Facilitation effects of cueing techniques in two Sesotho speakers with anomia

Abstract

Aphasiologists developing treatments for anomia should closely align therapy methods with the typological and morphological characteristics of the language in question. The lead author initiated this study to develop more defensible interventions for speakers of Sesotho, a South African language. Prefix-based cueing (our alternative name for initial phoneme cueing that describes these cues in Sesotho-oriented terms) was compared to a novel technique, root-based cueing (RBC). While prefix-based cues are described in the literature, we hypothesized root-based cues would be more appropriate in this context since they were thought to be more consonant with the linguistic parameters of Sesotho. Two speakers with aphasia, who demonstrated significant anomic symptoms, served as participants. We used a multiple-baseline, single case study design. Two 144-item word lists were developed with every item represented by a photograph. Each of the two word lists was associated with one of the two cueing techniques investigated. After baseline measurements were obtained, each participant attended eight facilitation sessions for each cueing condition, resulting in eight data points per condition and participant. For both participants, RBC resulted in greater naming performance than cueing by means of initial phonemes. Our explanation of these results is based on the Interactive Lexical Network model of lexical access; root-based cues may be more effective because they more efficiently constrain the number of lemmas activated after a cue is provided. We argue that a confluence of factors (word-retrieval processes and the character of Sesotho morphosyntax) gave rise to the noted differences in naming facilitation.

Keywords:

• Aphasia
• Anomia
• Interactive network model
• Sesotho
• Facilitation

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2050571X.2016.1155817.

Notes

1 While other models of word retrieval have been developed (for example, WEAVER++) (Levelt and Meyer, 2000) we have chosen to focus on the ILN because it is supported by a substantial amount of empirical research (see Dell et al., 2014 for a review) and because it is widely cited in the aphasiological literature (see Wilshire, 2008, for a review).

2 We are aware of the challenges that arise when altered versions of psychometric tests are used to assess study participants. Crucially, adaptation of a test into another language will compromise the ability of the test to rank a participant relative to the population on which the test was normed. Our intention here was never to compare participants' language abilities to other people with aphasia. Rather, we used the tests primarily to investigate the nature and mechanism of participants' anomic symptoms.