↓ Skip to main content

Melodic Intonation Therapy in Chronic Aphasia: Evidence from a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
216 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Melodic Intonation Therapy in Chronic Aphasia: Evidence from a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00533
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ineke Van Der Meulen, Mieke W. M. E. Van De Sandt-Koenderman, Majanka H. Heijenbrok, Evy Visch-Brink, Gerard M. Ribbers

Abstract

Melodic Intonation Therapy (MIT) is a language production therapy for severely non-fluent aphasic patients using melodic intoning and rhythm to restore language. Although many studies have reported its beneficial effects on language production, randomized controlled trials (RCT) examining the efficacy of MIT are rare. In an earlier publication, we presented the results of an RCT on MIT in subacute aphasia and found that MIT was effective on trained and untrained items. Further, we observed a clear trend in improved functional language use after MIT: subacute aphasic patients receiving MIT improved considerably on language tasks measuring connected speech and daily life verbal communication. Here, we present the results of a pilot RCT on MIT in chronic aphasia and compare these to the results observed in subacute aphasia. We used a multicenter waiting-list RCT design. Patients with chronic (>1 year) post-stroke aphasia were randomly allocated to the experimental group (6 weeks MIT) or to the control group (6 weeks no intervention followed by 6 weeks MIT). Assessments were done at baseline (T1), after 6 weeks (T2), and 6 weeks later (T3). Efficacy was evaluated at T2 using univariable linear regression analyses. Outcome measures were chosen to examine several levels of therapy success: improvement on trained items, generalization to untrained items, and generalization to verbal communication. Of 17 included patients, 10 were allocated to the experimental condition and 7 to the control condition. MIT significantly improved repetition of trained items (β = 13.32, p = 0.02). This effect did not remain stable at follow-up assessment. In contrast to earlier studies, we found only a limited and temporary effect of MIT, without generalization to untrained material or to functional communication. The results further suggest that the effect of MIT in chronic aphasia is more restricted than its effect in earlier stages post stroke. This is in line with studies showing larger effects of aphasia therapy in earlier compared to later stages post stroke. The study was designed as an RCT, but was underpowered. The results therefore have to be interpreted cautiously and future larger studies are needed. www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NTR 1961.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 216 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 215 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 46 21%
Student > Master 41 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 8%
Researcher 10 5%
Student > Postgraduate 9 4%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 68 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 45 21%
Psychology 21 10%
Neuroscience 20 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 9%
Linguistics 12 6%
Other 23 11%
Unknown 76 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,837,121
of 24,976,442 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#862
of 7,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,209
of 318,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#26
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,976,442 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.