An interventional study of Pseudoword learning paradigm task in Aphasia, Language and Stroke, sponsored by University of Wisconsin, Madison. Recruiting at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 40 Years to 90 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-07-07.
Sponsored by University of Wisconsin, Madison · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
Patients with stroke frequently suffer from aphasia, a disorder of expressive and/or receptive language, that can lead to serious health consequences, including social isolation, depression, reduced quality of life, and increased caregiver burden. Aphasia recovery varies greatly between individuals, and likely relies upon the capacity for neuroplasticity, both at a systems level of reorganized brain networks and a molecular level of neuronal repair and plasticity. The proposed work will evaluate genetic and neural network biological markers of neuroplasticity associated with variability in aphasia, with a future goal to improve prognostics and identify therapeutic targets to reduce the long-term burdens of aphasia.
Aphasia is an acquired neurologic language disorder that is among the most challenging long-term disabilities for stroke survivors, often leading to social isolation and reduced quality of life. Recovery from aphasia relies on plasticity in residual brain networks. However, neuroplasticity varies substantially across individuals, making the presence, severity, and phenotype of language impairments challenging to predict. A vital step toward post-stroke precision medicine is identifying neuroplasticity-related biological markers that can improve prognostic models and targeted neurorehabilitation therapies for people with aphasia. The proposed research will test the central hypothesis that individual differences in neuroplasticity, measured through genetic polymorphisms and longitudinal neuroimaging connectivity biomarkers, will account for significant variance in post-stroke aphasia recovery. This 5-year project will include three specific aims. Aim 1 is to index spontaneous recovery by determining relationships between genetic biomarkers of plasticity, longitudinal neural network connectivity, and changes in language during sub-acute to chronic stroke recovery. Aim 2 is to identify genetic and MRI biomarkers predictive of chronic post-stroke aphasia severity and phenotypes. Aim 3 is to characterize genetic and MRI biomarkers associated with verbal learning variability in chronic aphasia. These data will support the development of a larger, multi-site R01 study to examine interactions between multiple biomarkers of neuroplasticity that inform longitudinal aphasia prognostics and treatment efficacy.
338 studies on the registry are indexed under Aphasia; 95 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 90 is above the median of 30 across 298 interventional studies indexed under Aphasia.
Browse Aphasia studies →University of Wisconsin, Madison is the lead sponsor of 1,188 studies on the registry; 181 are open to participants now.
Of its 157 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 118 (75%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
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.
Exclusion Criteria:
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.
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.
Judged by the study doctor to matter for your health or for the study. It is a doctor’s decision, so ask the study team if you are unsure whether something counts.
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.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Clinically significant
Judged by the study doctor to matter for your health or for the study. It is a doctor’s decision, so ask the study team if you are unsure whether something counts.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
The word learning task includes 210 trials across 7 learning blocks (30 trials/block). Each trial features two novel objects (target and foil) on the screen, with an audio recording naming one object. Subjects must quickly and accurately identify the named object. Correct responses are rewarded with a happy face, and incorrect ones with a sad face. The target object's position is counter-balanced, and trial order is randomized for each subject. Short pauses occur every 60 trials to reduce fatigue. After 7 learning blocks, feedback is discontinued, and an immediate test block assesses word-referent recognition. A week later, a second test block, with the same instructions, measures retained learning. Each test block consists of 30 randomized trials without feedback.
Behavioral: Pseudoword learning paradigm task
Pseudoword learning is an experimental learning task by which participants view two novel objects (a target and a foil) and simultaneously hear an audio recording of the pseudoword name of one of the two objects. Participants must choose (via mouse click) which object corresponds to the word presented, immediately after which feedback is provided.
Aphasia presence/severity
The primary outcome measure for Aim 1 will be overall aphasia severity. Severity across language domains will be measured by Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient (AQ). AQ scores range from 0-100 and rate severity as follows: 0-25 is very severe, 26-50 is severe, 51-75 is moderate, and 76+ is mild.
Time frame: 3 months, 6 months, 1 year post-stroke
Semantic processing
A primary outcome measure for Aim 2 will be semantic versus phonological processing ability. Semantic processing will be measured by the three pictures version of the Pyramids and Palm Trees Test (PPT) and Psycholinguistic Assessments of Language Processing in Aphasia (PALPA) 51: Word Semantic Association, and semantic weights will be calculated from Philadelphia Naming Test (PNT). PPT ranges from 0-52, with higher scores indicating a better ability to retrieve item names from semantic memory. PALPA 51 ranges from 0 to 40, with each correct semantic association earning one point. PNT semantic weights refer to the measure of the semantic relatedness of the words used in the test.
Time frame: At least 1 year post-stroke
Phonological processing
A primary outcome measure for Aim 2 will be semantic versus phonological processing ability. Phonological processing will be measured by PALPA 1: Same-Different Discrimination Using Nonword Minimal Pairs as a measure of input phonology and phonological weights will be calculated from Philadelphia Naming Test (PNT). PALPA 1 range is 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating greater accuracy. PNT phonological weights refer to the measure of the phonologic relatedness of the words used in the test.
Time frame: At least 1 year post-stroke
Noun processing
A primary outcome measure for Aim 2 will be noun versus verb processing ability. Noun processing will be measured by Object and Action Naming Battery (OANB) to assess production and Psycholinguistic Assessments of Language Processing in Aphasia (PALPA) 47 to assess comprehension. PALPA 47 range is from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating greater accuracy. OANB object naming range is 0 to 162, with higher scores indicating greater accuracy.
Time frame: At least 1 year post-stroke
Verb processing
A primary outcome measure for Aim 2 will be noun versus verb processing ability. Verb processing will be measured by Object and Action Naming to assess production and Northwestern Assessment of Verbs and Sentences (NAVS) Verb Comprehension Test. NAVS Verb Comprehension range is 0-22, with higher scores indicating greater accuracy. OANB action naming range is 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater accuracy.
Time frame: At least 1 year post-stroke
Pseudoword learning
A primary outcome measure for Aim 3 will be pseudoword learning, with scores for immediate recognition and delayed recognition ability. This experimental paradigm has been implemented in patients with aphasia by Penaloza and colleagues from the Ancient Farming Equipment Paradigm. This assessment is measured in proportion of correction responses, range 0-100%, with higher scores indicating greater accuracy.
Time frame: At least 1 year post-stroke
Verbal learning
A primary outcome measure for Aim 3 will be verbal learning, which will be measured by the standardized assessment of Hopkins Verbal Learning Test. Immediate recall is range 0-36 and delayed recall is range 0-12. Higher scores indicate more words recalled. Recognition is range 0-12, with higher scores indicating better ability to correctly identify previously learned information among distractors.
Time frame: At least 1 year post-stroke
Aphasia Communication Outcome Measure (ACOM) Score
The ACOM is a patient-reported measure of communicative effectiveness for persons with aphasia. A final T-score will be scaled such that the mean is 50 and the standard deviation is 10. Higher scores indicate better communicative functioning.
Time frame: 1 year post-stroke
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
Started Mar 2025 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for May 2029, 50 months after the start.
Of 183 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Aphasia, half reached primary completion within 36 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 19 and three quarters within 57. This study's planned 50 months is above that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 185 studies reached it within 36 months; a quarter within 20 and three quarters within 57.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
Contact study teamGet 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 of Wisconsin, Madison →