74, p = .004. Interestingly, the three participants who generalised differ according to traditional aphasia classification (H.M., Broca’s aphasia; T.E., Anomic aphasia; P.P., Wernicke’s aphasia). The only EPZ015666 mw participant to show more than 4% change on untreated items (see Fig. 2) and not to fall into the sub-group with better semantic processing

and impaired phonological processing was D.C. She did have relatively good semantic processing but made 11% phonological errors so was on the border of being classified as having a phonological output impairment with respect to picture naming errors. Furthermore, while she did not demonstrate a significant effect of length on picture naming overall (Jonckheere Trend Test, z = 1.20, p = .11, one-tailed), she did show a dip in performance for naming three syllable items (1 syll. .71, 2 syll. .74, 3 syll. .63). Thus, D.C.’s pattern of performance is not out of line with the general statement that those with relatively less of a lexical-semantic deficit and more of a phonological encoding deficit may show some generalisation to untreated items. In using predetermined cut-offs to assign participants

to different theoretically motivated cells the detail of her performance has been obscured. 2 The study posed three LDE225 datasheet research questions: (i) Can a cueing therapy improve word production (i.e., retrieval of meaning and form and phonological encoding) in a series of participants with aphasia? The answer to question (iii) is considered below in sections on: sub-grouping, outcomes in relation to this and more traditional aphasia classification, and generalisation in relation to sub-groups. Finally, we discuss the clinical and research implications of the findings. While our method of comparison relative to the group enabled classification of participants into four theoretically motivated Sirolimus in vivo sub-groups to achieve the aims of this study, further consideration is necessary before such methods are used in future research or clinical practice. Classifying this set of participants using z-scores on word to picture matching resulted in participants

with a score of .93 or less being scored as having more of a semantic deficit, and .97 or more as having relatively less of a semantic deficit. Thus, for participants in this study, a cut-off score for degree of semantic impairment could be set at around .95. However, clinically, this should be used with caution. The cut-off warrants verification from further research and more discriminating tasks e.g., word picture verification with reaction times could be employed in future studies and in clinic. We would continue to advocate taking the better of the spoken or written tasks as a measure of semantic processing. All but one (15/16) participants were classified into the same group for phonological production deficit from either proportion of phonological errors or from the presence/absence of a length effect in naming.