Preface

It is a pleasure to share with readers my career-long fascination and optimism about the potential role of technology in the management of language disorders in adults. It began with my doctoral dissertation using programmed instruction and what were then called “teaching machines” to children with phonological disorders (we called them articulation disorders back then), quickly morphed into applying the principles to the treatment of aphasia, and has always been a subject of intense fascination for me, no matter how far I strayed into other problems, other issues, other approaches, and other responsibilities. I was delighted when Thieme allowed me not only to supervise this issue but to fill in as Guest Editor as well. The articles therein cover a vast territory, but far from all of it. Nonetheless, it is my hope that it will keep you up to date for at least a little while—technology is the aspect of our profession that is showing the fastest change.

To provide a bit of a roadmap, this issue opens with Christy Ludlow's assessment and explication of the use of imaging and neuromodulation as tools for studying changes in brain function that result from therapy. It is a hefty topic, and as Dr. Ludlow notes, it would take volumes to explain how to conduct neuroimaging research; nevertheless, it addresses important topics that will increase your ability to read the relevant literature and understand how some of it can be applied to the treatment. The second article follows logically. Julius Fridriksson and his students, H. Isabel Hubbard and Sarah Grace Hudspeth delve deeply into the topic of transcranial brain stimulation and its potential for possibly changing the face of aphasia rehabilitation. Dr. Ludlow sets the stage for them; Fridriksson, Hubbard, and Hudspeth provide the stage directions and the scenario.

Ianessa Humbert and her colleagues, Emilia Michou, Phoebe MacRae, and Lisa Crujido next move our focus to swallowing and electrical stimulation (e-stim). This is a fascinating article on a topic these authors have thoroughly researched, and which may not only help us to understand the strengths, weaknesses, and controversies about e-stim but in addition should sober us up about too quickly jumping on the seductive bandwagons that often feature of new devices and techniques.

The next article is by Margaret Forbes, Davida Fromm, and Brian MacWhinney at the Carnegie Mellon University, and is intended to introduce clinicians to automated language analysis as embodied in the international archive, AphasiaBank. It is a change of topic and possibly an eye-opener for clinicians, teachers, and researchers to the almost endless possibilities for using a carefully and systematically collected and codified database to study language in aphasia, but also to use its methods directly to assess persons with aphasia against a large sample of others with aphasia as well as changes in their language behavior as a function of treatment.

The next two articles are highly treatment based. Audrey Holland (yes me), Pat Weinberg, and Janice Dittleman discuss their experiences at two aphasia centers (Adler Aphasia Center in Maywood, NJ and Carondelet Aphasia program in Tucson, AZ) using popular technology, with its myriad apps, with people with aphasia. It offers some guidelines on how to use them, and what to expect when using them in aphasic people. Next, the article by Denise McCall is an integrative work. She explains in detail how technology has become a major feature of activities at her aphasia center (Snyder Center for Aphasia Life Enhancement in Baltimore, MD). She explains her rationale, shows how and why it works, as well as explains how other clinicians can apply her experiences to their own work.

Finally, Leora Cherney and Sarel van Vuuren discuss telerehabilitation for aphasia, tying it together with virtual clinicians—avatars who assist in the therapeutic process. This work is not only solid but it relates to our role as service providers to those who essentially can remain unserved unless we take advantage of technology.

It has been a bit of a burden being both Co-Editor in Chief and “Guest Editor” of this issue. I have nobody to blame but myself, and the only Guest Editor I can hold responsible for its problems is myself. But it has also been fun, a learning experience, and I hope you will find the issue clinically useful.