PURPOSE: The effects of intention gesture treatment (IGT) and pantomime gesture treatment (PGT) on word retrieval were compared in people with aphasia. METHOD:Four individuals with aphasia and word retrieval impairments subsequent to left-hemisphere stroke participated in a single-participant crossover treatment design. Each participant viewed target nouns on a computer screen in 2 counterbalanced training phases. Training included paired verbal + gesture treatment strategies to elicit verbal and/or gestural productions of target nouns. Treatment effects were measured using daily picture-naming probes for verbal naming and gesture productions for trained and untrained words as well as pre-/posttreatment standardized aphasia tests. Outcomes and Results IGT resulted in immediate effects on the verbal productions of 2 participants but lacked carryover to untrained words. PGT resulted in improved verbal production for 2 participants and immediate effects on the gesture productions of 3 participants, with carryover of gesture production to untrained words in 1 participant. Improvements on standardized aphasia tests were evident in 2 participants. CONCLUSION:IGT and PGT had positive treatment effects, but for contrasting communication modalities. Two individuals with mild-moderate aphasia improved verbal production with both IGT and PGT, and 2 individuals with severe aphasia improved gesture use with PGT.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The effects of intention gesture treatment (IGT) and pantomime gesture treatment (PGT) on word retrieval were compared in people with aphasia. METHOD: Four individuals with aphasia and word retrieval impairments subsequent to left-hemisphere stroke participated in a single-participant crossover treatment design. Each participant viewed target nouns on a computer screen in 2 counterbalanced training phases. Training included paired verbal + gesture treatment strategies to elicit verbal and/or gestural productions of target nouns. Treatment effects were measured using daily picture-naming probes for verbal naming and gesture productions for trained and untrained words as well as pre-/posttreatment standardized aphasia tests. Outcomes and Results IGT resulted in immediate effects on the verbal productions of 2 participants but lacked carryover to untrained words. PGT resulted in improved verbal production for 2 participants and immediate effects on the gesture productions of 3 participants, with carryover of gesture production to untrained words in 1 participant. Improvements on standardized aphasia tests were evident in 2 participants. CONCLUSION: IGT and PGT had positive treatment effects, but for contrasting communication modalities. Two individuals with mild-moderate aphasia improved verbal production with both IGT and PGT, and 2 individuals with severe aphasia improved gesture use with PGT.