Download PDF
Sprache · Stimme · Gehör 2015; 39(03): 140-145
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1559656
Schwerpunktthema
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Effekte von Benenntraining und Diskurstraining auf Spontansprache bei Aphasie

Ein Einzelfall unter transkranieller GleichstromstimulationEffects of a Naming- and a Discourse-related Therapy Approach in Chronic AphasiaA Single Case with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
R. Darkow
1   NeuroCure Clinical Research Center NCRC, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin
,
S. Martin
3   Humanwissenschafltliche Fakultät, Universität Potsdam
,
M. Meinzer
2   Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, University of Queensland, Australia
,
F. Burchert
3   Humanwissenschafltliche Fakultät, Universität Potsdam
,
A. Floeel
1   NeuroCure Clinical Research Center NCRC, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 September 2015 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Mit der Einführung der Internationalen Klassifikation der Funktionsfähigkeit, Behinderung und Gesundheit (ICF) entstand die Kontroverse um die Verwendung sprachsystematischer Therapieansätze in der Aphasietherapie, die auf die Verbesserung von Funktionen fokussieren. In der vorliegenden Pilotstudie wurden Effekte eines Benenntraining und eines neu entwickelten Diskurstrainings auf alltagsrelevanten Sprachgebrauch in einer Einzelfallstudie untersucht. Während beider Therapieformen wurde transkranielle Gleichstromstimulation appliziert. Dieses Therapieadjuvant befindet sich noch in der Phase der Evaluation, scheint aber Therapieeffekte positiv verstärken zu können. Beide Interventionsarten führten zu signifikanten Veränderungen der Spontansprache: Das Benenntraining signifikant auf lexikalischer Ebene, das Diskurstraining nummerisch auf syntaktischer. Für den vorliegenden Einzelfall konnte die Wirksamkeit beider Therapieformen bestätigt werden.

Abstract

Since the introduction of the international classification of functioning, disability and health, there has been a controversy as to whether more traditional or participation-oriented therapy approaches should be used in the treatment of aphasia patients. In this pilot study, we investigated the effects of a naming treatment and a newly developed discourse-treatment on connected speech in daily life. During both treatments, transcranial direct current stimulation was administered. Although this adjuvant therapy is still under evaluation, it is thought to facilitate therapy outcome. After both treatment approaches, the participant showed significant changes in his spontaneous speech. While lexical parameters of connected speech showed significant changes after naming therapy, the discourse training let to numerical changes in syntactic parameters. In the present single case both approaches demonstrated their efficacy.

Schlüsselwörter

Aphasietherapie - Partizipation - Benenntraining - Diskurstraining - transkranielle Gleichstromstimulation

Key words

aphasia therapy - participation - naming - discourse-training - transcranial direct current stimulation
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Kagan A, Simmons-Mackie N, Rowland A et al. Counting what counts: A framework for capturing real-life outcomes of aphasia intervention. Aphasiology 2008; 22: 258-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Nickels L. Therapy for naming disorders: Revisiting, revising, and reviewing. Aphasiology 2002; 16: 935-979
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Menke R, Meinzer M, Kugel H. Imaging short- and long-term training success in chronic aphasia. BMC Neuroscience 2009; 10: 118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Carragher M, Conroy P, Sage K et al. Can impairment-focused therapy change the everyday conversations of people with aphasia? A review of the literature and future directions. Aphasiology 2012; 26: 895-916
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Boyle M. Discourse treatment for word retrieval impairment in aphasia: The story so far. Aphasiology 2011; 25: 1308-1326
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Holland AL. Recent advances and future directions in aphasia therapy. Brain Impairment 2008; 9: 179-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Monti A, Ferrucci R, Fumagalli M et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and language. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 2013; 84: 832-842
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Huber W, Poeck K, Weniger D et al. Test (AAT). Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1983
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Brunoni AR, Boggio PS, Ferrucci R et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation: Challenges, Opportunities, and Impact on Psychiatry and Neurorehabilitation. Frontiert in 10 Psychiatry 2013; 4: 19 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00019.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Blomert L, Buslach DC. Amsterdam-Nijmegen-Everyday-Language-Test (ANELT) – Deutsche Fassung. Lisse, NL: Swets & Zeitlinger; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Lindenberg R, Nachtigall L, Meinzer M et al. Differential Effects of dual and unihemispheric motor cortex stimulation in older adults. The Journal of Neuroscience 2013; 33: 9176-9183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Nitsche M, Paulus W. Transcranial direct current stimulation – update 2011. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 2011; 29: 463-492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Schlenck C, Schlenck K., Springer L. Die Behandlung des schweren Agrammatismus. Reduzierte-Syntax-Therapie (REST). Stuttgart: Thieme; 1995
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Hußmann K, Grande M, Bay E et al. Aachener Sprachanalyse (ASPA): Computergestütze Analyse von Spontansprache anhand von linguistischen Basisparametern. Sprache Stimme Gehör 2006; 30: 95-102
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Nitsche M, Paulus W. Transkranielle Gleichstromstimulation. In: Siebner H, Ziemann U. (Hrsg.) Das TMS Buch. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2007: 553-542
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Brunoni AR, Amadera J, Berbel B et al. A systematic review on reporting and assessment of adverse effects associated with transcranial direct current stimulation. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 2011; 14: 1133-1145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Aguiar V, Paolazzi C, Miceli G. tDCS in post-stroke aphasia: The role of stimulation parameters, behavioral treatment and patient characteristics. Cortex 2015; 63: 296-316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Saur D, Lange R, Baumgaertner A et al. Dynamics of language reorganization after stroke. Brain 2006; 129: 1371-1384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Meinzer M, Antonenko D, Lindenberg R et al. Electrical brain stimulation improves cognitive performance by modulating functional connectivity and task-specific activation. The Journal of Neuroscience 2012; 32: 1859-1866
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar