You are viewing the SNL 2018 Archive Website. For the latest information, see the Current Website.

Poster B36, Thursday, August 16, 3:05 – 4:50 pm, Room 2000AB

French version of the Phonological Component Analysis: Preliminary results with three participants

Michele Masson-Trottier1,2, Karine Marcotte1,2, Carol Leonard3,5,6, Elizabeth Rochon3,4,5,7, Ana Inés Ansaldo1,2;1Centre de recherche de l'Institut de gériatrie de Montréal, 2École d'orthophonie et d'audiologie, Université de Montréal, 3Department of Speech-Language Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 4Toronto Rehabilitation Institute – University Health Network, 5Heart and Stroke Foundation, Canadian Partnership for Stroke Recovery, 6Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Program, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Ottawa, 7Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto

Anomia is the main symptom, and most persistent aphasia sign. Among anomia therapy procedures, Phonological Component Analysis (PCA) has been proven effective in improving the naming capacities of some English-speaking persons with chronic aphasia [1]. PCA uses phonological cues associated with the target word to elicit naming. The present study aims to identify the effects of an adapted French Canadian PCA therapy [2] on the accuracy and response time (RT) of native French speakers with aphasia. The present work, part of a larger ongoing study, presents the preliminary results of three chronic aphasia participants. Each participant received 1 hour of PCA therapy, 3 times per week for 5 weeks (total of 15 hours). Considering the variability of responses to individual items on a day-to-day basis [3], the average performance (accuracy and RT) on the first week of therapy was compared to the average performance of the last week using a related sample – Wilcoxon test. The scores on the Test de Dénomination de Québec: TDQ-60 [4] were also compared before and after therapy to measure generalization. At the group level, the therapy was effective at improving accuracy (rate) (from 0.28±0.45 to 0.59±49, p<0.0001) and RT (in seconds) (from 27.4±31.0 to 17.6±16.1, p=0.012). At the individual level, 2/3 participants showed a significant improvement for accuracy (PA01: from 0.30±0.46 to 0.63±0.48, p=0.002, PA02: from 0.32±0.47 to 0.83±0.38, p<0.0001) and RT (PA01: N.A., PA02: from 26.3±21.7 to 14.0±17.8, p=0.001) on treated items. The third participant did not reach a significant level of improvement at the last week (PA03, accuracy: from 0.22±0.41 to 0.32±0.47, p=0.239, RT: from 31.8±55.4 to 21.6±13.14, p=0.158). On the TDQ-60, PA01 did not improve (from 36 to 33 out of 60), whereas both PA02 and PA03 both improve (respectively, from 24 to 42 and from 15 to 22). The results replicate results obtained in previous work1, PCA leads to improvements in naming for some aphasic participants. It is important to continue this work to find markers predicting the effectiveness of this therapy. In addition, future studies will examine the neurobiological substrates supporting the effectiveness of PCA. [1] Leonard, C., Rochon, E. & Laird, L. Aphasiology 22, 923-947 (2008). [2] Masson-Trottier, M., Marcotte, K., Léonard, C., Rochon, E. & Ansaldo, A. I. in Academy of Aphasia – 55th Annual Meeting (Baltimore, USA, 2017). [3] Stark, J., Renn, F. & Kambitsis, T. Frontiers in Psychology, doi:10.3389/conf.fpsyg.2016.68.00113. [4] Macoir, J., Beaudoin, C., Bluteau, J., Potvin, O. & Wilson, M. A. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 1-14 (2017).

Topic Area: Language Therapy