Effectiveness of sensorimotor therapy on action naming in post-stroke aphasia: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Aphasia, a language disorder caused by brain injury, often results in action naming difficulties. This systematic review reports and analyzes the studies on speech-therapy interventions that use sensorimotor strategies for treating isolated verbs in individuals with chronic aphasia. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, the MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycInfo databases were searched on January 18, 2024, for articles published in English and French between 1996 and 2024. The articles were screened and assessed for quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP). The studies were also categorized according to the treatment methods used. RESULTS: = 2). While gestures may be effective as part of a multimodal therapy strategy, they do not lead to better outcomes when used in isolation or in combination with traditional cueing methods. CONCLUSION: Multimodal therapy, combining gestures with traditional methods, could benefit people with chronic aphasia. However, isolated gesture therapy showed less consistent results. Further research with randomized controlled trials is needed to validate these results and investigate further communication outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".