PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of persons with aphasia, with and without hearing loss, to complete a commonly used open-set word recognition test that requires a verbal response. Furthermore, phonotactic probabilities and neighborhood densities of word recognition errors were assessed to explore potential underlying linguistic complexities that might differentially influence performance among groups. METHOD: Four groups of adult participants were tested: participants with no brain injury with normal hearing, participants with no brain injury with hearing loss, participants with brain injury with aphasia and normal hearing, and participants with brain injury with aphasia and hearing loss. The Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU-6; Tillman & Carhart, 1966) was administered. Those participants who were unable to respond orally (repeating words as heard) were assessed with the Picture Identification Task (Wilson & Antablin, 1980), permitting a picture-pointing response instead. Error patterns from the NU-6 were assessed to determine whether phonotactic probability influenced performance. RESULTS: All participants with no brain injury and 72.7% of the participants with aphasia (24 out of 33) completed the NU-6. Furthermore, all participants who were unable to complete the NU-6 were able to complete the Picture Identification Task. There were significant group differences on NU-6 performance. The 2 groups with normal hearing had significantly higher scores than the 2 groups with hearing loss, but the 2 groups with normal hearing and the 2 groups with hearing loss did not differ from one another, implying that their performance was largely determined by hearing loss rather than by brain injury or aphasia. The neighborhood density, but not phonotactic probabilities, of the participants' errors differed across groups with and without aphasia. CONCLUSIONS: Because the vast majority of the participants with aphasia examined could be tested readily using an instrument such as the NU-6, clinicians should not be reticent to use this test if patients are able to repeat single words, but routine use of alternative tests is encouraged for populations of people with brain injuries.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of persons with aphasia, with and without hearing loss, to complete a commonly used open-set word recognition test that requires a verbal response. Furthermore, phonotactic probabilities and neighborhood densities of word recognition errors were assessed to explore potential underlying linguistic complexities that might differentially influence performance among groups. METHOD: Four groups of adult participants were tested: participants with no brain injury with normal hearing, participants with no brain injury with hearing loss, participants with brain injury with aphasia and normal hearing, and participants with brain injury with aphasia and hearing loss. The Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU-6; Tillman & Carhart, 1966) was administered. Those participants who were unable to respond orally (repeating words as heard) were assessed with the Picture Identification Task (Wilson & Antablin, 1980), permitting a picture-pointing response instead. Error patterns from the NU-6 were assessed to determine whether phonotactic probability influenced performance. RESULTS: All participants with no brain injury and 72.7% of the participants with aphasia (24 out of 33) completed the NU-6. Furthermore, all participants who were unable to complete the NU-6 were able to complete the Picture Identification Task. There were significant group differences on NU-6 performance. The 2 groups with normal hearing had significantly higher scores than the 2 groups with hearing loss, but the 2 groups with normal hearing and the 2 groups with hearing loss did not differ from one another, implying that their performance was largely determined by hearing loss rather than by brain injury or aphasia. The neighborhood density, but not phonotactic probabilities, of the participants' errors differed across groups with and without aphasia. CONCLUSIONS: Because the vast majority of the participants with aphasia examined could be tested readily using an instrument such as the NU-6, clinicians should not be reticent to use this test if patients are able to repeat single words, but routine use of alternative tests is encouraged for populations of people with brain injuries.
Authors: Kristin M Schaffer; Lisa Wauters; Karinne Berstis; Stephanie M Grasso; Maya L Henry Journal: Neuropsychol Rehabil Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 2.868