05.06.2014 Views

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Queen Margaret University

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Queen Margaret University

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Queen Margaret University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

demonstrated some ability to learn the new vocabulary and performance varied<br />

from the highest recall score <strong>of</strong> 99% (i.e. raw score <strong>of</strong> 318 from a possible<br />

maximum total <strong>of</strong> 320) to the lowest <strong>of</strong> 15% (i.e. raw score <strong>of</strong> 49 from a possible<br />

maximum total <strong>of</strong> 320). Qualitative analysis <strong>of</strong> the data <strong>in</strong>dicated that low scor<strong>in</strong>g<br />

participants had learned a number <strong>of</strong> different characteristics about particular<br />

words confirm<strong>in</strong>g that learn<strong>in</strong>g had occurred rather than as a result <strong>of</strong> purely<br />

random responses (i.e. by chance). Ten participants were reassessed 3-5 days<br />

follow<strong>in</strong>g the f<strong>in</strong>al tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g session i.e. delayed recall assessments – the two<br />

lowest scor<strong>in</strong>g participants decl<strong>in</strong>ed. All ten demonstrated some ability to reta<strong>in</strong><br />

the newly learned <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>in</strong> long-term memory with the highest recall score<br />

be<strong>in</strong>g 82% (i.e. raw score <strong>of</strong> 263.5 from a possible maximum total <strong>of</strong> 320) and<br />

the lowest <strong>of</strong> 17.5% (i.e. raw score <strong>of</strong> 56 from a possible maximum total <strong>of</strong> 320).<br />

The percentage <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation recalled from the delayed recall assessments<br />

was compared with immediate recall assessments and it was noted that the<br />

percentage <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation reta<strong>in</strong>ed from the tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g sessions varied from 83% to<br />

49% <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation. There were no <strong>in</strong>stances <strong>of</strong> participants recall<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formation<br />

about the new words <strong>in</strong> delayed recall that had not already been recalled <strong>in</strong><br />

immediate recall assessments.<br />

The disparity <strong>in</strong> the ability <strong>of</strong> participants with aphasia to learn the new<br />

vocabulary mirrored the variability with<strong>in</strong> the normal population’s performance <strong>in</strong><br />

the prelim<strong>in</strong>ary studies (see Chapter 3). Qualitative data revealed some<br />

similarities <strong>in</strong> error patterns which both populations shared; semantic errors <strong>in</strong><br />

word-picture match<strong>in</strong>g tasks, phonemic errors <strong>in</strong> retriev<strong>in</strong>g the new word forms,<br />

circumlocution when describ<strong>in</strong>g characteristics <strong>of</strong> target words that were not<br />

recalled and some between-session <strong>in</strong>terference <strong>of</strong> the new words or associated<br />

mean<strong>in</strong>gs. However qualitative data also identified notable differences <strong>in</strong> error<br />

patterns between the two populations. Firstly, it was noted that participants with<br />

aphasia took a longer time to retrieve target responses than the normal<br />

population (for example, see participant C1 – section 5.5.2.1 and C3 – section<br />

237

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!