Executive Training and Anomia Therapy in Chronic Post-stroke Aphasia (ETAT PSA)

April 11, 2022 updated by: University Hospital, Montpellier

Combining Executive Training and Anomia Therapy in Chronic Post-stroke Aphasia : a Single Case Experimental Design -SCED Preliminary Study

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

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Actual)

10

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • Montpellier, France, 34295
        • UHMontpellier

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 80 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

Person with post-stroke aphasia at the chronic stage, receiving SLT rehabilitation

Description

Inclusion criteria:

  • 18 < age > 80 years
  • adult person with chronic post-stroke aphasia (> 6 months postonset)
  • receiving SLT rehabilitation 3 times a Week

Exclusion criteria:

  • presence of apraxia of speech
  • major impairment of comprehension
  • history of other neurological or psychiatric disease

Exclusion criteria:

  • presence of apraxia of speech
  • presence of major impairment of comprehension
  • presence of history of other neurological or psychiatric disease

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Observational Models: Cohort
  • Time Perspectives: Prospective

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Evolution of individual naming scores
Time Frame: 2 days
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.
2 days
Comparison of discourse
Time Frame: 2 days
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.
2 days

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Comparison of executive scores
Time Frame: 2 days
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
2 days

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Sylvie Moritz-Gasser, University Hospital, Montpellier

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

September 1, 2021

Primary Completion (Actual)

December 1, 2021

Study Completion (Actual)

December 30, 2021

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

October 19, 2021

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

October 19, 2021

First Posted (Actual)

November 1, 2021

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

April 12, 2022

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 11, 2022

Last Verified

April 1, 2022

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

Undecided

IPD Plan Description

NC

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Anomia

3
Subscribe