Language-Specific Attention Treatment
Language-Specific Attention Treatment
, “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
1
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Table of Contents
1) Spatial Attention (see Coslett, 1999; Crosson et al., 2007) .................................................................. 3
2) Attention Allocation (see LaPointe & Erickson, 1991; also McNeil, Doyle, Hula, Rubinsky, Fossett, &
Matthews, 2004; Hula & McNeil, 2008). ................................................................................................ 13
3) Object Manipulation (see Myachykov & Posner, 2005; also Caplan & Waters, 1999, Shankweiler,
Crain, Gorrell, & Tuller, 1989) ................................................................................................................. 27
4) Topicalization (see Cutler & Fodor, 1979) .......................................................................................... 35
5) Anaphora (see Myachykov & Posner, 2005) ...................................................................................... 45
6) Nominal Grounding (see Langacker, 2008) ........................................................................................ 59
7) Clausal Grounding (see Langacker, 2008) .......................................................................................... 70
8) Windowing (see Talmy, 2001) ............................................................................................................ 78
References .............................................................................................................................................. 95
2
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Initial Baseline
Instructions:
Present the line drawings (Baseline_Probe PPT-Slides 2-41) on a computer monitor. Ask the patient to name
each picture as quickly as possible (maximum equals 20 seconds). Score correct and incorrect responses.
Spatial Attention 3
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 32 Spatial Attention Training Complete. Proceed to Lexical Processing-
Attention Allocation Task.
Total Score < 32 Administer baseline task two more times. Proceed to Phase A
Treatment Task.
Spatial Attention 4
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Instructions:
Alternately present the warning signal (visual and auditory) and line drawings (Phase A PPT-Slides 3-81) on a
computer monitor placed 45 degrees to the left of the patient’s body midline. Sit behind and to the left of the
patient. Ask the patient to name each item (a maximum of 20 seconds is allowed). If the patient gives the
incorrect name, model the correct response and ask the patient to repeat it. Indicate level of success with
model. Modeling can be provided no more than three times per item.
Slide # Item Score Model? Score Model? Score Model? Score Model?
3 anchor/ship’s anchor
5 alligator/crocodile
7 drum
9 vase/flowered vase
11 carrot
jacket/shirt/coat/sport
13 jacket
15 arm/left arm/hand
artichoke/avocado/
pineapple/bud/brussel
17 sprout/squash
19 envelope/sealed envelope
21 bicycle/bike
23 lemon
bread/loaf of bread/slice
25 of bread
27 candle
29 spoon/teaspoon
Dresser/bureau/chest of
drawers/chest
drawers/bureau
31 drawers/desk
33 bell
35 fence/picket fence/gate
37 grapes/bunch of grapes
39 whistle
41 thumb/finger
43 sandwich
45 guitar/acoustic guitar
47 hammer
Spatial Attention 5
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Slide # Item Score Model? Score Model? Score Model? Score Model?
49 harp
blouse/shirt/jacket/
sweater/coat/ladies
51 jacket/stylish shirt
television (TV)/television
53 set
55 sock
57 swing/swinging chair
59 cap/hat
61 Strawberry/raspberry
63 ant/insect/spider/bug
rhinoceros/rhino/
65 hippopotamus
67 pitcher/jug/water pitcher
leopard/tiger/cheetah/
69 jaguar
71 frog
73 paintbrush/ink pen
75 penguin/pelican
eagle/hawk/bird/bald
77 eagle/parrot
79 rocking chair/chair/rocker
81 screwdriver
Total Score
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 32 When patient reaches criterion level on two consecutive treatment
trials, Phase A is complete. Proceed to Phase B of Spatial Attention
at this time.
Total Score < 32 Repeat Phase A Treatment Task during the next treatment trial.
Spatial Attention treatment is administered for a maximum of three
sessions total.
Spatial Attention 6
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Instructions:
Alternately present the warning signal (4 second tone) and line drawings (Phase B PPT-Slides 3-81) on a
computer monitor placed 45 degrees to the left of the patient’s body midline. Sit behind and to the left of the
patient. Ask the patient to name each item (a maximum of 20 seconds is allowed). If the patient gives the
incorrect name, model the correct response and ask the patient to repeat it. Indicate level of success with
model. Modeling can be provided no more than three times per item.
Slide # Item Score Model? Score Model? Score Model? Score Model?
3 apple/fruit
5 arrow/one-way sign
7 swan/goose/duck
9 wrench
11 celery
13 pear
rooster/chicken/hen/
15 turkey/cock
17 (roller) skate
19 clock/mantle clock
thimble/nimble/thumb
21 nimble/thumb cap
flute/clarinet/coronet/
23 windpipe
goat/billy goat/
25 mule/horse/donkey
27 snail/slug/shell/snail shell
29 barrel
31 flower/rose/marigold/daisy
33 lock/padlock
35 windmill/windbreaker
37 ostrich/stork/turkey
boot/shoe/rubber
39 boot/half-boot
41 mushroom
43 vest/vestcoat
Box/cube/shot box/index
card box/cardboard
45 box/index file box
47 elephant
Spatial Attention 7
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Slide # Item Score Model? Score Model? Score Model? Score Model?
51 ladder/part of a ladder
53 pliers/wrench
55 tree
57 skunk/raccoon
59 cherry/peach/grape/plum
61 pants/slacks
63 flag/flag and staff/flag pole
toe/big toe/toes/right big
65 toe
67 coat/jacket
69 stool/chair
71 violin/bass/cello
73 cabbage/lettuce
75 plug/electric plug
mountain/mountain
77 peak/snowcap/hill
finger/pointer/
forefinger/right index finger,
79 pointing finger
81 tie/necktie
Total Score
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 32 When patient reaches criterion level on two consecutive treatment
trials, Phase B is complete. Proceed to Phase C of Spatial Attention
at this time.
Total Score < 32 Repeat Phase B Treatment Task during the next treatment trial.
Spatial Attention treatment is administered for a maximum of three
sessions total.
Spatial Attention 8
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Instructions:
Alternately present the warning signal (.5 second tone) and line drawings (Phase C PPT-Slides 22-102) on a
computer monitor placed 45 degrees to the left of the patient’s body midline. Sit behind and to the left of the
patient. Ask the patient to name each item (a maximum of 20 seconds is allowed). If the patient gives the
incorrect name, model the correct response and ask the patient to repeat it. Indicate level of success with
model. Modeling can be provided no more than three times per item.
Slide # Item Score Model? Score Model? Score Model? Score Model?
corn/ear of corn/corn on
3 cob
5 bottle/wine bottle
7 camel
9 pencil
11 button/wheel
13 key
15 football
monkey/chimp/
17 chimpanzee
barn/farm/barn and
19 silo/barn house/farmhouse
21 mitten/glove/left mitten
peacock/turkey/rooster/
23 ostrich/bird
25 clown/clown face
Airplane/plane/jet/jet
27 plane/jet airplane
29 snowman
kettle/tea
31 kettle/teapot/pot
33 toothbrush/brush
wagon/cart/wheelbarrow/
35 carriage
37 leaf/maple leaf/oak leaf
39 shirt
church/chapel/church
41 house
Beetle/insect/bug/
cockroach/roach/cricket/
43 ant/dico
Spatial Attention 9
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Slide # Item Score Model? Score Model? Score Model? Score Model?
doll/girl/baby/little
girl/female doll/child/baby
47 doll
49 salt
51 zebra
53 pot/pan/saucepan
cake/layer cake/piece of
55 cake/three-layer cake
Tomato/pepper/radish/
57 onion/peach/fruit
59 umbrella
61 star
basket/picnic basket/lunch
63 basket/wicker basket
65 giraffe/ostrich/zebra
peach/orange/apple/plum/
67 pear/fruit
69 belt/collar
71 glove/right glove
73 shoe/right shoe
75 cup/coffee cup/teacup
77 pineapple
79 fork
81 crown
Total Score
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 32 When patient reaches criterion level on two consecutive treatment
trials, Phase C is complete. See training completion criteria below.
Administer Spatial Attention Probe at start of the following session.
Total Score < 32 Repeat Phase C Treatment Task during the next treatment trial.
Spatial Attention treatment is administered for a maximum of three
sessions total.
Spatial Attention 10
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Probe Task
Instructions:
Present line drawings (Baseline_Probe PPT-Slides 2-41) on a computer monitor. Ask the patient to name each
picture as quickly as possible (a maximum of 20 seconds is allowed). Score correct and incorrect responses.
Spatial Attention 11
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Spatial Attention 12
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
2) Attention Allocation (see LaPointe & Erickson, 1991; also McNeil, Doyle, Hula,
Rubinsky, Fossett, & Matthews, 2004; Hula & McNeil, 2008).
Materials: Wisconsin Card-Sorting Test (WCST); audio file for secondary word list.
Instructions:
Sit across from patient on right side. Instruct the patient to sort the cards according to color using the computer
program. Confirm that he or she understands this task. Then, give the patient the following directions: “You are
going to hear some words. I want you to raise your hand whenever you hear the word ‘cat.’ Listen carefully and
try not to miss any. Raise your hand whenever you hear the word ‘cat.’ At the same time, continue to sort the
cards by color on the computer. Try to do this as correctly as possible. Do you understand? Are you ready? Let’s
begin.” At this time, play the audio file for the baseline task, and record the patient’s responses in the
appropriate column.
Scoring:
Word Identification 1 = hand raise 0 = no response
Card sort 1 = correct 0 = incorrect
Attention Allocation 13
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Column A Total Score ≥ 20 Discontinue Attention Allocation Training. Proceed to
with ≥ 50% accuracy on Sentence Processing Tasks.
Card Sorting
Column A Total Score < 20 Administer baseline task 2 more times. Proceed to Phase A
and/or < 50% accuracy on Treatment Task.
Card Sorting
Attention Allocation 14
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
General Instructions:
Sit across from the patient on the right side. Give the patient the following directions for the practice set and
each treatment trial: “Again, you are going to hear some words. I want you to raise your hand whenever you
hear the word ‘(name target word).’ Listen carefully and try not to miss any. Raise your hand whenever you
hear the word ‘(name target word).’ Do you understand? Are you ready? Let’s begin.” Then, play the audio file
for each treatment trial, recording the patient’s responses in the appropriate column.
Hand Hand
# Item Raise # Item Raise
A B A B
1 Arm 6 Spoon
2 Phone 7 Doll
3 CAT 8 Bee
4 Horn 9 CAT
5 CAT 10 Gin
Total A B
Scores
Cueing:
Provide feedback to the patient following each treatment trial. If the patient does not reach 80% accuracy
during a treatment trial provide cueing during the next trial according to the following hierarchy:
1. Provide cue to use auditory attention strategies (self-monitoring, rehearsal, listen and anticipate,
repetition). As accuracy increases, reduce cueing for use of strategies.
2. Provide visual cue. As accuracy increases, reduce presence of visual cue during trial (100%, 75%, 50%,
or 25% of trial).
If the patient reaches 80% accuracy without cueing, move to Phase B.
Attention Allocation 15
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Column A Total Score ≥ 20 Give feedback. Proceed directly to Phase B of Attention Allocation.
(no cueing)
Column A Total Score ≥ 20 Give feedback. Proceed to Treatment Trial #2. Modify the level of cueing as
(with any type of cueing) appropriate.
Column A Total Score < 20
(with or without cueing)
Attention Allocation 16
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Column A Total Score ≥ 20 Give feedback. Proceed directly to Phase B of Attention Allocation.
(no cueing)
Column A Total Score ≥ 20 Give feedback. Proceed to Treatment Trial #3. Modify the level of cueing as
(with any type of cueing) appropriate.
Column A Total Score < 20
(with our without cueing)
Attention Allocation 17
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Column A Total Score ≥ 20 Give feedback. Proceed directly to Phase B of Attention Allocation.
(no cueing)
Column A Total Score ≥ 20 Give feedback. Proceed to Treatment Trial #4. Modify the level of cueing as
(with any type of cueing) appropriate.
Column A Total Score < 20
(with our without cueing)
Attention Allocation 18
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Column A Total Score ≥ 20 Give feedback. Proceed directly to Phase B of Attention Allocation.
(no cueing)
Column A Total Score ≥ 20 Give feedback and repeat Phase A Training. Attention Allocation training
(with any type of cueing) should be completed a maximum of three times total. Modify the level of
Column A Total Score < 20 cueing as appropriate.
(with our without cueing)
Attention Allocation 19
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Instructions:
Sit across from patient on right side. Instruct the patient to sort the cards according to number or shape
(alternate choice) using the computer program, and confirm that they still understand this part of the task.
Then, give the patient the following directions for each treatment trial: “Again, you are going to hear some
words. I want you to raise your hand whenever you hear the word ‘(name target word).’ Listen carefully and
try not to miss any. Raise your hand whenever you hear the word ‘(name target word).’ At the same time,
continue to sort the cards by number/shape on the computer. Try to do this as correctly as possible. Do you
understand? Are you ready? Let’s begin.” Reinforce the idea that the primary task is to identify the target
words. Have the patient start sorting the cards, and then simultaneously play the audio file containing each
treatment trial, recording the patient’s responses in the appropriate column.
Cueing:
If the patient does not reach 80% accuracy for word identification with at least 50% accuracy on card sorting
during a treatment trial, provide cueing during the next trial according to the following hierarchy:
1. Provide cue to use auditory attention strategies (self-monitoring, rehearsal, listen and anticipate,
repetition). As accuracy increases, reduce cueing for use of strategies.
2. Provide visual cue. As accuracy increases, reduce presence of visual cue during trial (100%, 75%, 50%,
or 25% of trial).
If the patient reaches 80% accuracy in word identification and at least 50% accuracy on card sorting without
cueing, move to the Sentence Processing Tasks of the L-SAT protocol.
Scoring:
Word Identification 1 = hand raise 0 = no response
Card sort 1 = correct 0 = incorrect
Attention Allocation 20
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Column A Total Score ≥ 20 with ≥ Give feedback. See Attention Allocation Training Completion
50% accuracy on Card Sorting (no Criteria.
cueing)
Column A Total Score < 20 and/or Give feedback. Proceed to Treatment Trial #2. Modify the level
< 50% accuracy on Card Sorting of cueing as appropriate.
(with any type of cueing)
Column A Total Score < 20 and/or
< 50% accuracy on Card Sorting
(with or without cueing)
Attention Allocation 21
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Column A Total Score ≥ 20 with ≥ 50% Give feedback. See Attention Allocation Training
accuracy on Card Sorting (no cueing) Completion Criteria.
Column A Total Score < 20 and/or < 50% Give feedback. Proceed to Treatment Trial #3. Modify the
accuracy on Card Sorting (with any type level of cueing as appropriate.
of cueing)
Column A Total Score < 20 and/or < 50%
accuracy on Card Sorting (with or
without cueing)
Attention Allocation 22
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Column A Total Score ≥ 20 with ≥ Give feedback. See Attention Allocation Training Completion
50% accuracy on Card Sorting (no Criteria.
cueing)
Column A Total Score < 20 and/or Give feedback. Proceed to Treatment Trial #4. Modify the level
< 50% accuracy on Card Sorting of cueing as appropriate.
(with any type of cueing)
Column A Total Score < 20 and/or
< 50% accuracy on Card Sorting
(with or without cueing)
Attention Allocation 23
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Column A Total Score ≥ 20 Give feedback. See Attention Allocation Training Completion Criteria.
with ≥ 50% accuracy on
Card Sorting (no cueing)
Column A Total Score < 20 Give feedback, and repeat Phase B Training. Attention Allocation
and/or < 50% accuracy on training should be completed a maximum of three times total. Modify
Card Sorting the level of cueing as appropriate.
Column A Total Score < 20
and/or < 50% accuracy on
Card Sorting
Attention Allocation 24
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Attempt 1 Attempt 2
Date Achieved
OR
• Attempt Attention Allocation Training three times.
Attention Allocation 25
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Attention Allocation 26
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
3) Object Manipulation (see Myachykov & Posner, 2005; also Caplan & Waters, 1999,
Shankweiler, Crain, Gorrell, & Tuller, 1989)
Materials: Animal models
Initial Baseline
Instructions:
Verbally present the 18 sentences below. For each sentence, place the two or three named animals on the
table in front of the patient. Instruct the patient to manipulate objects to demonstrate the events described.
Score correct and incorrect responses.
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 14 Object Manipulation Training Complete.
Total Score < 14 Repeat baseline 2 more times, then proceed to Phase A Treatment Task.
Object Manipulation 27
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Object Familiarization Instructions: (may skip if patient clearly understood animal names during baseline task)
Place animal figures in front of patient and name each aloud to familiarize the patient. Ask the patient to
repeat the name of each object. If not all are named correctly, review again and ask patient to repeat names.
Cat Rabbit Zebra Brown Bear Pig
Dog Deer Giraffe Cow Black Bear
Sheep Horse Monkey Elephant Tiger
Scoring:
1 = correct selection of agent to perform any action on the other objects so that correct agent-object
relationship shown (i.e., picks up agent only to demonstrate action)
0 = incorrect (picks up incorrect agent or more than one object simultaneously or no response)
Also note any modeling provided and the patient’s ability to imitate.
Object Manipulation 28
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Object Manipulation 29
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 16 When criterion is met on two consecutive treatment trials, proceed to Phase B of
Object Manipulation.
Total Score < 16 Repeat Phase A treatment task during subsequent trial. Object Manipulation task
should be treated for a maximum of three sessions total.
Object Manipulation 30
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Object Familiarization Instructions: (may skip if patient clearly understood animal names during previous task)
Place animal figures in front of patient and name each aloud to familiarize the patient. Ask the patient to
repeat the name of each object. If not all are named correctly, review again and ask patient to repeat names.
Cat Rabbit Zebra Brown Bear Pig
Dog Deer Giraffe Cow Black Bear
Sheep Horse Monkey Elephant Tiger
Scoring:
1 = correct selection of agent to perform any action on the other objects so that correct agent-object
relationship shown (i.e., picks up agent only to demonstrate action)
0 = incorrect (picks up incorrect agent or more than one object simultaneously or no response)
Also note any modeling provided and the patient’s ability to imitate.
Object Manipulation 31
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Object Manipulation 32
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 12 When criterion is met on two consecutive treatment trials, Object Manipulation
Training is complete. See training completion criteria below.
Total Score < 12 Repeat Phase B treatment task during subsequent trial. Object Manipulation task
should be treated for a maximum of three sessions total.
Object Manipulation 33
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Probe
Instructions:
Verbally present the 18 sentences below. For each sentence, place the two or three named animals on the
table in front of the patient. Instruct the patient to manipulate objects to demonstrate the events described.
Score correct and incorrect responses.
Object Manipulation 34
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Initial Baseline
Instructions:
Verbally present the following set of 10 sentences without topicalization to the patient, and ask him or her the
corresponding comprehension questions. The target response for each question is indicated. Any information
that provides essential information should be scored as accurate. Score correct and incorrect responses.
Topicalization 35
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 16 Discontinue Topicalization training. Proceed to Anaphora task of L-SAT
protocol.
Total Score < 16 Administer baseline task 2 more times, then proceed to Treatment
Task for this training.
Topicalization 36
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Treatment Task
General Instructions:
Instruct patient to listen to the following set of 20 sentences and pay careful attention to comprehending
them in order to answer associated comprehension questions.
Question A Instructions:
Verbally present one of the topicalized sentences and ask the accompanying comprehension question that is
directed to embedded topic (Question A). The target response for each question is indicated. Any information
that provides essential information should be scored as accurate. Score correct and incorrect responses.
Question A Cueing:
Provide feedback to the patient following each sentence. If patient does not answer correctly, provide cues per
the hierarchy below to elicit correct response:
1. Provide cue to use auditory attention strategies (self-monitoring, rehearsal, listen and anticipate,
repetition). As accuracy increases, reduce cueing for use of strategies.
2. Provide visual cue. As accuracy increases, reduce presence of visual cue for subsequent sentences
(before and during question, before question only, etc.).
Question B Instructions:
Ask the comprehension question that is directed to information in the later part of the sentence (question B).
The target response for each question is indicated. Any information that provides essential information should
be scored as accurate. Score correct and incorrect responses. Provide feedback on accuracy of the response
and model correct response as needed. DO NOT provide cues.
Topicalization 37
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
A Level of Cueing B
# Sentence & Questions Target Score Provided Score Model?
1 Candid, the story was,
that the reporter with the
daily newspaper was
responsible for.
A. Which story was The candid story
the reporter
responsible for?
B. Which reporter The reporter with
was responsible the daily
for the story? newspaper
2 Blue, the hat was, that the
man on the corner was
wearing.
A. Which hat was the The blue hat
man wearing?
B. Which man was The man on the
wearing the hat? corner
3 Californian, the senator
was, who proposed the
motion to dismiss.
A. Which senator The Californian
proposed the senator
motion?
B. Which motion was The motion to
proposed by the dismiss
senator?
4 Angry, the author was,
who refused to go the
publisher’s party.
A. Which author The angry author
refused to go the
party?
B. Which party did The publisher’s
the author refuse party
to go to?
5 Dirty, the water was, that
ruined the flavor of the
coffee.
A. Which water The dirty water
ruined the flavor?
B. Which flavor was The coffee’s flavor
ruined by the
water?
Topicalization 38
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
A Level of Cueing B
# Sentence & Questions Target Score Provided Score Model?
6 New, the delivery
procedure was, that the
association of consumers
objected to.
A. Which procedure The new
did the procedure
association object
to?
B. Which association The consumer
objected to the association
procedure?
7 Defective, the telephone
was, that made the voice
of the caller hard to hear.
A. Which telephone The defective
was the voice telephone
hard to hear on?
B. Which voice was The caller’s voice
hard to hear on
the telephone?
8 Common, the viewers
were, who were
interested in the program
about Britain.
A. Which viewers did The common
the program viewers
interest?
B. Which program The program
interested the about Britain
viewers?
9 Zealous, the janitor was,
who joined the
custodian’s union at the
ballpark.
A. Which janitor The zealous
joined the union? janitor
B. Which union did The custodian’s
the janitor join? union
10 Expensive, the candy was,
that was sold at the
specialty store.
A. Which candy was The expensive
sold at the store? candy
B. Which store was The specialty
the candy sold at? store
Topicalization 39
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
A Level of Cueing B
# Sentence & Questions Target Score Provided Score Model?
11 Unpaved, the road was, that
washed out during the
December rains.
A. Which road washed The unpaved
out in the rains? road
B. Which rains washed The December
out the road? rains
12 Irresponsible, the boy was,
who got suspended during the
college meeting.
A. Which boy got The
suspended during the irresponsible
meeting? boy
B. At which meeting was The college
the boy suspended? meeting
13 Vigilant, the lookout was, who
saw the driver’s escape.
A. Which lookout was it The vigilant
that saw the escape? lookout
B. Whose escape was it The driver’s
that the lookout saw? escape
14 Dangerous, the situation was,
that the brave firefighter
discovered.
A. Which situation was it The dangerous
that the firefighter situation
discovered?
B. Which firefighter The brave
discovered the firefighter
situation?
15 Accurate, the article was, that
appeared in the national
magazine.
A. Which article The accurate
appeared in the article
magazine?
B. Which magazine did The national
the article appear in? magazine
16 Loud, the parade was, that
went through town on St.
Patrick’s Day.
A. Which parade went The loud parade
through town?
B. Which day did the St. Patrick’s Day
parade take place on?
Topicalization 40
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
A Level of Cueing B
# Sentence & Questions Target Score Provided Score Model?
17 Small, the town was, that was
hit by the devastating
tornadoes.
A. Which town was hit The small town
by tornadoes?
B. Which tornadoes hit The devastating
the town? tornadoes
18 Bumper to bumper, the traffic
was, that blocked the two-
lane highway.
A. Which traffic blocked Bumper to
the highway? bumper traffic
B. Which highway was The two-lane
blocked by traffic? highway
19 Exciting, the tour was, that the
tourists took through the
northeastern city.
A. Which tour did the The exciting
tourists take? tour
The
B. Which city did the northeastern
tourists tour? city
20 Crowded, the flight was, that
arrived at the Omaha airport.
A. Which flight arrived at The crowded
the airport? flight
B. Which airport did the The Omaha
flight arrive at? airport
A Score B Score
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 32 When criterion is met on two consecutive treatment trials, Topicalization
Training is complete. See training completion criteria. Administer Probe at start
of subsequent treatment session.
Total Score < 32 Repeat treatment task during subsequent trial. Topicalization Task should be
treated for a maximum of three sessions total.
Topicalization 41
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Topicalization 42
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Probe
Instructions:
Verbally present the following set of 10 sentences without topicalization to the patient, and ask him or
her the corresponding comprehension questions. The target response for each question is indicated.
Any information that provides essential information should be scored as accurate. Score correct and
incorrect responses.
Topicalization 43
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Topicalization 44
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Initial Baseline
Instructions:
Verbally present the following set of 30 sentences to the patient, and ask him or her the corresponding
comprehension questions. Working memory load is determined by the distance between the anaphoric
pronoun and its antecedent. The target response for each question is indicated. Any answer that provides the
essential information should be scored as accurate. Score correct and incorrect responses.
Anaphora 45
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Anaphora 46
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 24 Anaphora Training Complete.
Total Score < 24 Repeat baseline 2 more times, then proceed to Phase A Treatment
Task.
Anaphora 47
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Instructions:
Instruct patient to listen to the following set of 20 sentences and to pay careful attention to comprehending
them. Verbally present each sentence, and ask the corresponding comprehension question. The target
response for each question is indicated. Any answer that provides the essential information should be scored
as accurate. Score correct and incorrect responses.
Cueing:
Provide feedback to the patient following each sentence. If patient does not answer correctly, provide cues per
the hierarchy below to elicit correct response:
1. Provide cue to use auditory attention strategies (self-monitoring, rehearsal, listen and anticipate,
repetition). As accuracy increases, reduce cueing for use of strategies.
2. Provide visual cue. As accuracy increases, reduce presence of visual cue for subsequent sentences
(before and during question, before question only, etc.).
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 16 When criterion is met on two consecutive treatment trials, proceed to Phase B of
Anaphora.
Total Score < 16 Repeat Phase A treatment task during subsequent trial. Anaphora task should be
treated for a maximum of three sessions total.
Anaphora 49
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Instructions:
Instruct patient to listen to the following set of 20 sentences and to pay careful attention to comprehending
them. Verbally present each sentence, and ask the corresponding comprehension question. The target
response for each question is indicated. Any answer that provides the essential information should be scored
as accurate. Score correct and incorrect responses.
Cueing:
Provide feedback to the patient following each sentence. If patient does not answer correctly, provide cues per
the hierarchy below to elicit correct response:
1. Provide cue to use auditory attention strategies (self-monitoring, rehearsal, listen and anticipate,
repetition). As accuracy increases, reduce cueing for use of strategies.
2. Provide visual cue. As accuracy increases, reduce presence of visual cue for subsequent sentences
(before and during question, before question only, etc.).
Anaphora 50
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 16 When criterion is met on two consecutive treatment trials, proceed to Phase C of
Anaphora.
Total Score < 16 Repeat Phase B treatment task during subsequent trial. Anaphora task should be
treated for a maximum of three sessions total.
Anaphora 51
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Instructions:
Instruct patient to listen to the following set of 20 sentences and to pay careful attention to comprehending
them. Verbally present each sentence, and ask the corresponding comprehension question. The target
response for each question is indicated. Any answer that provides the essential information should be scored
as accurate. Score correct and incorrect responses.
Cueing:
Provide feedback to the patient following each sentence. If patient does not answer correctly, provide cues per
the hierarchy below to elicit correct response:
1. Provide cue to use auditory attention strategies (self-monitoring, rehearsal, listen and anticipate,
repetition). As accuracy increases, reduce cueing for use of strategies.
2. Provide visual cue. As accuracy increases, reduce presence of visual cue for subsequent sentences
(before and during question, before question only, etc.).
Anaphora 52
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Anaphora 53
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 16 When criterion is met on two consecutive treatment trials, Anaphora Training is
complete. See training completion criteria. Administer Probe at start of subsequent
treatment session.
Total Score < 16 Repeat Phase C treatment task during subsequent trial. Anaphora task should be
treated for a maximum of three sessions total.
Anaphora 54
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Anaphora 55
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Probe Task
Instructions:
Verbally present the following set of 30 sentences to the patient, and ask him or her the corresponding
comprehension questions. Working memory load is determined by the distance between the anaphoric
pronoun and its antecedent. The target response for each question is indicated. Any answer that provides the
essential information should be scored as accurate. Score correct and incorrect responses.
Anaphora 57
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Anaphora 58
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Initial Baseline
Instructions:
Verbally present the following set of 18 sentences to the patient, and ask him or her to respond yes or no to
the corresponding comprehension questions. Sentences use nominal grounding elements (i.e., a, the, this,
that, each, every, some, any, no) to direct listener’s attention to the sentence referent with regard to speaker,
hearer, and the immediate circumstances. The target response for each question is indicated. Score correct
and incorrect responses.
Nominal Grounding 59
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 14 Nominal Grounding Training Complete.
Total Score < 14 Repeat baseline 2 more times, then proceed to Phase A Treatment
Task.
Nominal Grounding 60
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Instructions:
Instruct the patient to listen to the following set of 20 sentences and to pay careful attention to them. Verbally
present each sentence, and ask the patient to answer yes or no to the corresponding comprehension
questions. The target response for each question is indicated. Score correct and incorrect responses.
Cueing:
Provide feedback to the patient following each sentence. If patient does not answer correctly, provide cues per
the hierarchy below to elicit correct response:
1. Provide cue to use auditory attention strategies (self-monitoring, rehearsal, listen and anticipate,
repetition). As accuracy increases, reduce cueing for use of strategies.
2. Provide visual cue. As accuracy increases, reduce presence of visual cue for subsequent sentences
(before and during question, before question only, etc.).
Nominal Grounding 61
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 16 When criterion is met on two consecutive treatment trials, proceed to Phase B of
Nominal Grounding.
Total Score < 16 Repeat Phase A treatment task during subsequent trial. Nominal Grounding task
should be treated for a maximum of three sessions total.
Nominal Grounding 62
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Instructions:
Instruct the patient to listen to the following set of 20 sentences and to pay careful attention to
comprehending them. Verbally present each sentence, and ask the patient to answer yes or no to the
corresponding comprehension questions. The target response for each question is indicated. Score correct and
incorrect responses.
Cueing:
Provide feedback to the patient following each sentence. If patient does not answer correctly, provide cues per
the hierarchy below to elicit correct response:
1. Provide cue to use auditory attention strategies (self-monitoring, rehearsal, listen and anticipate,
repetition). As accuracy increases, reduce cueing for use of strategies.
2. Provide visual cue. As accuracy increases, reduce presence of visual cue for subsequent sentences
(before and during question, before question only, etc.).
Nominal Grounding 63
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 16 When criterion is met on two consecutive treatment trials, proceed to Phase C of
Nominal Grounding.
Total Score < 16 Repeat Phase B treatment task during subsequent trial. Nominal Grounding task
should be treated for a maximum of three sessions total.
Nominal Grounding 64
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Instructions:
Instruct the patient to listen to the following set of 20 sentences and to pay careful attention to
comprehending them. Verbally present each sentence, and ask the patient to answer yes or no to the
corresponding comprehension questions. The target response for each question is indicated. Score correct and
incorrect responses.
Cueing:
Provide feedback to the patient following each sentence. If patient does not answer correctly, provide cues per
the hierarchy below to elicit correct response:
1. Provide cue to use auditory attention strategies (self-monitoring, rehearsal, listen and anticipate,
repetition). As accuracy increases, reduce cueing for use of strategies.
2. Provide visual cue. As accuracy increases, reduce presence of visual cue for subsequent sentences
(before and during question, before question only, etc.).
Nominal Grounding 65
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 16 When criterion is met on two consecutive treatment trials, Nominal Grounding
Training is complete. See training completion criteria. Administer Probe at start of
subsequent treatment session.
Total Score < 16 Repeat Phase C treatment task during subsequent trial. Nominal Grounding task
should be treated for a maximum of three sessions total.
Nominal Grounding 66
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Nominal Grounding 67
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Instructions:
Verbally present the following set of 18 sentences to the patient, and ask him or her to respond yes or no to
the corresponding comprehension questions. Sentences use nominal grounding elements (i.e., a, the, this,
that, each, every, some, any, no) to direct listener’s attention to the sentence referent with regard to speaker,
hearer, and the immediate circumstances. The target response for each question is indicated. Score correct
and incorrect responses.
Nominal Grounding 68
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Nominal Grounding 69
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Initial Baseline
Instructions:
Verbally present the following set of 16 sentences to the patient, and ask him or her to respond yes or no to
the corresponding comprehension questions. Sentences use clausal grounding elements (i.e., -s, -ed, may,
should, will) to direct listener’s attention to profiled relationship with regard to speaker’s current conception
of reality. The target response for each question is indicated. Score correct and incorrect responses.
Clausal Grounding 70
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Clausal Grounding 71
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Instructions:
Instruct the patient to listen to the following set of 16 sentences and to pay careful attention to
comprehending them. Verbally present each sentence, and ask the patient to answer yes or no to the
corresponding comprehension questions. The target response for each question is indicated. Score correct and
incorrect responses.
Cueing:
Provide feedback to the patient following each sentence. If patient does not answer correctly, provide cues per
the hierarchy below to elicit correct response:
1. Provide cue to use auditory attention strategies (self-monitoring, rehearsal, listen and anticipate,
repetition). As accuracy increases, reduce cueing for use of strategies.
2. Provide visual cue. As accuracy increases, reduce presence of visual cue for subsequent sentences
(before and during question, before question only, etc.).
Clausal Grounding 72
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 12 When criterion is met on two consecutive treatment trials, proceed to Phase B of
Clausal Grounding.
Total Score < 12 Repeat Phase A treatment task during subsequent trial. Clausal Grounding task
should be treated for a maximum of three sessions total.
Clausal Grounding 73
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Instructions:
Instruct the patient to listen to the following set of 16 sentences and to pay careful attention to
comprehending them. Verbally present each sentence, and ask the patient to answer yes or no to the
corresponding comprehension questions. The target response for each question is indicated. Score correct and
incorrect responses.
Cueing:
Provide feedback to the patient following each sentence. If patient does not answer correctly, provide cues per
the hierarchy below to elicit correct response:
1. Provide cue to use auditory attention strategies (self-monitoring, rehearsal, listen and anticipate,
repetition). As accuracy increases, reduce cueing for use of strategies.
2. Provide visual cue. As accuracy increases, reduce presence of visual cue for subsequent sentences
(before and during question, before question only, etc.).
Clausal Grounding 74
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 12 When criterion is met on two consecutive treatment trials, Clausal Grounding
Training is complete. See training completion criteria. Administer Probe at start of
subsequent treatment session.
Total Score < 12 Repeat Phase B treatment task during subsequent trial. Clausal Grounding task
should be treated for a maximum of three sessions total.
Clausal Grounding 75
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Instructions:
Verbally present the following set of 16 sentences to the patient, and ask him or her to respond yes or no to
the corresponding comprehension questions. Sentences use clausal grounding elements (i.e., -s, -ed, may,
should, will) to direct listener’s attention to profiled relationship with regard to speaker’s current conception
of reality. The target response for each question is indicated. Score correct and incorrect responses.
Clausal Grounding 76
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Windowing 77
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Initial Baseline
Instructions:
Verbally present the following set of 20 sentences to the patient, and ask him or her to respond to the
corresponding comprehension questions. The questions evoke different types of windowing to direct the
listener’s attention to the core events in the sentences:
Open Path (OP) Windowing: Sentences describe paths of objects that are in motion and have beginning and
ending points that are in different locations in space. Questions elicit open path windowing for initial (I), medial
(M), and final (F) events in sentences in different orders.
Phase (P) Windowing: Sentences describe an iterating motion event where the beginning and ending points of a
path are at the same location in space and form a circuit. Questions elicit phase windowing to direct listener’s
attention to departure (D) and return (R) phases in counterbalanced orders.
Factuality (F) Windowing: Sentences establish comparison of alternative conceptualizations for the occurrence
or nonoccurrence of some referent. Questions elicit factuality windowing for an unrealized positive event (1), an
unrealized negative event (2), an event at the opposite end of a continuum of certainty (3), and an overtly
counterfactual event (4).
The target response for each question is indicated. Score correct and incorrect responses.
Windowing 78
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
We don’t know if Lila was on stage for the entire Lila was on stage
performance. Give a sentence indicating that she was. for the entire
performance.
8 P-RD The wind kept blowing the door open and each time I
closed it.
What did I do? I kept closing the
door
What did the wind do? Kept blowing the
door open
9 F4 The family would have shopped for presents if they had
the time.
What happened because the family did not have time? The family did not
shop for presents.
10 OP- The water on the stove boiled over the pot into the hot
MIF flame and onto the floor.
Where did the water boil? Into the hot flame
How did the water boil? Over the pot
Where did the water go? Onto the floor
11 P-DR The pen kept falling off the table and I kept putting it
back.
What did the pen do? Kept falling off the
table
What did I do? Kept putting the
pen back
Windowing 79
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Windowing 80
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 30 Windowing Training Complete.
Total Score < 30 Repeat baseline 2 more times, and then proceed to Phase A Treatment
Task.
Windowing 81
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Instructions:
Instruct the patient to listen to the following set of 20 sentences and to pay careful attention to comprehending
them. Verbally present each sentence, and ask the patient to answer the three corresponding comprehension
questions. The target response for each question is indicated. Score correct and incorrect responses.
Cueing:
Provide feedback to the patient following each sentence. If patient does not answer correctly, provide cues per
the hierarchy below to elicit correct response:
1. Provide cue to use auditory attention strategies (self-monitoring, rehearsal, listen and anticipate,
repetition). As accuracy increases, reduce cueing for use of strategies.
2. Provide visual cue. As accuracy increases, reduce presence of visual cue for subsequent sentences
(before and during question, before question only, etc.).
Windowing 82
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Windowing 83
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Windowing 84
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 48 When criterion is met on two consecutive treatment trials, proceed to Phase B of
Windowing.
Total Score < 48 Repeat Phase A treatment task during subsequent trial. Clausal Grounding task
should be treated for a maximum of three sessions total.
Windowing 85
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Instructions:
Instruct the patient to listen to the following set of 20 sentences and to pay careful attention to comprehending
them. Verbally present each sentence, and ask the patient to answer the two corresponding comprehension
questions. The target response for each question is indicated. Score correct and incorrect responses.
Cueing:
Provide feedback to the patient following each sentence. If patient does not answer correctly, provide cues per
the hierarchy below to elicit correct response:
1. Provide cue to use auditory attention strategies (self-monitoring, rehearsal, listen and anticipate,
repetition). As accuracy increases, reduce cueing for use of strategies.
2. Provide visual cue. As accuracy increases, reduce presence of visual cue for subsequent sentences
(before and during question, before question only, etc.).
Windowing 86
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Windowing 87
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 32 When criterion is met on two consecutive treatment trials, proceed to Phase C of
Windowing.
Total Score < 32 Repeat Phase B treatment task during subsequent trial. Windowing task should be
treated for a maximum of three sessions total.
Windowing 88
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Instructions:
Instruct the patient to listen to the following set of 20 sentences and to pay careful attention to comprehending
them. Verbally present each sentence, and ask the patient to answer the corresponding comprehension
question for each sentence. The target response for each question is indicated. Score correct and incorrect
responses.
Cueing:
Provide feedback to the patient following each sentence. If patient does not answer correctly, provide cues per
the hierarchy below to elicit correct response:
1. Provide cue to use auditory attention strategies (self-monitoring, rehearsal, listen and anticipate,
repetition). As accuracy increases, reduce cueing for use of strategies.
2. Provide visual cue. As accuracy increases, reduce presence of visual cue for subsequent sentences
(before and during question, before question only, etc.).
Windowing 89
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
What would Liz have done if she did not Liz would not have skipped
have a math test on Tuesday? school on Tuesday because
she did not have a math test.
11 I didn’t go to the grocery store last night.
What would be the opposite of this I went to the grocery store last
event? night.
12 Dan would have cooked dinner if he was
hungry.
What happened because Dan was not Dan didn’t cook dinner.
hungry?
13 Rob filed for unemployment because he
lost his job.
.
What would Rob have done if he had not Rob would not have filed for
lost his job? unemployment because he
did not lose his job.
14 Katelyn may have gotten the job at the
advertising agency.
We don’t know if Katelyn got the job. Katelyn did not get the job at
Give a sentence indicating that she did the advertising agency.
not.
15 Inez didn’t march in the Memorial Day
parade.
What would be the opposite of this Inez march in the Memorial
event? Day parade.
Windowing 90
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Next Steps:
Total Score ≥ 16 When criterion is met on two consecutive treatment trials, Windowing is complete.
See training completion criteria. Administer probe during subsequent treatment
session.
Total Score < 16 Repeat Phase C treatment task during subsequent trial. Windowing task should be
treated for a maximum of three sessions total.
Windowing 91
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Windowing Probe
Verbally present the following set of 20 sentences to the patient, and ask him or her to respond to the
corresponding comprehension questions. The questions evoke different types of windowing to direct the
listener’s attention to the core events in the sentences:
Open Path (OP) Windowing: Sentences describe paths of objects that are in motion and have beginning and
ending points that are in different locations in space. Questions elicit open path windowing for initial (I), medial
(M), and final (F) events in sentences in different orders.
Phase (P) Windowing: Sentences describe an iterating motion event where the beginning and ending points of a
path are at the same location in space and form a circuit. Questions elicit phase windowing to direct listener’s
attention to departure (D) and return (R) phases in counterbalanced orders.
Factuality (F) Windowing: Sentences establish comparison of alternative conceptualizations for the occurrence
or nonoccurrence of some referent. Questions elicit factuality windowing for an unrealized positive event (1), an
unrealized negative event (2), an event at the opposite end of a continuum of certainty (3), and an overtly
counterfactual event (4).
The target response for each question is indicated. Score correct and incorrect responses.
What would be the opposite of this event? I was in the meeting last week.
5 P-RD The campfire continued to slowly burn the wood and the
Boy Scout added more to fuel the flames.
What did the Boy Scout do? Add more wood to fuel the flames
What did the campfire do? Continued to slowly burn the wood
6 OP- The fireworks on the Fourth of July shot like lighting from
IFM the ground and exploded into the night sky.
How did the fireworks shoot? Like lightning
Where did the fireworks explode? Into the night sky
Where did the fireworks shoot from? From the ground
Windowing 92
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Windowing 93
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
Windowing 94
Supplemental Material, Peach et al., “Clinical Outcomes Following Language-Specific Attention Treatment Versus Direct Attention Training for
Aphasia: A Comparative Effectiveness Study,” JSLHR, https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0504
References
Blackwell, A., & Bates, E. (1995). Inducing agrammatic profiles in normals: Evidence for the selective vulnerability
of morphology under cognitive resource limitation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(2), 1–49.
Caplan, D., & Waters, G. S. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 22(01), 77–94.
Coslett, H. (1999). Spatial influences on motor and language function. Neuropsychologia, 37, 695–706.
Crosson, B., Fabrizio, K. S., Singletary, F., Cato, M. A., Wierenga, C. E., Parkinson, R. B., . . . Gonzalez Rothi, L. J.
(2007). Treatment of naming in nonfluent aphasia through manipulation of intention and attention: A
phase 1 comparison of two novel treatments. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society,
13, 582–594. https://doi.org/10.10170S1355617707070737
Cutler, A., & Fodor, J. A. (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7(1), 49–59.
Hula, W. D., & McNeil, M. R. (2008). Models of attention and dual-task performance as explanatory constructs in
aphasia. Seminars in Speech and Language, 29(3), 169–187.
Langacker, R. L. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
LaPointe, L. L., & Erickson, R. J. (1991). Auditory vigilance during divided task attention in aphasic individuals.
Aphasiology, 5(6), 511–520.
McNeil, M. R., Doyle, P., Hula, W. D., Rubinsky, H., Fossett, T. R. D., & Matthews, C. T. (2004). Using resource
allocation theory and duel-task methods to increase the sensitivity of assessment in aphasia.
Aphasiology, 18(5), 521–542.
Myachykov, A., & Posner, M. I. (2005). Attention in language. In L. Itti, G. Rees, & J. K. Tsotsos (Eds.),
Neurobiology of attention (pp. 324–329). Boston, MA: Elsevier.
Peach, R. K. (2012). Management of acquired language disorders associated with attentional impairment. In R. K.
Peach & L. P. Shapiro (Eds.), Cognition and acquired language disorders: An information processing
approach (pp. 241–274). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.
Peach, R. K., Nathan, M. R., & Beck, K. M. (2017). Language-specific attention treatment for aphasia: Description
and preliminary findings. Seminars in Speech and Language, 38(1), 5–16.
Shankweiler, D., Crain, S., Gorrell, P., & Tuller, B. (1989). Reception of language in Broca's aphasia. Language and
Cognitive Processes, 4(1), 1–33.
Talmy, L. (2003). The windowing of attention in language. In Toward a cognitive semantics volume I: Concept
structuring systems (pp. 258–309). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
95