An observational study in Anomia and Post-stroke Aphasia, sponsored by University Hospital, Montpellier. Completed at 1 site in France. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-04-12.
Sponsored by University Hospital, Montpellier · Observational
Aphasia is a devastating acquired language impairment mainly caused by stroke, in which anomia is a quintessential clinical feature. If speech-language therapy (SLT) has been shown to be effective for persons with aphasia, the relative efficiency of one SLT strategy over another remains a matter of debate. The influential relationship between language, executive functions and aphasia rehabilitation outcomes has been addressed in a number of studies, but only few of them have studied the effect of adding an executive training to linguistic therapies.The aim of this study is to measure the efficiency of a protocol combining anomia therapy and executive training on naming skills and discourse in post-stroke aphasic persons at the chronic stage
47 studies on the registry are indexed under Anomia; 9 are open to participants now.
Browse Anomia studies →University Hospital, Montpellier is the lead sponsor of 1,261 studies on the registry; 224 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Person with post-stroke aphasia at the chronic stage, receiving SLT rehabilitation
Inclusion criteria:
Exclusion criteria:
Exclusion criteria:
Evolution of individual naming scores
Evolution of individual naming scores during baseline and treatment phases Participants are asked to name pictures from a personal naming task constituted of 100 black and white pictures and scores are expressed as percent of correct responses (min 0, max 100): higher percents meaning a better outcome. A visual analysis of the evolution of these scores along the course of the treatment will be conducted.
Time frame: 2 days
Comparison of discourse
Comparison of discourse scores before and after the treatment For each participant, four different samples of discourse are elicited before and after the treatment (picture description, personal narrative, book supported narrative, procedural information). The mean number of correct words per minute is then computed for each participant, and compared between the two time points, higher scores meaning a better outcome.
Time frame: 2 days
Comparison of executive scores
Comparison of executive scores before and after the treatment Executive scores are computed before and after treatment for each participant, from the Modified Card Sorting Test (Nelson, 1976), in which higher number of categories achieved means a better outcome, and from a verbal fluency task in which higher number of words produced in 2 minutes means a better outcome
Time frame: 2 days
Plan to share: Undecided — NC
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is completed, as verified in Apr 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions 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.
University Hospital, Montpellier →