Rishi Preeti, Nunn Kristen, Rohter Sofia Vallila
MGH Institute of Health Professions Communication Sciences and Disorders, Boston, MA, USA.
San Diego State University-University of California, San Diego Joint Doctoral Program in Language & Communicative Disorders, San Diego, CA, USA.
Aphasiology. 2024 Nov 27. doi: 10.1080/02687038.2024.2432022.
While linguistic deficits are key to diagnosing and treating aphasia, there is growing interest in the cognitive processes important for rehabilitation outcomes, particularly the role of learning. Of relevance to the current study, research has manipulated instructional methods (errorless vs. errorful) to assess their effects on outcomes. However, it is still unclear whether individualized profiles of errorless and errorful learning exist in aphasia and whether they might be meaningful for clinical practice.
The current study aimed to examine learning in people with aphasia, manipulating instruction method (errorless, errorful) and linguistic demands of learning.
METHODS & PROCEDURES: Nine people with stroke-induced aphasia participated in this preliminary study. Participants engaged in errorless and errorful novel object pairing and word retrieval tasks. Learning outcomes were assessed on the same day, next day, and after one week. Participants also completed cognitive-linguistic assessments to investigate the contribution of memory, language, and executive functioning abilities to learning outcomes.
OUTCOMES & RESULTS: At the group level, participants performed significantly better following errorful training for novel object pairing ( = 0.001) relative to errorless training. An errorful advantage was observed at the individual level in 7 participants during same day testing, with the highest overall performers on the task showing the most persistent errorful learning benefits. In the word retrieval practice task, group and individual-level differences in scores following errorless and errorful practice were minimal. Scores in errorful novel object pair learning correlated with verbal short-term memory and nonverbal long-term memory assessments, while no other correlations were found between learning scores and cognitive-linguistic variables.
Findings are consistent with prior research that suggests that successful effortful retrieval may pose an advantage over errorless learning when acquiring novel information and the potential contributions of verbal short-term memory and nonverbal long term memory on learning. Results from the word retrieval practice task draw attention to differences between practicing lexical access and novel learning. The lack of an errorful advantage in word retrieval may alternatively be due to task design and merits further research. Results support the hypothesis that people with aphasia display variable learning profiles that may stem from differences in underlying cognitive-linguistic abilities. Continuing research is needed to characterize learning in aphasia to consider its potential influence on rehabilitation outcomes and support speech-language pathologists in considering and accounting for different learning and cognitive-linguistic abilities when individualizing treatment decisions.
虽然语言缺陷是诊断和治疗失语症的关键，但人们对康复结果重要的认知过程越来越感兴趣，尤其是学习的作用。与当前研究相关的是，研究已经对教学方法（无错误与有错误）进行了操控，以评估它们对结果的影响。然而，目前仍不清楚失语症患者中是否存在无错误和有错误学习的个体特征，以及它们对临床实践是否有意义。
本研究旨在研究失语症患者的学习情况，操控教学方法（无错误、有错误）以及学习的语言要求。
9名中风后失语症患者参与了这项初步研究。参与者进行了无错误和有错误的新物体配对及单词检索任务。在当天、第二天和一周后对学习结果进行评估。参与者还完成了认知语言评估，以调查记忆、语言和执行功能能力对学习结果的贡献。
在群体层面，相对于无错误训练，参与者在有错误训练后的新物体配对任务中表现明显更好（=0.001）。在当天测试中，7名参与者在个体层面观察到有错误优势，任务中总体表现最佳的参与者显示出最持久的有错误学习益处。在单词检索练习任务中，无错误和有错误练习后的分数在群体和个体层面的差异最小。有错误的新物体配对学习分数与言语短期记忆和非言语长期记忆评估相关，而学习分数与认知语言变量之间未发现其他相关性。
研究结果与先前的研究一致，即当获取新信息时，成功的费力检索可能比无错误学习具有优势，以及言语短期记忆和非言语长期记忆对学习的潜在贡献。单词检索练习任务的结果提请注意词汇提取练习和新学习之间的差异。单词检索中缺乏有错误优势可能是由于任务设计，值得进一步研究。结果支持这样的假设，即失语症患者表现出可变的学习特征，这可能源于潜在认知语言能力的差异。需要持续研究来描述失语症患者的学习情况，以考虑其对康复结果的潜在影响，并支持言语语言病理学家在制定个体化治疗决策时考虑和考虑不同的学习和认知语言能力。
