. 1997 Oct;104(4):801-38. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.104.4.801.
Edmonds LA, Mammino K, Ojeda J. Effect of Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) in persons with aphasia: extension and replication of previous findings. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2014 May;23(2):S312-29. doi: 10.1044/2014_AJSLP-13-0098.
Edmonds LA, Nadeau SE, Kiran S. Effect of Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) on Lexical Retrieval of Content Words in Sentences in Persons with Aphasia. Aphasiology. 2009 Mar 1;23(3):402-424. doi: 10.1080/02687030802291339.
Fotiadou D, Northcott S, Chatzidaki A, Hilari, K. Aphasia blog talk: How does stroke and aphasia affect a person's social relationships? Aphasiology. 2014; 28(11): 1281-1300.
Grimes N. Walt Disney's Cinderella. New York, NY: Random House. 2005.
Hilari K, Byng S, Lamping DL, Smith SC. Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 (SAQOL-39): evaluation of acceptability, reliability, and validity. Stroke. 2003 Aug;34(8):1944-50. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000081987.46660.ED. Epub 2003 Jul 10.
Howard D, Patterson K, Franklin S, Orchard-Lisle V, Morton J. Treatment of word retrieval deficits in aphasia. A comparison of two therapy methods. Brain. 1985 Dec;108 ( Pt 4):817-29.
Kay J, Lesser R, Coltheart M. PALPA: Psycholinguistic assessments of language processing in aphasia. New York, NY: Psychology Press. 2009.
Kertesz A. Western Aphasia Battery-Revised. San Antonio, TX: Pearson. 2007.
Lau M. Who made that? New York Times Magazine, June 7, 2013.
Laver KE, Adey-Wakeling Z, Crotty M, Lannin NA, George S, Sherrington C. Telerehabilitation services for stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jan 31;1(1):CD010255. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010255.pub3.
Leonard C, Rochon E, Laird, L. Treating naming impairments in aphasia: Findings from a phonological components analysis treatment. Aphasiology. 2008; 22(9): 923-947.
Menn L, Ramsberger G, Estabrooks NH. A linguistic communication measure for aphasic narratives. Aphasiology. 1994; 8(4): 343-59.
Monsell S. On the relation between lexical input and output pathways for speech. In: Language Perception and Production: Relationships between Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing. Cognitive science series. Academic Press. 1987: 273-311.
Parmanto B, Lewis AN Jr, Graham KM, Bertolet MH. Development of the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ). Int J Telerehabil. 2016 Jul 1;8(1):3-10. doi: 10.5195/ijt.2016.6196. eCollection 2016 Spring.
Roach A, Schwartz MF, Martin N, Grewal RS, Brecher A. The Philadelphia Naming Test (PNT): Scoring and rationale. Clinical Aphasiology. 1996; 24: 121-134.
Simmons-Mackie N, Worral L, Murray L, Enderby, P. The top ten: Best practice recommendations for aphasia. Aphasiology. 2016; 31(2): 1-21.
Strand EA, Duffy JR, Clark HM, Josephs K. The Apraxia of Speech Rating Scale: a tool for diagnosis and description of apraxia of speech. J Commun Disord. 2014 Sep-Oct;51:43-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2014.06.008. Epub 2014 Jul 14.
Utianski RL, Duffy JR, Clark HM, Strand EA, Botha H, Schwarz CG, Machulda MM, Senjem ML, Spychalla AJ, Jack CR Jr, Petersen RC, Lowe VJ, Whitwell JL, Josephs KA. Prosodic and phonetic subtypes of primary progressive apraxia of speech. Brain Lang. 2018 Sep;184:54-65. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2018.06.004. Epub 2018 Jul 4.
Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences. 1996; 27(3): 451-481.
Wechsler D. Wechsler adult intelligence scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV). San Antonio,TX: NCS Pearson. 2008.
Winkler M, Bedford V, Northcott S, Hilari H. Aphasia blog talk: How does stroke and aphasia affect the carer and their relationship with the person with aphasia? Aphasiology. 2014; 28(11): 1301-1319.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
Pro00105675
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.