scholarly journals VENTRICULAR SUBSTRATE IDENTIFICATION USING CLOSE COUPLED PACED ELECTROGRAM FEATURE ANALYSIS (PEFA)

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (10) ◽  
pp. S102
Author(s):  
D. Redfearn ◽  
M. Shariat ◽  
D. Gupta ◽  
B. Glover ◽  
J. Hashemi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Feature Analysis ◽  
Substrate Identification

Ventricular substrate identification using close-coupled paced electrogram feature analysis

EP Europace ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 492-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Hassan Shariat ◽  
Divyanshu Gupta ◽  
Enes E Gul ◽  
Benedict Glover ◽  
Javad Hashemi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Feature Analysis ◽  
Substrate Identification

Phonomotor Versus Semantic Feature Analysis Treatment for Anomia in 58 Persons With Aphasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (12) ◽  
pp. 4464-4482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane L. Kendall ◽  
Megan Oelke Moldestad ◽  
Wesley Allen ◽  
Janaki Torrence ◽  
Stephen E. Nadeau
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Response Latency ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Semantic Knowledge ◽  
Semantic Feature ◽  
Feature Analysis ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Confrontation Naming ◽  
Semantic Feature Analysis

Purpose The ultimate goal of anomia treatment should be to achieve gains in exemplars trained in the therapy session, as well as generalization to untrained exemplars and contexts. The purpose of this study was to test the efficacy of phonomotor treatment, a treatment focusing on enhancement of phonological sequence knowledge, against semantic feature analysis (SFA), a lexical-semantic therapy that focuses on enhancement of semantic knowledge and is well known and commonly used to treat anomia in aphasia. Method In a between-groups randomized controlled trial, 58 persons with aphasia characterized by anomia and phonological dysfunction were randomized to receive 56–60 hr of intensively delivered treatment over 6 weeks with testing pretreatment, posttreatment, and 3 months posttreatment termination. Results There was no significant between-groups difference on the primary outcome measure (untrained nouns phonologically and semantically unrelated to each treatment) at 3 months posttreatment. Significant within-group immediately posttreatment acquisition effects for confrontation naming and response latency were observed for both groups. Treatment-specific generalization effects for confrontation naming were observed for both groups immediately and 3 months posttreatment; a significant decrease in response latency was observed at both time points for the SFA group only. Finally, significant within-group differences on the Comprehensive Aphasia Test–Disability Questionnaire ( Swinburn, Porter, & Howard, 2004 ) were observed both immediately and 3 months posttreatment for the SFA group, and significant within-group differences on the Functional Outcome Questionnaire ( Glueckauf et al., 2003 ) were found for both treatment groups 3 months posttreatment. Discussion Our results are consistent with those of prior studies that have shown that SFA treatment and phonomotor treatment generalize to untrained words that share features (semantic or phonological sequence, respectively) with the training set. However, they show that there is no significant generalization to untrained words that do not share semantic features or phonological sequence features.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document