ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT04682223TERRAUpdated Apr 2, 2026

Telerehabilitation for Aphasia (TERRA)

An interventional study of Semantically-focused therapy tasks and Phonologically-focused therapy tasks in Aphasia, Stroke and Stroke Rehabilitation, sponsored by University of South Carolina. Recruiting at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 21 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-04-02.

Sponsored by University of South Carolina · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Started May 2021; still recruiting 5 years 6 months later.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
100
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
21 Years to 80 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Speech-language therapy is generally found to be helpful in the rehabilitation of aphasia. However, not all patients with aphasia have access to adequate treatment to maximize their recovery. The goal of this project is to compare the efficacy of telerehabilitation or Aphasia Remote Therapy (ART) to the more traditional In-Clinic Therapy (I-CT).

Read the detailed description

Stroke is the leading cause of adult disability in the United States. One of the most debilitating impairments resulting from stroke is aphasia, a language disorder caused by damage to the left hemisphere of the brain. While evidence shows that aphasia therapy improves speech production and communicative quality of life in persons with chronic (>6 months) stroke-induced aphasia, the amount of therapy provided to patients in the United States is typically far less than what is probably necessary to maximize recovery. There are a few important reasons underlying this discrepancy. For example, considerable emphasis is placed on acute and subacute stroke recovery with less therapy focus on the chronic period, when recovery is usually slower. Also, access to rehabilitation services can be limited by the availability of providers (e.g., in rural regions) or by difficulties with transportation logistics related to disabilities and the physical sequelae of stroke. One way to increase access to aphasia therapy is to rely on telerehabilitation (a.k.a., aphasia remote therapy; ART). So far, telerehabilitation in stroke has primarily focused on physical therapy, with only a handful of smaller studies involving aphasia therapy. The purpose of this study is to compare aphasia therapy administered via ART to aphasia therapy administered in person (In-Clinic Therapy; I-CT). We will conduct the first phase II, non-inferiority trial of telerehabilitation for aphasia therapy that is exclusively administered by a speech-language pathologist. Participants with chronic aphasia will be randomized to either a telerehabilitation or aphasia remote therapy (ART) group or an in-clinic therapy (I-CT) group relying on the same therapy approach currently used in our ongoing POLAR study. The outcome measure will focus on speech production and combines correct naming on the Philadelphia Naming Test and correct words produced per minute (CWPM) during discourse. The primary endpoint is change in the outcome measure at 6 months compared to baseline. The non-inferiority margin will be set so that if ART leads to less than 50% improvement than the improvement following I-CT, it will be considered inferior for therapy delivery. Neuroimaging will be used to evaluate how aphasia is shaped by the stroke lesion in combination with residual brain integrity.

02

Conditions studied

  • Aphasia
  • Stroke
  • Stroke Rehabilitation

Keywords

  • aphasia
  • stroke
  • telerehabilitation
  • speech-language therapy
03

In context

Aphasia

338 studies on the registry are indexed under Aphasia; 95 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 100 is above the median of 30 across 298 interventional studies indexed under Aphasia.

Browse Aphasia studies →

Lead sponsor

University of South Carolina is the lead sponsor of 197 studies on the registry; 42 are open to participants now.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
21 Years to 80 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  1. Participants must have sustained a left hemisphere ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke at least 12 months prior to enrollment.
  2. Participants must primarily speak English for at least the past 20 years.
  3. Participants must be capable of giving 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

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Participants must not have previous neurological disease affecting the brain (e.g. history of traumatic brain injury).
  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.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
100 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    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.

    Behavioral: Semantically-focused therapy tasks · Behavioral: Phonologically-focused therapy tasks

  • Active comparator
    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.

    Behavioral: Semantically-focused therapy tasks · Behavioral: Phonologically-focused therapy tasks

Interventions

  • BehavioralSemantically-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.

  • BehavioralPhonologically-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).

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Speech Production Outcome Score (SPOTS)

    A composite measure of naming (items correct on the Philadelphia Naming Test (PNT; Roach et al., 1996) and discourse words per minute (WPM)

    Time frame: Compare baseline score to 6 month follow-up (after treatment) score.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Improvement in overall aphasia severity

    As measured by the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised (WAB-R; Kertesz, 2007)

    Time frame: Compare baseline score to 6 month follow-up (after treatment) score.

  2. Improvement in quality of life

    As measured by the Stroke Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 (SAQOL-39; Hilari et al., 2003)

    Time frame: Compare baseline score to 6 month follow-up (after treatment) score.

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • University of South Carolina Aphasia Lab
    Columbia, South Carolina 29201, United States
    Recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • 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. PubMed 28256356 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 27245310 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 22592672 ↗
  • 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). PubMed 15339233 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 26379358 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 9337631 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 24687125 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 19763227 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 12855827 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 4075074 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 32002991 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 27563386 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 25092638 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 29980072 ↗
  • 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.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — IPD will be shared via WebDCU™, a web based clinical trial management system developed by the Data Coordination Unit at the Medical University of South Carolina.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Statistical analysis plan, Informed consent form, Analytic code

Time frame: IPD will be shared within 1 year of completion of the study.

Access criteria: IPD available upon request.

Data sharing details ↗ · dcu.musc.edu

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 2, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04682223
Responsible party
Julius Fridriksson (Primary Investigator, University of South Carolina) — Principal investigator
First posted
Dec 23, 2020
Start date
May 5, 2021
Primary completion
Jan 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Mar 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Apr 2, 2026

Study contacts

Sara Sayers, M.S.
Contact
ssayers@mailbox.sc.edu
803-777-2693
Kelli Powell, B.S.
Contact
KELLIAP@mailbox.sc.edu
803-777-5051
Julius Fridriksson, Ph.D.
principal investigator · University of South Carolina

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

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