Predictors and Biomarkers of Treatment Gains in a Clinical Stroke Trial Targeting the Lower Extremity

Purpose A significant relationship between verbal short-term memory (STM) and language performance in people with aphasia has been found across studies. However, very few studies have examined the predictive value of verbal STM in treatment outcomes. This study aims to determine if verbal STM can be used as a predictor of treatment success. Method Retrospective data from 25 people with aphasia in a larger randomized controlled trial of phonomotor treatment were analyzed. Digit and word spans from immediately pretreatment were run in multiple linear regression models to determine whether they predict magnitude of change from pre- to posttreatment and follow-up naming accuracy. Pretreatment, immediately posttreatment, and 3 months posttreatment digit and word span scores were compared to determine if they changed following a novel treatment approach. Results Verbal STM, as measured by digit and word spans, did not predict magnitude of change in naming accuracy from pre- to posttreatment nor from pretreatment to 3 months posttreatment. Furthermore, digit and word spans did not change from pre- to posttreatment or from pretreatment to 3 months posttreatment in the overall analysis. A post hoc analysis revealed that only the less impaired group showed significant changes in word span scores from pretreatment to 3 months posttreatment. Discussion The results suggest that digit and word spans do not predict treatment gains. In a less severe subsample of participants, digit and word span scores can change following phonomotor treatment; however, the overall results suggest that span scores may not change significantly. The implications of these findings are discussed within the broader purview of theoretical and empirical associations between aphasic language and verbal STM processing.

Download Full-text

A Phonomotor Approach to Apraxia of Speech Treatment

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology ◽

10.1044/2020_ajslp-19-00116 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 29 (4) ◽

pp. 2109-2130

Author(s):

Lauren Bislick

Keyword(s):

Phase I ◽

Treatment Effects ◽

Single Case ◽

Motor Planning ◽

The Other ◽

Multimodal Approach ◽

Apraxia Of Speech ◽

Duration Of Treatment ◽

Treatment Gains ◽

Future Work

Purpose This study continued Phase I investigation of a modified Phonomotor Treatment (PMT) Program on motor planning in two individuals with apraxia of speech (AOS) and aphasia and, with support from prior work, refined Phase I methodology for treatment intensity and duration, a measure of communicative participation, and the use of effect size benchmarks specific to AOS. Method A single-case experimental design with multiple baselines across behaviors and participants was used to examine acquisition, generalization, and maintenance of treatment effects 8–10 weeks posttreatment. Treatment was distributed 3 days a week, and duration of treatment was specific to each participant (criterion based). Experimental stimuli consisted of target sounds or clusters embedded nonwords and real words, specific to each participants' deficit. Results Findings show improved repetition accuracy for targets in trained nonwords, generalization to targets in untrained nonwords and real words, and maintenance of treatment effects at 10 weeks posttreatment for one participant and more variable outcomes for the other participant. Conclusions Results indicate that a modified version of PMT can promote generalization and maintenance of treatment gains for trained speech targets via a multimodal approach emphasizing repeated exposure and practice. While these results are promising, the frequent co-occurrence of AOS and aphasia warrants a treatment that addresses both motor planning and linguistic deficits. Thus, the application of traditional PMT with participant-specific modifications for AOS embedded into the treatment program may be a more effective approach. Future work will continue to examine and maximize improvements in motor planning, while also treating anomia in aphasia.

Download Full-text

Combining Values

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2002.marapr01 ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

pp. 1-4, 12 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Christopher R. Brigham

Keyword(s):

Lower Extremity ◽

Upper Extremity ◽

Evaluation Method ◽

Proximal Phalanx ◽

Common Error ◽

The Third ◽

Whole Person ◽

Impairment Ratings ◽

Upper Extremity Impairment ◽

The Individual

Abstract To account for the effects of multiple impairments, evaluating physicians must provide a summary value that combines multiple impairments so the whole person impairment is equal to or less than the sum of all the individual impairment values. A common error is to add values that should be combined and typically results in an inflated rating. The Combined Values Chart in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, includes instructions that guide physicians about combining impairment ratings. For example, impairment values within a region generally are combined and converted to a whole person permanent impairment before combination with the results from other regions (exceptions include certain impairments of the spine and extremities). When they combine three or more values, physicians should select and combine the two lowest values; this value is combined with the third value to yield the total value. Upper extremity impairment ratings are combined based on the principle that a second and each succeeding impairment applies not to the whole unit (eg, whole finger) but only to the part that remains (eg, proximal phalanx). Physicians who combine lower extremity impairments usually use only one evaluation method, but, if more than one method is used, the physician should use the Combined Values Chart.

Download Full-text

Quick Reference: Chapter 3: The Musculoskeletal System and Chapter 4: The Nervous System

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2000.mayjun03 ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 5 (3) ◽

pp. 4-4

Keyword(s):

Nervous System ◽

Lower Extremity ◽

Musculoskeletal System ◽

Multistep Method ◽

Manual Muscle Testing ◽

Motor Deficits ◽

Lower Extremity Weakness ◽

Residual Symptoms ◽

Muscle Testing ◽

Almost All

Abstract Lesions of the peripheral nervous system (PNS), whether due to injury or illness, commonly result in residual symptoms and signs and, hence, permanent impairment. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fourth Edition, divides PNS deficits into sensory and motor and includes pain in the former. This article, which regards rating sensory and motor deficits of the lower extremities, is continued from the March/April 2000 issue of The Guides Newsletter. Procedures for rating extremity neural deficits are described in Chapter 3, The Musculoskeletal System, section 3.1k for the upper extremity and sections 3.2k and 3.2l for the lower limb. Sensory deficits and dysesthesia are both disorders of sensation, but the former can be interpreted to mean diminished or absent sensation (hypesthesia or anesthesia) Dysesthesia implies abnormal sensation in the absence of a stimulus or unpleasant sensation elicited by normal touch. Sections 3.2k and 3.2d indicate that almost all partial motor loss in the lower extremity can be rated using Table 39. In addition, Section 4.4b and Table 21 indicate the multistep method used for spinal and some additional nerves and be used alternatively to rate lower extremity weakness in general. Partial motor loss in the lower extremity is rated by manual muscle testing, which is described in the AMA Guides in Section 3.2d.

Download Full-text

Q&A: Multiple Lower Extremity Impairments and AMA Guides, Third Edition, Revised

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2017.marapr05 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 22 (2) ◽

pp. 15-16

Author(s):

Christopher R. Brigham ◽

Kathryn Mueller ◽

Steven Demeter ◽

Randolph Soo Hoo

Keyword(s):

Lower Extremity

Download Full-text

Spinal Impairment Evaluation: Fifth Edition Changes

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2001.janfeb01 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. 1-3

Author(s):

Robert H. Haralson

Keyword(s):

Spinal Cord ◽

Lower Extremity ◽

Range Of Motion ◽

Upper Extremity ◽

Spinal Cord Injuries ◽

Clinical Findings ◽

Fourth Edition ◽

Treatment Results ◽

Standard Terminology ◽

Made In

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.

Download Full-text