CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT01300624VNeSTUpdated Jun 9, 2015Results posted

Effect of Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) on Lexical Retrieval in Aphasia

A Phase 2 interventional study of Verb Network Strengthening Treatment in Aphasia, sponsored by US Department of Veterans Affairs. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 89 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2015-06-09.

Sponsored by US Department of Veterans Affairs · Phase 2, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
11
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
18 Years to 89 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) on the ability to produce sentences and connected speech in persons with aphasia.

Read the detailed description

Stroke is the leading cause of disability in the United States today, and aphasia, a language disorder that affects production and comprehension of language, remains one of the most devastating aspects of stroke recovery. The most prominent symptom of aphasia is difficulty retrieving words, especially in sentence production and connected speech (e.g., telling a story, having a conversation). The current project examines the effect Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST), a language therapy, on the ability of persons with moderate aphasia to retrieve words in sentences and connected speech. The primary goals of VNeST are to 1) increase the specificity of nouns and verbs in sentences, 2) maximize improvement to untrained words across a variety of language tasks, and 3) engage and challenge participants with salient and relevant treatment materials and activities. Persons with aphasia who are enrolled in the study will receive VNeST for 10 weeks for 4 hours per week. Treatment tasks involve the retrieval of nouns related to a target verb. For example, for the verb measure, participants would come up with people who measure and what they measure (e.g., carpenter/lumber, chef/sugar). They would then answer questions related to why, where, and when these things might occur (e.g., for carpenter/measure, they might say "to get the right length of board," (why) "at a construction site," (where) and "when building a house" (where)). Cues and assistance are provided to the participants when they are unable to complete any given task. As the participants improve, cues are reduced.

Prior to treatment, testing will be conducted on participants to establish their abilities to retrieve words in the following contexts: 1) naming pictures of objects and actions, 2) sentences, and 3) connected speech.

Participants and a family member or friend (i.e., proxy) will also complete a questionnaire about how the participant is able to communicate in everyday tasks (e.g., indicating yes or no, providing medical information).

During the treatment phase, sentence production abilities on items related to treatment will be examined in order to determine how word retrieval abilities are changing with treatment. After the completion of treatment, all measures examined prior to treatment (including the questionnaire) will be re-examined in order to determine whether improvement was observed. Additionally, participants will complete testing one more time 3 months after the completion of treatment to determine if post-treatment improvements were maintained.

Finally, an analysis of improvement over time across the treatment phase will be examined in order to determine the rate of improvement (or lack of it) over time. All statistical analyses will use group data (i.e., group design), but additional examination of improvements for each participant (i.e., single subject design) will also be conducted. Thus, the overall experimental design is a mix of group and single subject analyses. The findings from this study will help to inform aphasia treatment practices and potentially allow for a larger study with more participants in a clinical trial.

02

Conditions studied

  • Aphasia

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Aphasia
  • therapy
  • treatment
  • verbs
  • sentences
03

In context

Aphasia

365 studies on the registry are indexed under Aphasia; 89 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 11 is below the median of 30 across 316 interventional studies indexed under Aphasia.

Browse Aphasia studies →

Lead sponsor

US Department of Veterans Affairs is the lead sponsor of 658 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 89 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • Veterans with a diagnosis of aphasia
  • primary language is English
  • aphasia due to stroke

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Functionally bilingual
05

Study design

Phase
Phase 2
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
11 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Verb Network Strengthening Treatment

    Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) tasks involve the retrieval of nouns related to a target verb. For example, for the verb measure, participants would come up with people who measure and what they measure (e.g., carpenter/lumber, chef/sugar). They would then answer questions related to why, where, and when these things might occur (e.g., for carpenter/measure, they might say to get the right length of board, (why) at a construction site, (where) and when building a house (where). Cues and assistance are provided to the participants when they are unable to complete any given task. As the participants improve, cues are reduced.

    Behavioral: Verb Network Strengthening Treatment

Interventions

  • BehavioralVerb Network Strengthening Treatment

    Treatment to improve word retrieval in sentences and discourse for persons with aphasia due to stroke.

    Also known as: aphasia treatment, anomia, sentence production, discourse

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Trained Sentence Probe

    Picture description task that include trained words.

    Time frame: pre-treatment, post-treatment and 3-months post-treatment (maintenance)

  2. Untrained Sentence Probes

    Picture description with sentences containing untrained words.

    Time frame: pre-treatment, post-treatment and 3-months post-treatment (maintenance)

  3. Complete Utterances in Discourse

    Sentence in discourse that were relevant to topic and syntactically correct

    Time frame: pre-treatment, post-treatment and 3-months post-treatment (maintenance)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Noun Naming

    Confrontation naming of 162 objects

    Time frame: pre-treatment and post-treatment

  2. Verb Naming

    Confrontation of 100 action pictures

    Time frame: pre-treatment and post-treatment

  3. Western Aphasia Battery

    Standardized measure of aphasia severity

    Time frame: pre-treatment and post-treatment

  4. Communicative Effectiveness Ratings

    This questionnaire (Lomas et al, 1989) was provided to persons who communicated with the treatment participant regularly (e.g., a spouse). They rated how well the participant was able to perform on 16 common communication tasks (e.g., participating in a conversation over coffee). They rated each scenario along a line that spanned between the two extremes of ability, from "not at all able" to "as able as before the stroke." The line was 100 mm. To score responses, the place where they bisected the line was measured. An average of their responses across the 16 questions was calculated.

    Time frame: pre-treatment, post-treatment and 3-months post-treatment (maintenance)

07

Results

Posted Jun 9, 2015

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneVerb Network Strengthening Treatment
Started11
Completed11
Not completed0

Outcome measures

PrimaryTrained Sentence Probe

Picture description task that include trained words.

Time frame:
pre-treatment, post-treatment and 3-months post-treatment (maintenance)
Reported as:
Mean · percentage of correct sentences
Trained Sentence Probe
percentage of correct sentencesVerb Network Strengthening Treatment
Pre-treatment20.4 ± 13.3
Post-treatment58.8 ± 33.9
3 months post-treatment (maintenance)56.0 ± 29.9
PrimaryUntrained Sentence Probes

Picture description with sentences containing untrained words.

Time frame:
pre-treatment, post-treatment and 3-months post-treatment (maintenance)
Reported as:
Mean · percentage of correct sentences
Untrained Sentence Probes
percentage of correct sentencesVerb Network Strengthening Treatment
Pre-treatment19.8 ± 11.0
Post-treatment40.9 ± 24.9
3 months post-treatment (maintenance)43.0 ± 27.5
SecondaryNoun Naming

Confrontation naming of 162 objects

Time frame:
pre-treatment and post-treatment
Reported as:
Mean · percentage of correct naming
Noun Naming
percentage of correct namingVerb Network Strengthening Treatment
Pre-treatment79.9 ± 12.3
Post-treatment85.1 ± 12.6
SecondaryVerb Naming

Confrontation of 100 action pictures

Time frame:
pre-treatment and post-treatment
Reported as:
Mean · percentage of correct naming
Verb Naming
percentage of correct namingVerb Network Strengthening Treatment
Pre-treatment64.6 ± 18.2
Post-treatment74.2 ± 16.0
PrimaryComplete Utterances in Discourse

Sentence in discourse that were relevant to topic and syntactically correct

Time frame:
pre-treatment, post-treatment and 3-months post-treatment (maintenance)
Reported as:
Mean · percentage of complete utterances
Complete Utterances in Discourse
percentage of complete utterancesVerb Network Strengthening Treatment
Pre-treatment39.7 ± 11.9
Post-treatment46.7 ± 16.0
3 months post-treatment (maintenance)47.9 ± 13.8
SecondaryWestern Aphasia Battery

Standardized measure of aphasia severity

Time frame:
pre-treatment and post-treatment
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Western Aphasia Battery
units on a scaleVerb Network Strengthening Treatment
Pre-treatment75.9 ± 10.4
Post-treatment82.1 ± 8.6
SecondaryCommunicative Effectiveness Ratings

This questionnaire (Lomas et al, 1989) was provided to persons who communicated with the treatment participant regularly (e.g., a spouse). They rated how well the participant was able to perform on 16 common communication tasks (e.g., participating in a conversation over coffee). They rated each scenario along a line that spanned between the two extremes of ability, from "not at all able" to "as able as before the stroke." The line was 100 mm. To score responses, the place where they bisected the line was measured. An average of their responses across the 16 questions was calculated.

Time frame:
pre-treatment, post-treatment and 3-months post-treatment (maintenance)
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Communicative Effectiveness Ratings
units on a scaleVerb Network Strengthening Treatment
Pre-treatment32.6 ± 9.7
Post-treatment65.3 ± 11.2
3 months post-treatment (maintenance)58.3 ± 15.6

Adverse events

Collected over 3 years, 6 months. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Verb Network Strengthening Treatment—0/11 (0%)0/11 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

Number of participants was based on pilot study results and consistent with the relevant literature.

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Verb Network Strengthening Treatment
Mean63.9 ± 12.4
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Verb Network Strengthening Treatment
Female4
Male7
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)Verb Network Strengthening Treatment
United States11
Noun naming
Noun naming(Percentage of correct naming)Verb Network Strengthening Treatment
Mean79.9 ± 12.3
Verb naming
Verb naming(Percentage of correct naming)Verb Network Strengthening Treatment
Mean64.6 ± 18.2
Trained sentence probes
Trained sentence probes(Percentage correct sentence production)Verb Network Strengthening Treatment
Mean20.4 ± 13.3
Untrained sentence probe
Untrained sentence probe(Percentage correct sentence production)Verb Network Strengthening Treatment
Mean19.8 ± 11.0
Complete Utterances in discourse
Complete Utterances in discourse(Percentage of complete utterances)Verb Network Strengthening Treatment
Mean39.7 ± 1.9

2 further baseline measures are reported on the registry.

08

Study locations

1 site
  • North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System
    Gainesville, Florida 32608, United States
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jun 9, 2015, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT01300624
Lead sponsor
US Department of Veterans Affairs
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Feb 21, 2011
Start date
Mar 2011
Primary completion
Dec 2013
Completion
Jul 2014
Results posted
Jun 9, 2015
Last update
Jun 9, 2015

Study contacts

Lisa A. Edmonds, PhD
principal investigator · North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jun 2015. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion