BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//events.la.psu.edu//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/New_York
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:20201101T020000
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=11;BYDAY=1SU
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:20200308T020000
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=2SU
END:DAYLIGHT
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:16835-a85b1ca4c1a9b9e7bc1e8fa83987cee4@events.la.psu.edu
DTSTAMP:20260307T155739Z
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20180413T090000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20180413T103000
SUMMARY:CLS Speaker Series - Michael Dickey (University of Pittsburgh) Predictor
s and Mechanisms of Naming Treatment Response in Aphasia
DESCRIPTION:Predictors and Mechanisms of Naming Treatment Response in Ap
hasia\n\nSemantically-oriented naming treatments such as Semantic Featur
e Analysis (Boyle &\; Coelho\, 1995) can improve both word retrieval
and broader communicative function among people with aphasia (PWA). Howe
ver\, there is considerable variability in how well individual PWA respo
nd to SFA \;treatment \;(Boyle\, 2010\; \;Oh et al.\, 2016).
\;This talk presents three complementary lines of evidence aimed at
understanding and characterizing this variability. \; First\, resul
ts from a novel \;meta-analysis of SFA treatment studies (Quique et
al.\, 2017) \;provide evidence for a person-level predictor of treat
ment response\, as well as \;preliminary evidence regarding the dose
-response relationship for SFA: how much benefit may be expected from va
rying amounts of SFA treatment? Second\, results from a large-scale on-g
oing \;group study of SFA response (Gravier et al.\, 2018) \;pro
vide evidence for \;a practice-related predictor of SFA response: th
e number of client-generated features during treatment appears to be pre
dictive of gains for both treated and untreated related stimuli. \;
Third\, parallel results from the same group study (Dickey et al.\, in p
rep) \;indicate that pre-treatment \;semantic processing ability
is predictive of improvement on both treated and untreated words. Toget
her \;with the findings regarding practice-related predictors\, thes
e results \;suggest that SFA has its positive effects through \;
facilitation of lexical-semantic aspects of word retrieval processes (Fo
ygel &\; Dell\, 2000). \; Understanding the variability in SFA tr
eatment response can therefore shed novel light on the mechanisms behind
it.\n\nFor more details: https://events.la.psu.edu/event/cls-speaker-se
ries-michael-dickey-university-of-pittsburgh-predictors-and-mechanisms-o
f-naming-treatment-response-in-aphasia/
X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:Predictors and Mechanisms of Naming Treatmen
t Response in Aphasia
Semantically-oriented
naming treatments such as Semantic Feature Analysis (Boyle & Coelho
, 1995) can improve both word retrieval and broader communicative functi
on among people with aphasia (PWA). However, there is considerable varia
bility in how well individual PWA respond to SFA treatment (Bo
yle, 2010; Oh et al., 2016). This talk presents three compleme
ntary lines of evidence aimed at understanding and characterizing this v
ariability. First, results from a novel meta-analysis of SFA
treatment studies (Quique et al., 2017) provide evidence for a pers
on-level predictor of treatment response, as well as preliminary ev
idence regarding the dose-response relationship for SFA: how much benefi
t may be expected from varying amounts of SFA treatment? Second, results
from a large-scale on-going group study of SFA response (Gravier e
t al., 2018) provide evidence for a practice-related predictor
of SFA response: the number of client-generated features during treatme
nt appears to be predictive of gains for both treated and untreated rela
ted stimuli. Third, parallel results from the same group study (Di
ckey et al., in prep) indicate that pre-treatment semantic pro
cessing ability is predictive of improvement on both treated and untreat
ed words. Together with the findings regarding practice-related pre
dictors, these results suggest that SFA has its positive effects th
rough facilitation of lexical-semantic aspects of word retrieval pr
ocesses (Foygel & Dell, 2000). Understanding the variability i
n SFA treatment response can therefore shed novel light on the mechanism
s behind it.
For more details: https://events.la.psu.edu/event/cls-speaker-series-michael-dickey
-university-of-pittsburgh-predictors-and-mechanisms-of-naming-treatment-
response-in-aphasia/
LOCATION:127 Moore Building
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR