Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Semin Speech Lang 2016; 37(01): 048-060
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1571358
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

How Does Severity of Aphasia Influence Individual Responsiveness to Rehabilitation? Using Big Data to Understand Theories of Aphasia Rehabilitation

Swathi Kiran
1   Aphasia Research Laboratory, Boston University, Sargent College, Boston, Massachusetts
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
16 February 2016 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Our ability to make great progress in delivering, optimizing, and predicting rehabilitation outcomes for individuals with aphasia is challenged by factors that influence rehabilitation outcomes. These include patient demographic factors such as age, education, and neurologic factors such as time poststroke, the site and size of the lesion, and the resulting severity of language impairment. Also variable across individuals is the type of treatment and its duration and intensity. This article examines the utility of big data analysis for understanding one of these factors, severity of impairment, and how individual responsiveness to rehabilitation is influenced by a patient's severity of language and cognitive impairment(s). Using examples from two studies and a larger data set, we show that when rehabilitation is tailored to an individual's specific level of impairment, severe and mild patients both show improvements in accuracy and latency. Furthermore, more severe patients tend to show substantial gains on targeted rehabilitation tasks as well as on standardized tests. These results provide support for recent reviews of aphasia rehabilitation studies in concluding that systematic aphasia rehabilitation is indeed effective, and importantly, severity is not a negative prognostic indicator for successful outcomes.

Keywords

Big data - rehabilitation - technology - aphasia - individual responsiveness
 

  • References

  • 1 Kleim JA. Neural plasticity and neurorehabilitation: teaching the new brain old tricks. J Commun Disord 2011; 44 (05) 521-528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kleim JA, Jones TA. Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008; 51 (01) S225-S239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hope TM, Seghier ML, Leff AP, Price CJ. Predicting outcome and recovery after stroke with lesions extracted from MRI images. Neuroimage Clin 2013; 2: 424-433
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wang J, Marchina S, Norton AC, Wan CY, Schlaug G. Predicting speech fluency and naming abilities in aphasic patients. Front Hum Neurosci 2013; 7: 831
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lazar RM, Speizer AE, Festa JR, Krakauer JW, Marshall RS. Variability in language recovery after first-time stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2008; 79 (05) 530-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Plowman E, Hentz B, Ellis Jr C. Post-stroke aphasia prognosis: a review of patient-related and stroke-related factors. J Eval Clin Pract 2012; 18 (03) 689-694
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Allen L, Mehta S, McClure JA, Teasell R. Therapeutic interventions for aphasia initiated more than six months post stroke: a review of the evidence. Top Stroke Rehabil 2012; 19 (06) 523-535
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Teasell R, Mehta S, Pereira S. , et al. Time to rethink long-term rehabilitation management of stroke patients. Top Stroke Rehabil 2012; 19 (06) 457-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Brady MC, Kelly H, Godwin J, Enderby P. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 5: CD000425
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bowen A, Hesketh A, Patchick E. , et al. Effectiveness of enhanced communication therapy in the first four months after stroke for aphasia and dysarthria: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2012; 345: e4407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bhogal SK, Teasell RW, Foley NC, Speechley MR. Rehabilitation of aphasia: more is better. Top Stroke Rehabil 2003; 10 (02) 66-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bhogal SK, Teasell R, Speechley M. Intensity of aphasia therapy, impact on recovery. Stroke 2003; 34 (04) 987-993
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cherney LR, Patterson JP, Raymer A, Frymark T, Schooling T. Evidence-based systematic review: effects of intensity of treatment and constraint-induced language therapy for individuals with stroke-induced aphasia. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008; 51 (05) 1282-1299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Godecke E, Ciccone NA, Granger AS. , et al. A comparison of aphasia therapy outcomes before and after a very early rehabilitation programme following stroke. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2014; 49 (02) 149-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bakheit AM, Shaw S, Barrett L. , et al. A prospective, randomized, parallel group, controlled study of the effect of intensity of speech and language therapy on early recovery from poststroke aphasia. Clin Rehabil 2007; 21 (10) 885-894
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Thompson CK. Single subject controlled experiments in aphasia: the science and the state of the science. J Commun Disord 2006; 39 (04) 266-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Swales MA, Hill AJ, Finch E. Feature rich, but user-friendly: speech pathologists' preferences for computer-based aphasia therapy. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2015; 01-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Varley R. Rethinking aphasia therapy: a neuroscience perspective. Int J Speech-Language Pathol 2011; 13 (01) 11-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Brennan DM, Georgeadis AC, Baron CR, Barker LM. The effect of videoconference-based telerehabilitation on story retelling performance by brain-injured subjects and its implications for remote speech-language therapy. Telemed J E Health 2004; 10 (02) 147-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Goral M, Levy ES, Kastl R. Cross-language treatment generalisation: a case of trilingual aphasia. Aphasiology 2007; 103 (1–2): 203-204
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Goral M, Rosas J, Conner PS, Maul KK, Obler LK. Effects of language proficiency and language of the environment on aphasia therapy in a multilingual. J Neurolinguist 2012; 25 (06) 538-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Holland AL, Halper AS, Cherney LR. Tell me your story: analysis of script topics selected by persons with aphasia. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2010; 19 (03) 198-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Thompson CK, Choy JJ, Holland A, Cole R. Sentactics®: computer-automated treatment of underlying forms. Aphasiology 2010; 24 (10) 1242-1266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 van Vuuren S, Cherney LR. A virtual therapist for speech and language therapy. Intell Virtual Agents 2014; 8637: 438-448
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Doesborgh S, van de Sandt-Koenderman M, Dippel D, van Harskamp F, Koudstaal P, Visch-Brink E. Cues on request: the efficacy of Multicue, a computer program for wordfinding therapy. Aphasiology 2004; 18 (03) 213-222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Vanmourik M, Vandesandtkoenderman WME. Multicue. Aphasiology 1992; 6 (02) 179-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Fink RB, Brecher A, Schwartz MF, Robey RR. A computer-implemented protocol for treatment of naming disorders: evaluation of clinician-guided and partially self-guided instruction. Aphasiology 2002; 16 (10–11): 1061-1086
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Fink R, Brecher A, Sobel P, Schwartz M. Computer-assisted treatment of word retrieval deficits in aphasia. Aphasiology 2005; 19 (10) 943-954
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Raymer AM, Kohen FP, Saffell D. Computerised training for impairments of word comprehension and retrieval in aphasia. Aphasiology 2006; 20 (2–4) 257-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Jokel R, Rochon E, Anderson ND. Errorless learning of computer-generated words in a patient with semantic dementia. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2010; 20 (01) 16-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Palmer R, Enderby P, Cooper C. , et al. Computer therapy compared with usual care for people with long-standing aphasia poststroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Stroke 2012; 43 (07) 1904-1911
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Des Roches CA, Balachandran I, Ascenso EM, Tripodis Y, Kiran S. Effectiveness of an impairment-based individualized rehabilitation program using an iPad-based software platform. Front Hum Neurosci 2015; 8: 1015 . doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.01015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kiran S, Des Roches C, Balachandran I, Ascenso E. Development of an impairment-based individualized treatment workflow using an iPad-based software platform. Semin Speech Lang 2014; 35 (01) 38-50
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Laska AC, Kahan T, Hellblom A, Murray V, von Arbin M. A randomized controlled trial on very early speech and language therapy in acute stroke patients with aphasia. Cerebrovasc Dis Extra 2011; 1 (01) 66-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Godecke E, Hird K, Lalor EE, Rai T, Phillips MR. Very early poststroke aphasia therapy: a pilot randomized controlled efficacy trial. Int J Stroke 2012; 7 (08) 635-644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Pedersen PM, Vinter K, Olsen TS. Aphasia after stroke: type, severity and prognosis. The Copenhagen aphasia study. Cerebrovasc Dis 2004; 17 (01) 35-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 van Bragt PJ, van Ginneken BT, Westendorp T, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Wijffels MP, Ribbers GM. Predicting outcome in a postacute stroke rehabilitation programme. Int J Rehabil Res 2014; 37 (02) 110-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Robey RR. A meta-analysis of clinical outcomes in the treatment of aphasia. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1998; 41 (01) 172-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Persad C, Wozniak L, Kostopoulos E. Retrospective analysis of outcomes from two intensive comprehensive aphasia programs. Top Stroke Rehabil 2013; 20 (05) 388-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Kertesz A. Western Aphasia Battery (Revised). San Antonio, TX: PsychCorp; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Kaplan E, Goodglass H, Weintraub S. Boston Naming Test. Version 2nd Edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Howard D, Patterson K. The Pyramids and Palm Trees Test. Bury St. Edmunds, England: Thames Valley Test Company; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Helm-Estabrooks N. Cognitive Linguistic Quick Test. London, England: Harcourt Assessment; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 44 des Roches C, Mitko A, Kiran S. Relationship between levels of assistance and individual responsiveness to treatment for language and cognitive deficits after brain damage. In preparation
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Frattali CM, Thompson CM, Holland AL, Wohl CB, Ferketic MM. The FACS of life ASHA facs—a functional outcome measure for adults. ASHA 1995; 37 (04) 40-46
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Abel S, Schultz A, Radermacher I, Willmes K, Huber W. Decreasing and increasing cues in naming therapy for aphasia. Aphasiology 2005; 19 (09) 831-848
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Wambaugh J, Cameron R, Kalinyak-Fliszar M, Nessler C, Wright S. Retrieval of action names in aphasia: effects of two cueing treatments. Aphasiology 2004; 18 (11) 979-1004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Wambaugh JL. A comparison of the relative effects of phonologic and semantic cueing treatments. Aphasiology 2003; 17 (05) 433-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar