PURPOSE: We investigated from a theoretically motivated perspective what information differentiated sufficient from insufficient descriptions of objects provided by persons with aphasia. METHOD: Twenty-one adults with aphasia consequent to single left-hemisphere stroke verbally described 9 living and 9 nonliving objects. Responses were scored for accuracy (i.e., sufficiency) and tallied for type and quantity of semantic feature information provided. Main effects and interactions were identified using repeated measures analyses of variance, with significant findings followed up with planned comparisons. RESULTS: Differences between correct and incorrect descriptions were identified with respect to both feature type and feature distinctiveness for living and nonliving items, in particular highlighting the importance of distinctive features in descriptions of both domains. CONCLUSIONS: These findings add to the relatively small body of literature investigating semantic feature processing in adults with aphasia. This is a critical gap to close when considered in light of the preponderance of semantically based treatments for word-retrieval impairment in stroke-aphasia. Our findings provide preliminary support for the notion that semantically guided treatments for word-retrieval impairment in stroke-aphasia may be geared toward increasing specificity of semantic circumlocution to increase semantic self-cueing and to improve communication of information to conversation partners.
PURPOSE: We investigated from a theoretically motivated perspective what information differentiated sufficient from insufficient descriptions of objects provided by persons with aphasia. METHOD: Twenty-one adults with aphasia consequent to single left-hemisphere stroke verbally described 9 living and 9 nonliving objects. Responses were scored for accuracy (i.e., sufficiency) and tallied for type and quantity of semantic feature information provided. Main effects and interactions were identified using repeated measures analyses of variance, with significant findings followed up with planned comparisons. RESULTS: Differences between correct and incorrect descriptions were identified with respect to both feature type and feature distinctiveness for living and nonliving items, in particular highlighting the importance of distinctive features in descriptions of both domains. CONCLUSIONS: These findings add to the relatively small body of literature investigating semantic feature processing in adults with aphasia. This is a critical gap to close when considered in light of the preponderance of semantically based treatments for word-retrieval impairment in stroke-aphasia. Our findings provide preliminary support for the notion that semantically guided treatments for word-retrieval impairment in stroke-aphasia may be geared toward increasing specificity of semantic circumlocution to increase semantic self-cueing and to improve communication of information to conversation partners.