A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Queen Margaret University

et al. (2001) evaluated the ability of two participants with aphasia to re-acquire
vocabulary using techniques employed with healthy adults (see section 2.8.5.1).
Results indicated that participants did not learn all the target words but were
able to demonstrate some learning. As with healthy adults the orthographic
cueing method promoted significantly higher recall and learning. They advise
that although additional time for recall of the learned items did not help healthy
adults recall more information it may be an important factor for people with
aphasia. Marshall, Freed and Karow (2001) evaluated two cueing techniques to
facilitate learning – personalised cueing and phonological cueing – using the
names of unfamiliar breeds of dogs matched with photographs of the dogs.
Results indicated that participants who learned the associations using
personalised cueing had significantly higher levels of naming accuracy and
recall than phonological cueing.
Other studies evaluated learning using familiar words matched with novel
abstract symbols, which reduced bias from previous learning. Marshall,
Neuburger and Phillips (1992) evaluated the facilitation technique (non-verbal
word-to-symbol matching tasks) and cueing technique (repetition and sentence
completion tasks) with people with mild-moderate aphasia. Results indicated
that participants were able to learn new paired associations using both
techniques. The authors assert that learning using the word-symbol matching
technique required a deeper level of processing than repetition as it involved
deeper semantic processing. They also advise that provision of the opportunity
for rehearsal is important in assisting the transfer of newly learned items from
short-term to long-term memory. Freed, Marshall and Nippold (1995) also used
the matching of familiar words with abstract symbols and evaluated the effects
of personalised cueing (where participants created their own unique cue for the
symbol) versus cues provided by the researchers. Unlike Marshall et al.’s (2001)
findings their study concluded that both methods of cueing were comparable in
facilitating correct responses for up to 30 days following training.
62