Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine whether the lexical retrieval cascade treatment was effective in improving single word naming and discourse of two individuals diagnosed with the logopenic variant of Primary Progressive Aphasia (lvPPA) when training was conducted using single word naming and discourse tasks, respectively. Methods: This study employed a single subject case design. In phase 1, one individual with lvPPA underwent naming treatment to re-learn three sets of words, using semantic, autobiographical, phonological, and orthographic cueing hierarchy. A daily CART-based copying of trained words was given as homework. In Phase 2, the cueing hierarchy was used to improve word retrieval of two individuals with lvPPA in a picture description task. A daily homework of phonological repetitions or orthographic copying was given according to the participant preference. Nicholas and Brookshire’s Correct Information Unit (CIU) analysis was used to examine the change in discourse from pre-treatment to post-treatment, and at two-month maintenance. Results: In phase 1, the participant’s naming improved on trained words, however, this did not generalize to the untrained set. Naming accuracy was maintained at or above 60% level, with continued home practice. In phase 2, one participant showed improvement in discourse measures, although the effect size was relatively small. Another participant, who underwent a prolonged hospitalization, did not show improvement in discourse measures. Conclusions: The lexical retrieval cascade treatment is effective in improving single word naming in lvPPA. The treatment may also improve informativeness and efficiency of discourse when treatment is provided using a discourse level task.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine whether the lexical retrieval cascade treatment was effective in improving single word naming and discourse of two individuals diagnosed with the logopenic variant of Primary Progressive Aphasia (lvPPA) when training was conducted using single word naming and discourse tasks, respectively. Methods: This study employed a single subject case design. In phase 1, one individual with lvPPA underwent naming treatment to re-learn three sets of words, using semantic, autobiographical, phonological, and orthographic cueing hierarchy. A daily CART-based copying of trained words was given as homework. In Phase 2, the cueing hierarchy was used to improve word retrieval of two individuals with lvPPA in a picture description task. A daily homework of phonological repetitions or orthographic copying was given according to the participant preference. Nicholas and Brookshire’s Correct Information Unit (CIU) analysis was used to examine the change in discourse from pre-treatment to post-treatment, and at two-month maintenance. Results: In phase 1, the participant’s naming improved on trained words, however, this did not generalize to the untrained set. Naming accuracy was maintained at or above 60% level, with continued home practice. In phase 2, one participant showed improvement in discourse measures, although the effect size was relatively small. Another participant, who underwent a prolonged hospitalization, did not show improvement in discourse measures. Conclusions: The lexical retrieval cascade treatment is effective in improving single word naming in lvPPA. The treatment may also improve informativeness and efficiency of discourse when treatment is provided using a discourse level task.
INTRODUCTION METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
