Facilitating Word Retrieval in Aphasia: Which Type of Cues for Which Aphasic Speakers?

Article Article scientifique Article Facilitating Word Retrieval in Aphasia: Which Type of Cues for Which Aphasic Speakers? eng 2021-11-26 author Python Grégoire 0000-0002-9239-6035 Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.,Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Neurorehabilitation Unit, University Hospital CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland. 815708 Section de psychologie (PSICO) author Pellet Cheneval Pauline 0000-0002-4124-7259 Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 630083 author Bonnans Caroline Neurorehabilitation Unit, Lavigny Institution, Lavigny, Switzerland. 674680 author Laganaro Marina 0000-0002-4054-0939 Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 29851 Section de psychologie (PSICO) 747391 10.3389/fnhum.2021.747391 34899216 1662-5161 PMC8662555 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2021.747391/full Background: Even if both phonological and semantic cues can facilitate word retrieval in aphasia, it remains unclear if their respective effectiveness varies according to the underlying anomic profile. Aim: The aim of the present facilitation study is to compare the effect of phonological and semantic cues on picture naming accuracy and speed in different types of anomia. Methods: In the present within-subject design study, 15 aphasic persons following brain damage underwent picture naming paradigms with semantic cues (categorically- or associatively related) and phonological cues (initial phoneme presented auditorily, visually or both). Results: At the group level, semantic cueing was as effective as phonological cueing to significantly speed up picture naming. However, while phonological cues were effective regardless of the anomic profile, semantic cueing effects varied depending on the type of anomia. Participants with mixed anomia showed facilitation after both semantic categorical and associative cues, but individuals with lexical-phonological anomia only after categorical cues. Crucially, semantic cues were ineffective for participants with lexical-semantic anomia. These disparities were confirmed by categorical semantic facilitation decreasing when semantic/omission errors prevailed in the anomic profile, but increasing alongside phonological errors. Conclusion: The effectiveness of phonological vs semantic cues seems related to the underlying anomic profile: phonological cues benefit any type of anomia, but semantic cues only lexical-phonological or mixed anomia. Anomia Facilitation Phonological cueing Picture naming Semantic priming Dewey 150 Swiss National Science Foundation Dynamics of facilitation and interference during speech production in healthy speakers and in speakers with aphasia: behavioral and ERP investigation 146113 CH 108 Section de psychologie 71 false 733 NeuroPsychoLinguistique Frontiers in human neuroscience 15 cd1c75ed-d55d-49c2-8587-494e8003260f Article (Published version) Public fnhum-15-747391.pdf 790427 application/pdf OA OTHER 9aa21d49ec26489df82fd4945ca7b936ec432423e354411d04f338894bf257bb openAccess Faculté de psychologie et des sciences de l'éducation / Section de psychologie

Title	Published in	Access level	OA Policy	Year	Views	Downloads

Facilitating Word Retrieval in Aphasia: Which Type of Cues for Which Aphasic Speakers?	Frontiers in human neuroscience			2021	12	61

Archive ouverte UNIGE

Bonnans, Caroline