Comparing linguistic complexity and efficiency in conversations from stimulation and conversation therapy in aphasia.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy studies have demonstrated the benefit of group conversation therapy for a person with aphasia (PWA). However, a PWA typically participates in individual therapy prior to group therapy. Stimulation therapy (ST) is the most common type of individual aphasia therapy. Ultimately, the outcome of therapy is to enable the PWA to communicate effectively with others, which suggests the need for conversation therapy (CT). Little efficacy data exist to demonstrate the benefit of CT between a PWA and a clinician, in part because no clear treatment outcome measures have been established. More information is needed to identify optimal ways to measure CT outcomes. AIM: To identify ways to measure CT outcomes and to determine if there is a change in linguistic complexity and total talk time during conversation, samples were taken during CT and ST in two PWAs. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Seventeen 6-min conversational samples per PWA were analyzed from a prior single-subject AB1 AB2 A alternating treatment study with randomized ordering of interventions across participants. Data were analyzed for seven measures of linguistic complexity using Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT). Efficiency was measured using correct information units (CIUs) per minute and total talk time. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Per cent of complex utterances and propositional density were higher following CT. Four out of seven linguistic measures increased following ST. Total talk time was significantly greater for one PWA during CT compared with ST. No differences were found in CIUs/min across treatment types. CONCLUSION & IMPLICATIONS: Linguistic complexity and efficiency appear to be conversational treatment outcome measures that are sensitive to change, which researchers might consider using.

Conversation therapy for aphasia: a qualitative review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: A diverse literature addresses elements of conversation therapy in aphasia including intervention rooted in conversation analysis, partner training, group therapy and behavioural intervention. Currently there is no resource for clinicians or researchers that defines and organizes this information into a coherent synopsis describing various conversation therapy practices. AIMS: To organize information from varied sources into a descriptive overview of conversation therapy for aphasia. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Academic search engines were employed to identify research articles published between 1950 and September 2013 reporting on conversation therapy for aphasia. Thirty articles met criteria for review and were identified as primary sources for the qualitative review. Using qualitative methodology, relevant data were extracted from articles and categories were identified to create a descriptive taxonomy of conversation therapy for aphasia. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: Conversation interventions were divided into descriptive categories including: treatment participants (person with aphasia, partner, dyad), primary guiding orientation (conversation analysis, social model, behavioural, relationship centred), service delivery (individual, group), focus of intervention (generic/individualized; problem/solution oriented; compensatory), training methods (explicit/implicit; external/embedded), activities or tasks, and outcomes measured. Finally, articles were categorized by research design. There was marked variation in conversation therapy approaches and outcome measures reported and a notable gap in information about one-on-one conversation therapy for individuals with aphasia. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: This review provides a description of various conversation therapy approaches and identified gaps in the existing literature. Valid measures of natural conversation, research on one-on-one conversation approaches for individuals with aphasia, and a systematic body of evidence consisting of high quality research are needed.

Critical Considerations for Investigating MicroRNAs during Tumorigenesis: A Case Study in Conceptual and Contextual Nuances of miR-211-5p in Melanoma.

MicroRNAs are non-coding RNAs fundamental to metazoan development and disease. Although the aberrant regulation of microRNAs during mammalian tumorigenesis is well established, investigations into the contributions of individual microRNAs are wrought with conflicting observations. The underlying cause of these inconsistencies is often attributed to context-specific functions of microRNAs. We propose that consideration of both context-specific factors, as well as underappreciated fundamental concepts of microRNA biology, will permit a more harmonious interpretation of ostensibly diverging data. We discuss the theory that the biological function of microRNAs is to confer robustness to specific cell states. Through this lens, we then consider the role of miR-211-5p in melanoma progression. Using literature review and meta-analyses, we demonstrate how a deep understating of domain-specific contexts is critical for moving toward a concordant understanding of miR-211-5p and other microRNAs in cancer biology.