Typicality Treatment for Naming Deficits in Aphasia: Why Does It Work? Purpose: The present paper provides a review of a recent treatment approach for alleviating naming deficits in patients with aphasia. This is an example of a treatment that is theoretically based and supported by behavioral evidence from normal adult language processing. Method: First, a theoretical basis for naming deficits in ... Article
Article  |   April 01, 2008
Typicality Treatment for Naming Deficits in Aphasia: Why Does It Work?
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Swathi Kiran
    Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Texas at Austin
Article Information
Language Disorders / Aphasia / Articles
Article   |   April 01, 2008
Typicality Treatment for Naming Deficits in Aphasia: Why Does It Work?
SIG 2 Perspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech and Language Disorders, April 2008, Vol. 18, 6-14. doi:10.1044/nnsld18.1.6
SIG 2 Perspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech and Language Disorders, April 2008, Vol. 18, 6-14. doi:10.1044/nnsld18.1.6
Abstract

Purpose: The present paper provides a review of a recent treatment approach for alleviating naming deficits in patients with aphasia. This is an example of a treatment that is theoretically based and supported by behavioral evidence from normal adult language processing.

Method: First, a theoretical basis for naming deficits in patients with aphasia is provided. Then, current options for semantic-based treatment of naming deficits are reviewed. Previous work from our laboratory indicates that training atypical examples of semantic categories resulted in generalization to untrained typical examples, whereas training typical examples did not result in generalization to untrained atypical examples.

The usefulness of the typicality treatment approach is discussed in the context of recent studies from our laboratory that have examined this approach across a variety of semantic categories, including animate categories (e.g., birds), inanimate categories (e.g., furniture), well-defined categories such as “shapes,” and goal derived categories such as “things to have in a garage sale.”

Conclusions: We suggest that the success of the treatment seemingly relies on the stringent selection of typical/atypical examples and on highlighting the variation of semantic features of the trained category as part of the treatment protocol.

Become a SIG Affiliate
Pay Per View
Entire SIG 2 Perspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech and Language Disorders content & archive
24-hour access
This Issue
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access
We've Changed Our Publication Model...
The 19 individual SIG Perspectives publications have been relaunched as the new, all-in-one Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups.