A - 25 Without Words: Relational Neuropsychology and Creative Arts Therapies with People Managing Aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Common approaches to functional rehabilitation with persons managing aphasia after stroke highlight conversation and semantic retrieval, with a lack of evidence considering the diversity of physiological, social–emotional, and psychiatric symptoms and responses. Further, evidence shows high dropout rates and limited engagement for post-stroke therapies. This research considered: How does participating in a neuropsychologically-informed creative arts therapy program influence cognitive and clinical therapeutic outcomes for a person with aphasia? Method A 64-year-old White man presented mixed conduction aphasia following left middle cerebral artery stroke in the temporal parietal region. Burden of Stroke Scales, Western Aphasia Battery, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Rey Complex Figure Tasks indicated moderate aphasia, diffuse cognitive impairment with severe memory impairment, and functional difficulties with communication, social relationships, and mood. The patient participated in six 1-¼ hour creative arts therapies with a clinical neuropsychology doctoral candidate co-located in a speech-language-hearing clinic. Results The patient actively participated in all individualized arts-based directives with complete adherence to specific session goals. Outcomes evidenced clinically significant improvements in tasks evaluating perceptual-motor, executive function, and memory domains of function. Linguistic inquiry and analysis software indicated reduction in nonfluencies and increased use of affective language. Clinical therapeutic outcomes included improved mood, engagement, and relational experiences assessed at session- and program- levels. Conclusions Multi-modal, low-verbal approaches for assessment and rehabilitation after stroke improve individualized approaches to treatment beyond semantic retrieval. Clinical neuropsychologists are well-placed to inform psychotherapies for this unique symptom-clustered condition, and creative arts therapies show promise in improvements in cognitive and social–emotional domains of function.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".