Semafore: preliminary results.

Howard, David and Morris, Julie and Buerk, Frauke (2013) Semafore: preliminary results. [Clinical Aphasiology Paper]

[img] PDF

Download (263kB)


There is abundant evidence from single-case studies and case series that some treatment methods for word retrieval can result in substantial improvements, at least with target words (see e.g. Nickels, 2002 for a review). But there is still a question of which method is best, and for which participants. Since Howard et al (1985) there has been a broad distinction between ‘phonological’ and ‘semantic’ therapy; the first emphasising the word form of the target, while the second uses techniques designed to activate/explore its semantic features. Nettleton & Lesser (1991) were the first of many to argue that semantic therapy methods would benefit most people with aphasia with a semantic deficit and phonological therapy would benefit those with a post-semantic deficit. This view was challenged by Howard (2000) who argued that there was no good evidence that either approach was better and that both provided the participant with the information needed to link a semantic representation to a phonological representation. Facilitation experiments reported by Howard et al (2006) supported that view: semantic facilitation resulted in the greatest improvements for the participants with post-semantic difficulties in word retrieval.

Item Type: Clinical Aphasiology Paper
Depositing User: OSCP Staff 1
Date Deposited: 29 Aug 2013
Last Modified: 31 Oct 2016 15:13
Conference: Clinical Aphasiology Conference > Clinical Aphasiology Conference (2013 : 43rd : Tucson, AZ : May 28-June 2, 2013)

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item