A Usability Study of Internet-Based Therapy for Naming Deficits in Aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the usability of delivering the Phonological Components Analysis treatment for anomia (Leonard, Rochon, & Laird, 2008) remotely via the Internet to individuals with chronic poststroke aphasia. A secondary aim was to probe the experiences and satisfaction of clinicians in administering treatment at a distance. Method: Six individuals with mild-moderate aphasia and 2 trained clinicians participated in this usability study. Participants and clinicians underwent approximately 6 hr of treatment under observation by an independent observer. The usability characteristics of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction were assessed. Results: Individuals with aphasia used the Internet-based Phonological Components Analysis therapy successfully, demonstrating independence and very few errors in completing online tasks. Overall, participant satisfaction was high, despite occasional difficulties with technical aspects of the system. Clinicians found the application easy to use but raised concerns about the participant-clinician interaction, perceiving rapport-building and communicating to be more difficult online than face-to-face. Conclusions: It is important to consider usability and the clinician's perspective in developing telepractice applications in speech-language pathology. Future directions include assessing the efficacy of remote treatment and collecting a larger sample of clinician data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".