Test-enhanced learning versus errorless learning in aphasia rehabilitation: testing competing psychological principles.
Test-enhanced learning versus errorless learning in aphasia rehabilitation: testing competing psychological principles.
复制标题
失语症康复中的测试强化学习与无错误学习：测试相互竞争的心理原理。
DOI：
10.1037/xlm0000091
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Garvey,Kelly
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Middleton,EricaL;Schwartz,MyrnaF;Rawson,KatherineA;Garvey,Kelly
由于获得性语言障碍患者通常无法可靠地获得常见日常物品的名称（即命名障碍），康复工作通常集中在改善命名。本研究比较了命名障碍的两种康复策略，反映了来自不同理论原则的矛盾处方。从心理学关于测验强化学习的研究中得出的处方主张在治疗过程中为患者提供从长期记忆中提取目标名称的机会（即提取练习）。相比之下，认知康复研究中的无错学习方法避免了检索实践，而是采用最大限度地减少命名错误的方法，从而减少了治疗过程中错误学习的可能性。本研究直接比较了这些方法，并表明，尽管上级（和无误）的性能在无误的治疗，治疗，优先检索实践产生更大的保留1天和1周后的治疗。这些研究结果对临床实践，以及词汇通达和测试增强学习的理论解释有一定的启示。
Because individuals with acquired language disorders are frequently unable to reliably access the names of common everyday objects (ie, naming impairment), rehabilitation efforts often focus on improving naming. The present study compared 2 rehabilitation strategies for naming impairment, reflecting contradictory prescriptions derived from different theoretical principles. The prescription derived from psychological research on test-enhanced learning advocates providing patients opportunities to retrieve target names from long-term memory (ie, retrieval practice) in the course of treatment. In contrast, the errorless learning approach derived from cognitive rehabilitation research eschews retrieval practice in favor of methods that minimize naming errors, and thus the potential for error learning, in the course of treatment. The present study directly compared these approaches and showed that, despite superior (and errorless) performance during errorless treatment, treatment that prioritized retrieval practice produced greater retention 1-day and 1-week following treatment. These findings have implications for clinical practice, as well as theoretical accounts of lexical access and test-enhanced learning.