Disclaimer: this resource is intended for speech and language therapists and students of this profession. If you require therapy for aphasia please contact a speech and language therapist.
Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA)
Summary: An approach that seeks to assist word retrieval and stimulate the damaged semantic system by increasing ‘activation of the semantic network surrounding the target word’ (Coelho, McHugh, & Boyle, 2000). Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) involves generating words and phrases that are related to the target and providing multiple forms of input (e.g. pictures, writing, verbal prompts to consider semantic qualities of a target).
Example:
- The client is asked to name a target image. If unable to do so, the therapist generates and answers a set of questions about the target, e.g. “What does it look like?”, “What category does it belong in?”, “What does it do?”, “What sound does it make?”, “Where would you find it?”, “What is it made of?”, “What is it similar to?”.
- While generating and answering these questions the therapist writes and/or draws the answers to these questions around the target on a piece of paper in the style of a mind map.
- Once the map is completed the client is asked to name the target again. If unable to do so, the therapist names the target and the client repeats it.
Evidence Base: Boyle’s meta-analysis (2010) included 7 SFA studies (spanning 17 participants) and explored variations in delivery of SFA (e.g. whether the client or therapist generated the semantic features in therapy). This meta-analysis found that, regardless of delivery-method, SFA resulted in improved noun naming in participants with anomic, conduction, Wernicke’s, Broca’s, transcortical motor aphasia, and aphasia secondary to traumatic brain injury. Most participants had mild-moderate aphasia (only 1 had severe aphasia). The only participant who did not improve also had a cognitive impairment.
Maddy (2014) carried out a meta-analysis of SFA studies that built on Boyle’s meta-analysis, adding new studies and investigating treatment effects. Findings indicate SFA is effective at improving confrontation naming of trained items amongst clients with non-degenerative aphasia. A medium to large treatment effect was noted for majority of participants. However, many of these studies showed limited generalisation to words not targeted in therapy or connected speech.
Kiran and Thompson (2003) compared naming ability when trained on targets of increasing complexity. 3 participants received therapy highlighting the semantic features of target words. Results indicate that participants were able to generalise from atypical targets within a semantic category to more typical targets within that category but were not able to generalise the other way - i.e. from training on typical targets to more atypical targets. For example, a client who is trained on the target “artichoke” might see generalisation to more typical vegetables such as “carrot”, whereas a client trained on “carrot” is unlikely to see generalisation to “artichoke”.
Freed & Torstensen (2008) compared Promoting Aphasics’ Communicative Effectiveness treatment (PACE) (see link at bottom of page) with SFA in the treatment of two participants with chronic Broca’s aphasia. Results indicate that these treatments are equally effective at improving word-finding for trained stimuli. Some generalisation was also noted in both approaches to untrained stimuli. Both participants expressed a strong preference for PACE over SFA and the length or time required to deliver PACE was markedly reduced compared to SFA.
Maddy (2014) carried out a meta-analysis of SFA studies that built on Boyle’s meta-analysis, adding new studies and investigating treatment effects. Findings indicate SFA is effective at improving confrontation naming of trained items amongst clients with non-degenerative aphasia. A medium to large treatment effect was noted for majority of participants. However, many of these studies showed limited generalisation to words not targeted in therapy or connected speech.
Kiran and Thompson (2003) compared naming ability when trained on targets of increasing complexity. 3 participants received therapy highlighting the semantic features of target words. Results indicate that participants were able to generalise from atypical targets within a semantic category to more typical targets within that category but were not able to generalise the other way - i.e. from training on typical targets to more atypical targets. For example, a client who is trained on the target “artichoke” might see generalisation to more typical vegetables such as “carrot”, whereas a client trained on “carrot” is unlikely to see generalisation to “artichoke”.
Freed & Torstensen (2008) compared Promoting Aphasics’ Communicative Effectiveness treatment (PACE) (see link at bottom of page) with SFA in the treatment of two participants with chronic Broca’s aphasia. Results indicate that these treatments are equally effective at improving word-finding for trained stimuli. Some generalisation was also noted in both approaches to untrained stimuli. Both participants expressed a strong preference for PACE over SFA and the length or time required to deliver PACE was markedly reduced compared to SFA.
References
Boyle, M., 2014. Semantic Feature Analysis treatment for aphasic word retrieval impairments: What's in a name? Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 17(6), 411-42
Coelho, C.A., McHugh, R.E., & Boyle, M., 2000. Semantic feature analysis as a treatment for aphasic dysnomia: A replication. Aphasiology, 14(2), 133-142
Freed, D. & Torstensen, K., 2013. A comparison of Semantic Feature Analysis and Promoting Aphasic Communicative Effectiveness for treating anomia in patients with aphasia. In: Clinical Aphasiology Conference, Tucson, AZ. [online] Available at: <http://eprints-prod-05.library.pitt.edu/2433/1/A_COMPARISON_OF_SEMANTIC_FEATURE_ANALYSIS_AND_PROMOTING_APHASIC_COMMUNICATIVE_EFFECTIVENESS_FOR_TREATING_ANOMIA_IN_PATIENTS_WITH_APHASIA.pdf> [Accessed 02/12/2016]
Kiran, S. & Thompson, C. K., 2003. The role of semantic complexity in treatment of naming deficits: Training semantic categories in fluent aphasia by controlling exemplar typicality. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 773-787
Maddy, K.M., Capilouto, G.J., & McCormas, K.L., 2014. The effectiveness of semantic feature analysis: An evidence-based systematic review. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 57(4), 254-67
Boyle, M., 2014. Semantic Feature Analysis treatment for aphasic word retrieval impairments: What's in a name? Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 17(6), 411-42
Coelho, C.A., McHugh, R.E., & Boyle, M., 2000. Semantic feature analysis as a treatment for aphasic dysnomia: A replication. Aphasiology, 14(2), 133-142
Freed, D. & Torstensen, K., 2013. A comparison of Semantic Feature Analysis and Promoting Aphasic Communicative Effectiveness for treating anomia in patients with aphasia. In: Clinical Aphasiology Conference, Tucson, AZ. [online] Available at: <http://eprints-prod-05.library.pitt.edu/2433/1/A_COMPARISON_OF_SEMANTIC_FEATURE_ANALYSIS_AND_PROMOTING_APHASIC_COMMUNICATIVE_EFFECTIVENESS_FOR_TREATING_ANOMIA_IN_PATIENTS_WITH_APHASIA.pdf> [Accessed 02/12/2016]
Kiran, S. & Thompson, C. K., 2003. The role of semantic complexity in treatment of naming deficits: Training semantic categories in fluent aphasia by controlling exemplar typicality. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 773-787
Maddy, K.M., Capilouto, G.J., & McCormas, K.L., 2014. The effectiveness of semantic feature analysis: An evidence-based systematic review. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 57(4), 254-67
|
|
