University:
Boston University
Course:
SAR HP 151 | Introduction to Health Professions
Academic year:

2023
Views:

295

Pages:

16
Author:

Ava Barnett

What does this have to do with Bilingual aphasia rehabilitation?  What are the implications of this research?  Cross-language parallel activation = Cross-language generalization ?  Cross-language interference- Can competition be capitalized in therapy?  Cognitive control of the language system- Train language or cognition?  A recent review of 13 studies on bilingual aphasia rehabilitation (FaroqiShah et al., 2010)  Except for one study with 30 participants (Junque et al., 1989), most studies were case studies. The good news:  Therapy provided in the L2 results in improved treatment outcomes in the treated language.  Cross language transfer occurs in over half the participants.  Age of acquisition and language differences across studies do not specifically influence treatment outcomes. The bad news  Variability in treatment type and consequent treatment outcomes  Other confounding variables including time post onset and nature of aphasia influence outcomes. Between and within language generalization trained celery, cabbage improved (within-language) trained celery and apio [direct translation] improved (between-language) trained celery and repollo [cabbage] improved (between-language) 37 Between and within language generalization trained celery, cabbage improved (within-language) trained celery and apio [direct translation] improved (between-language) trained celery and repollo [cabbage] improved (between-language) 38 Between and within language generalization X X trained celery, cabbage improved (within-language) trained celery and apio [direct translation] improved (between-language) trained celery and repollo [cabbage] improved (between-language) 39  What is the ultimate goal?  Predict treatment outcomes, between-language generalization after rehabilitation in individuals with naming deficits  Simulation of language deficits (Keidel et al., 2010), modeling rehabilitation of alexia (Welbourne & Lambon-Ralph, 2005, 2007), naming deficits (Plaut, 1996) Kiran et al., 2013, BLC Age of Acquisition Language exposure Lesion site Time post onset stroke Age Language severity Language Use Education History Family Proficiency Impairment in each language Language Ability Confidence Degree of naming impairment Degree of semantic processing impairment Degree of semantic syntactic impairment Language Trained Treatment outcome? Hernandez & Li, 2007; Li, Zhao, & McWhinney, 2007; Abutalebi, 2008 Fabbro, 2001a; Lorenzen & Murray, 2009; Mechelli, Crinion, et al., 2004 Patient study  17 Spanish-English adults with aphasia  Battery of standardized tests that examined receptive/expressive language in Spanish and English  Language use questionnaire  10 weeks of naming therapy was administered.  2x/week, 2 hours Treatment protocol in behavioral study Name picture 2. If incorrect, told correct name 3. Choose 6 correct features from 12 cards 4. Answer 15 yes/no questions about the item 5. Named item again with feedback  Treatment always provided only in one language (either English/Spanish) and amount of improvement examined: 1. TREATMENT Long and green. Found in produce section Vegetable Eaten Fresh Crunchy “Celery” L1 Nutritious “Apio” L2  Within language: trained items & semantically related words,  Between Language: direct translations and semantic relations Edmonds & Kiran, 2006; Kiran & Roberts, 2009     Three distinct groups of participants emerged: Group 1 (A): model matched patient performance for both the trained and untrained language Group 2 (B): model matched patient performance for the trained language only Group 3 (C): model matched patient performance for untrained language better than the trained language. Kiran et al., 2012, BLC Group 1 (A): Model matched patient performance for both the trained and untrained language Kiran et al., 2012, BLC Group 2 (B): Model matched patient performance for the trained language only Kiran et al., 2012, BLC Group 3 (C): model matched patient performance for untrained language better than the trained language. Kiran et al., 2012, BLC     Three distinct groups of participants emerged: Group 1 (A): model matched patient performance for both the trained and untrained language Group 2 (B): model matched patient performance for the trained language only Group 3 (C): model matched patient performance for untrained language better than the trained language. Kiran et al., 2012, BLC Conclusions  Bilingual language processing is dynamic  Both languages are active in parallel  Language impairment in bilingual aphasia is influenced by pre-stroke language proficiency and language control may be affected.  In terms of therapy: 1. Better understand the interaction between facilitation and interference across a range of patients 2. We need to better understand the interaction between language and cognitive control 3. Extend the computational model that accounts for facilitation and interference to predict treatment outcomes