AphasiaNCT06096662
Effects of Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) Via Telerehabilitation on Word Finding in Post-stroke Aphasia.
A study testing Verb Network Strenghtening Treatment (VNeST) in people with Aphasia and Anomia, run by Vastra Gotaland Region at 1 site in Sweden.
Trial summary
Despite evidence showing that speech and language intervention may improve language and communication abilities in people with acquired language disorders (aphasia), there is still need for evidence for which types of therapy are effective. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 99 years
- What is being tested?
- Verb Network Strenghtening Treatment (VNeST)
- Type of treatment
- Pill or oral medicine, Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 10 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSweden
- Study dates
- 1 Nov 2023to 9 Jul 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 99 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Aphasia and subjective experience of word finding difficulties
- Diagnosed left hemisphere stroke at least six months post-onset
- With correction, sufficient hearing and vision to be able to participate in training and assessment.
- Sufficient stamina to be able to participate in training and assessment.
- Swedish as one of the first languages.
Who cannot join
- Other known neurological conditions
- Untreated epilepsy
- Severely impaired comprehension
- Moderate-severe dysarthria or apraxia of speech which may interfere with assessment.
- Speech-language treatment targeting specifically word finding during participation in the study.
- Participation in other studies/clinical treatment using Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) during three months prior to the study.
- Active substance dependence
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Sweden1 site
University of Gothenburg and Västra Götalandsregionen
Gothenburg, Västra Götaland County, 40530
About this study
Official title: Effects of Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) Provided Via Telerehabilitation on Word Finding in Individuals With Post-stroke Aphasia: a Group Study.
Despite evidence showing that speech and language intervention may improve language and communication abilities in people with acquired language disorders (aphasia), there is still need for evidence for which types of therapy are effective. Further, to improve accessibility of care, there is increasing need for evidence of intervention effects when therapy is provided online, via telerehabilitation. Therefore, the project aims at evaluating the effects of telerehabilitation with a specific speech-language therapy intervention for improving word-finding in individuals with aphasia due to stroke. The intervention Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) trains word finding at sentence level, and the treatment effect is expected to generalize to the production of connected speech.
Read the detailed description
Every year in Sweden, thousands of people suffer from stroke, often resulting in aphasia. One of the most common and persistent symptoms in aphasia is anomia, i.e., word finding difficulties. Anomia affects an individual's ability to communicate and can constitute an obstacle to active participation in social activities and working life with reduced quality of life as consequence.
Speech and language therapy has proved to be effective with significant training outcomes for people with aphasia (Brady, Kelly, Godwin, Enderby, \& Campbell, 2016). However, concerning treatment of anomia a major challenge is to achieve generalization to untrained items and to connected speech. Most interventions train to name single words, with very little improvement in naming of untrained items, or generalization in daily language use (Kiran \& Thompson, 2003; Kristensson et al., 2022). Typically, word-finding therapies target nouns. Training effects of verbs have been reported to a lesser extent and found to be smaller than that of nouns (Webster \& Whitworth, 2012). Edmonds and coworkers (2009, 2011, 2014; Furnas \& Edmonds, 2014) have developed an intervention protocol called Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) which aims at improving production of nouns and verbs in sentence context by stimulating retrieval of verbs and possible subjects/agents and objects/patients for the given verbs (e.g., "The pupil writes a letter"). So far, results from single-case experimental design studies performed by Edmonds and colleagues are promising, showing generalization to untrained items and to other tasks (object naming, verb naming, and partly connected speech). The same promising results were observed even when Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) was delivered remotely via a computer program (Furnas \& Edmonds, 2014). In a single case experimental design study carried out by our group via telerehabilitation (Torinsson et al., submitted) in two individuals with mild-to-moderate and moderate-to-severe aphasia, we found that one participant improved significantly in word retrieval when producing sentences containing either trained verbs or semantically related verbs that were not targeted in treatment, suggesting generalization to untrained words. The other participant did not show any significant improvement for either trained or untrained items. Yet, an increase of production of correct information units (a measure of how informative verbal production is in an individual) could be observed in this participant four weeks after treatment. The results of this Swedish study seem to be in line with previous findings by Edmonds and colleagues. However, to our knowledge, the effects of intervention have not been investigated in larger groups of patients in a randomized controlled trial. Hence, this study aims to evaluate treatment effects of the VNeST protocol via telerehabilitation in individuals with post-stroke aphasia through a randomized controlled trial (RCT).
Outcome measures include measures of naming ability on word and sentence level as well as in connected speech. Measures of participant reported perception of functional communication as well as health related quality of life (PROMs) are also included.
- Being tested
- Verb Network Strenghtening Treatment (VNeST)
- Medical subject headings
- Aphasia, Anomia, Stroke
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Verb Network Strenghtening Treatment (VNeST)Behavioural
Participants are presented with a verb (representing an activity, for example, to drive) orally and in writing. The participants are first asked to name someone who may perform a given activity (an agent/subject, for example a chauffeur), then to name an object which the named activity can pe performed with (a patient/object, for example a limousine). Several types of semantic cues and assistance are given if the participant has difficulties finding adequate nouns). This procedure is repeated for three different agents and objects related to the given verb. The participants is then asked to choose one of the three sentences participants have created and expand on it by telling where, when and why the agents are performing the activity. After this, the participants are given sentences (with several foils) including the activity as well as agents and objects/patients, and are asked to indicate whether the sentences are plausible or not.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Experimental: Treatment group | Experimental | Participants will receive 35 hours of training, twice a week in ten weeks using Verb Network Strenghtening Treatment (VNeST).
Treatment will be administered by a speech-language pathologist thought an online platform. Receives: Behavioral: Verb Network Strenghtening Treatment (VNeST) |
| Control group | No intervention | Participants in the control group will not receive speech-and-language treatment targeting word-finding. Treatment for word finding will be provided by a speech-language pathologist after participation to the study. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change from baseline in naming ability of trained items at week 10.
Naming of ten trained phrases including an agent (subject), verb and a patient (object) with moving picture stimuli. Possible score ranges from 0 (worst) to 40 (best).
Measured: Baseline, 10 weeks
Change from baseline in naming ability of trained items at week 14.
Naming of ten trained phrases including an agent (subject), verb and a patient (object) with moving picture stimuli. Possible score ranges from 0 (worst) to 40 (best).
Measured: Baseline, 14 weeks
Secondary outcomes (14)
Change from baseline in naming ability of untrained items at week 10.
A measure of generalization of treatment effects to naming of ten untrained phrases including an agent (subject), verb and a patient (object) with moving picture stimuli. Possible score ranges from 0 (worst) to 40 (best).
Measured: Baseline, 10 weeks.
Change from baseline in naming ability of untrained items at week 14.
A measure of generalization of treatment effects to naming of ten untrained phrases including an agent (subject), verb and a patient (object) with moving picture stimuli. Possible score ranges from 0 (worst) to 40 (best).
Measured: Baseline, 14 weeks.
Change from baseline in confrontation naming of single words (objects and actions) at week 10.
The Object \& Action Naming Battery (Masterson \& Druks, 1998) is a measure of change in ability to name eighty pictures consisting of simple black and white drawings of objects and actions. Possible score range: 0 (worst) to 80 (best).
Measured: Baseline, 10 weeks.
Change from baseline in confrontation naming of single words (objects and actions) at week 14.
The Object \& Action Naming Battery (Masterson \& Druks, 1998) is a measure of change in ability to name eighty pictures consisting of simple black and white drawings of objects and actions. Possible score range: 0 (worst) to 80 (best).
Measured: Baseline, 14 weeks.
Change from baseline in confrontation naming of single words (objects) at week 10.
The Boston naming test (Goodglass et al, 1983) is a measure of change in ability to name sixty simple black and white drawings of objects. Possible score range 0 (worst) to 60 (best).
Measured: Baseline, 10 weeks
Change from baseline in confrontation naming of single words (objects) at week 14.
The Boston naming test (Goodglass et al, 1983) is a measure of change in ability to name sixty simple black and white drawings of objects. Possible score range 0 (worst) to 60 (best).
Measured: Baseline, 14weeks
Change from baseline in connected speech at week 10.
Connected speech tasks (Nicholas \& Brookshire, 1993) measures of change in ability to retrieve words in a picture description tasks and a procedural information task. The speech produced in each task is analysed and number of words and adequate information units produced is calculated and related to time taken to produce the information. Higher numbers indicate better results.
Measured: Baseline, 10 weeks
Change from baseline in connected speech at week 14.
Connected speech tasks (Nicholas \& Brookshire, 1993) measures of change in ability to retrieve words in a picture description tasks and a procedural information task. The speech produced in each task is analysed and number of words and adequate information units produced is calculated and related to time taken to produce the information. Higher numbers indicate better results.
Measured: Baseline, 14 weeks
Change from baseline in self-perceived functional communication abilities at week 10
Communication Outcomes After Stroke scale (COAST, Long et al. 2008) is a validated measure of participants' perception of their communicative ability. Possible score range is 0 (worse) to 80 (best).
Measured: Baseline, 10 weeks
Change from baseline in self-perceived functional communication abilities at week 14
Communication Outcomes After Stroke scale (COAST, Long et al. 2008) is a validated measure of participants' perception of their communicative ability. Possible score range is 0 (worse) to 80 (best).
Measured: Baseline, 14 weeks
Change from baseline in proxy's reports of participants' communicative ability at week 10.
The Carer Communication Outcomes After Stroke scale (carer COAST, Long et al. 2009). is a validated measure of proxy's perception of the participants' communicative ability. Possible score range is 0 (worse) to 80 (best).
Measured: Baseline, 10 weeks
Change from baseline in proxy's reports of participants' communicative ability at week 14.
The Carer Communication Outcomes After Stroke scale (carer COAST, Long et al. 2009). is a validated measure of proxy's perception of the participants' communicative ability. Possible score range is 0 (worse) to 80 (best).
Measured: Baseline, 14 weeks
Change from baseline in self reported quality of life at week 10.
The Stroke Aphasia Quality of Life (SAQOL-39, Hilari et al 2009) is a validated measure of change in participant reported health related quality of life in a questionnaire with 39 items where participants evaluate of their everyday functioning in three domains: physical, psychosocial and communication. Scoring in each domain will be summarized and averaged and presented separately as well as in a compound averaged score. Possible score range is 1 (worse) to 5 (best).
Measured: Baseline, 10 weeks
Change from baseline in self reported quality of life at week 14.
The Stroke Aphasia Quality of Life (SAQOL-39, Hilari et al 2009) is a validated measure of change in participant reported health related quality of life in a questionnaire with 39 items where participants evaluate of their everyday functioning in three domains: physical, psychosocial and communication. Scoring in each domain will be summarized and averaged and presented separately as well as in a compound averaged score. Possible score range is 1 (worse) to 5 (best).
Measured: Baseline, 14 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted24 Oct 2023
- Study start1 Nov 2023
- Primary completion9 Jul 2024
- Study completion9 Jul 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (15)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for AphasiaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Vastra Gotaland RegionThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Parallel assignment
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 10 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Vastra Gotaland Region
- Sponsor type
- Other government
- Collaborators
- The Swedish Research Council
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Francesca Longoni, Dr., Principal investigator, Inst of Neurosci & Physiology, Speech & Language Pathology Unit, University of Gothenburg
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06096662
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- VR 2019-02465
- Status last verified
- Oct 2023
- First submitted
- 17 Oct 2023
- Last updated
- 12 Jun 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Brady MC, Kelly H, Godwin J, Enderby P, Campbell P. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jun 1;2016(6):CD000425. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000425.pub4.
PubMed 27245310Edmonds LA, Babb M. Effect of verb network strengthening treatment in moderate-to-severe aphasia. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2011 May;20(2):131-45. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0036). Epub 2011 Mar 8.
PubMed 21386047Edmonds LA, Nadeau SE, Kiran S. Effect of Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) on Lexical Retrieval of Content Words in Sentences in Persons with Aphasia. Aphasiology. 2009 Mar 1;23(3):402-424. doi: 10.1080/02687030802291339.
PubMed 19763227Edmonds LA, Mammino K, Ojeda J. Effect of Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) in persons with aphasia: extension and replication of previous findings. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2014 May;23(2):S312-29. doi: 10.1044/2014_AJSLP-13-0098.
PubMed 24687125Furnas, D. W., & Edmonds, L. A. (2014). The effect of computerised Verb Network Strengthening Treatment on lexical retrieval in aphasia. Aphasiology, 28(4), 401-420.
Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Weintraub, S. (1983). Boston naming test. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
Hilari K, Lamping DL, Smith SC, Northcott S, Lamb A, Marshall J. Psychometric properties of the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39) in a generic stroke population. Clin Rehabil. 2009 Jun;23(6):544-57. doi: 10.1177/0269215508101729. Epub 2009 May 15.
PubMed 19447841Kiran S, Thompson CK. The role of semantic complexity in treatment of naming deficits: training semantic categories in fluent aphasia by controlling exemplar typicality. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003 Aug;46(4):773-87. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2003/061).
PubMed 12959459Kristensson J, Saldert C, Ostberg P, Smith SR, Ake S, Longoni F. Naming vs. non-naming treatment in aphasia in a group setting-A randomized controlled trial. J Commun Disord. 2022 May-Jun;97:106215. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2022.106215. Epub 2022 Mar 17.
PubMed 35367876Long A, Hesketh A, Paszek G, Booth M, Bowen A. Development of a reliable self-report outcome measure for pragmatic trials of communication therapy following stroke: the Communication Outcome after Stroke (COAST) scale. Clin Rehabil. 2008 Dec;22(12):1083-94. doi: 10.1177/0269215508090091.
PubMed 19052247Long A, Hesketh A, Bowen A; ACT NoW Research Study. Communication outcome after stroke: a new measure of the carer's perspective. Clin Rehabil. 2009 Sep;23(9):846-56. doi: 10.1177/0269215509336055. Epub 2009 May 29.
PubMed 19482891Masterson, J., & Druks, J. (1998). Description of a set of 164 nounsand 102 verbs matched for printed word frequency, familiarityand age-of-acquisition. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 11(4), 331-354
Nicholas LE, Brookshire RH. A system for quantifying the informativeness and efficiency of the connected speech of adults with aphasia. J Speech Hear Res. 1993 Apr;36(2):338-50. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3602.338.
PubMed 8487525Torinsson, M., Saldert, C., Rödseth Smith, S., Kristensson, J., & Longoni, F. (2023). Telerehabilitation with Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) in two persons with mild-to-moderate and moderate-to-severe aphasia: A single-case experimental design study. Submitted manuscript.
Webster J, Whitworth A. Treating verbs in aphasia: exploring the impact of therapy at the single word and sentence levels. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2012 Nov-Dec;47(6):619-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-6984.2012.00174.x. Epub 2012 Jul 18.
PubMed 23121523
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 12 Jun 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effects of Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) Provided Via Telerehabilitation on Word Finding in Individuals With Post-stroke Aphasia: a Group Study.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06096662
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- VR 2019-02465
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 10 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Vastra Gotaland RegionOther government
- Collaborators
- The Swedish Research Council
- Study start
- 1 Nov 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 9 Jul 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 9 Jul 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 24 Oct 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Despite evidence showing that speech and language intervention may improve language and communication abilities in people with acquired language disorders (aphasia), there is still need for evidence for which types of therapy are effective. Further, to improve accessibility of care, there is increasing need for evidence of intervention effects when therapy is provided online, via telerehabilitation. Therefore, the project aims at evaluating the effects of telerehabilitation with a specific speech-language therapy intervention for improving word-finding in individuals with aphasia due to stroke. The intervention Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) trains word finding at sentence level, and the treatment effect is expected to generalize to the production of connected speech.
Detailed description
Every year in Sweden, thousands of people suffer from stroke, often resulting in aphasia. One of the most common and persistent symptoms in aphasia is anomia, i.e., word finding difficulties. Anomia affects an individual's ability to communicate and can constitute an obstacle to active participation in social activities and working life with reduced quality of life as consequence.
Speech and language therapy has proved to be effective with significant training outcomes for people with aphasia (Brady, Kelly, Godwin, Enderby, \& Campbell, 2016). However, concerning treatment of anomia a major challenge is to achieve generalization to untrained items and to connected speech. Most interventions train to name single words, with very little improvement in naming of untrained items, or generalization in daily language use (Kiran \& Thompson, 2003; Kristensson et al., 2022). Typically, word-finding therapies target nouns. Training effects of verbs have been reported to a lesser extent and found to be smaller than that of nouns (Webster \& Whitworth, 2012). Edmonds and coworkers (2009, 2011, 2014; Furnas \& Edmonds, 2014) have developed an intervention protocol called Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) which aims at improving production of nouns and verbs in sentence context by stimulating retrieval of verbs and possible subjects/agents and objects/patients for the given verbs (e.g., "The pupil writes a letter"). So far, results from single-case experimental design studies performed by Edmonds and colleagues are promising, showing generalization to untrained items and to other tasks (object naming, verb naming, and partly connected speech). The same promising results were observed even when Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) was delivered remotely via a computer program (Furnas \& Edmonds, 2014). In a single case experimental design study carried out by our group via telerehabilitation (Torinsson et al., submitted) in two individuals with mild-to-moderate and moderate-to-severe aphasia, we found that one participant improved significantly in word retrieval when producing sentences containing either trained verbs or semantically related verbs that were not targeted in treatment, suggesting generalization to untrained words. The other participant did not show any significant improvement for either trained or untrained items. Yet, an increase of production of correct information units (a measure of how informative verbal production is in an individual) could be observed in this participant four weeks after treatment. The results of this Swedish study seem to be in line with previous findings by Edmonds and colleagues. However, to our knowledge, the effects of intervention have not been investigated in larger groups of patients in a randomized controlled trial. Hence, this study aims to evaluate treatment effects of the VNeST protocol via telerehabilitation in individuals with post-stroke aphasia through a randomized controlled trial (RCT).
Outcome measures include measures of naming ability on word and sentence level as well as in connected speech. Measures of participant reported perception of functional communication as well as health related quality of life (PROMs) are also included.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Parallel assignment
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Experimental: Treatment group | Experimental | Behavioral: Verb Network Strenghtening Treatment (VNeST)Participants will receive 35 hours of training, twice a week in ten weeks using Verb Network Strenghtening Treatment (VNeST). Treatment will be administered by a speech-language pathologist thought an online platform. |
| Control group | No intervention | –Participants in the control group will not receive speech-and-language treatment targeting word-finding. Treatment for word finding will be provided by a speech-language pathologist after participation to the study. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 99 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Aphasia and subjective experience of word finding difficulties
- Diagnosed left hemisphere stroke at least six months post-onset
- With correction, sufficient hearing and vision to be able to participate in training and assessment.
- Sufficient stamina to be able to participate in training and assessment.
- Swedish as one of the first languages.
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- Other known neurological conditions
- Untreated epilepsy
- Severely impaired comprehension
- Moderate-severe dysarthria or apraxia of speech which may interfere with assessment.
- Speech-language treatment targeting specifically word finding during participation in the study.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Verb Network Strenghtening Treatment (VNeST)Participants are presented with a verb (representing an activity, for example, to drive) orally and in writing. The participants are first asked to name someone who may perform a given activity (an agent/subject, for example a chauffeur), then to name an object which the named activity can pe performed with (a patient/object, for example a limousine). Several types of semantic cues and assistance are given if the participant has difficulties finding adequate nouns). This procedure is repeated for three different agents and objects related to the given verb. The participants is then asked to choose one of the three sentences participants have created and expand on it by telling where, when and why the agents are performing the activity. After this, the participants are given sentences (with several foils) including the activity as well as agents and objects/patients, and are asked to indicate whether the sentences are plausible or not. | Behavioural | Experimental: Treatment group |
Primary outcome
Change from baseline in naming ability of trained items at week 10.
Time frame: Baseline, 10 weeks
Naming of ten trained phrases including an agent (subject), verb and a patient (object) with moving picture stimuli. Possible score ranges from 0 (worst) to 40 (best).
Change from baseline in naming ability of trained items at week 14.
Time frame: Baseline, 14 weeks
Naming of ten trained phrases including an agent (subject), verb and a patient (object) with moving picture stimuli. Possible score ranges from 0 (worst) to 40 (best).
14 secondary outcomes
Change from baseline in naming ability of untrained items at week 10.
Time frame: Baseline, 10 weeks.
Change from baseline in naming ability of untrained items at week 14.
Time frame: Baseline, 14 weeks.
Change from baseline in confrontation naming of single words (objects and actions) at week 10.
Time frame: Baseline, 10 weeks.
Change from baseline in confrontation naming of single words (objects and actions) at week 14.
Time frame: Baseline, 14 weeks.
Change from baseline in confrontation naming of single words (objects) at week 10.
Time frame: Baseline, 10 weeks
Change from baseline in confrontation naming of single words (objects) at week 14.
Time frame: Baseline, 14weeks
Change from baseline in connected speech at week 10.
Time frame: Baseline, 10 weeks
Change from baseline in connected speech at week 14.
Time frame: Baseline, 14 weeks
Change from baseline in self-perceived functional communication abilities at week 10
Time frame: Baseline, 10 weeks
Change from baseline in self-perceived functional communication abilities at week 14
Time frame: Baseline, 14 weeks
Change from baseline in proxy's reports of participants' communicative ability at week 10.
Time frame: Baseline, 10 weeks
Change from baseline in proxy's reports of participants' communicative ability at week 14.
Time frame: Baseline, 14 weeks
Change from baseline in self reported quality of life at week 10.
Time frame: Baseline, 10 weeks
Change from baseline in self reported quality of life at week 14.
Time frame: Baseline, 14 weeks
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 12 Jun 2025.
- Background: PubMed 27245310Brady MC, Kelly H, Godwin J, Enderby P, Campbell P. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jun 1;2016(6):CD000425. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000425.pub4.
- Background: PubMed 21386047Edmonds LA, Babb M. Effect of verb network strengthening treatment in moderate-to-severe aphasia. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2011 May;20(2):131-45. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0036). Epub 2011 Mar 8.
- Background: PubMed 19763227Edmonds LA, Nadeau SE, Kiran S. Effect of Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) on Lexical Retrieval of Content Words in Sentences in Persons with Aphasia. Aphasiology. 2009 Mar 1;23(3):402-424. doi: 10.1080/02687030802291339.
- Background: PubMed 24687125Edmonds LA, Mammino K, Ojeda J. Effect of Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) in persons with aphasia: extension and replication of previous findings. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2014 May;23(2):S312-29. doi: 10.1044/2014_AJSLP-13-0098.
- BackgroundFurnas, D. W., & Edmonds, L. A. (2014). The effect of computerised Verb Network Strengthening Treatment on lexical retrieval in aphasia. Aphasiology, 28(4), 401-420.
- BackgroundGoodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Weintraub, S. (1983). Boston naming test. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
- Background: PubMed 19447841Hilari K, Lamping DL, Smith SC, Northcott S, Lamb A, Marshall J. Psychometric properties of the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39) in a generic stroke population. Clin Rehabil. 2009 Jun;23(6):544-57. doi: 10.1177/0269215508101729. Epub 2009 May 15.
- Background: PubMed 12959459Kiran S, Thompson CK. The role of semantic complexity in treatment of naming deficits: training semantic categories in fluent aphasia by controlling exemplar typicality. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003 Aug;46(4):773-87. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2003/061).
- Background: PubMed 35367876Kristensson J, Saldert C, Ostberg P, Smith SR, Ake S, Longoni F. Naming vs. non-naming treatment in aphasia in a group setting-A randomized controlled trial. J Commun Disord. 2022 May-Jun;97:106215. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2022.106215. Epub 2022 Mar 17.
- Background: PubMed 19052247Long A, Hesketh A, Paszek G, Booth M, Bowen A. Development of a reliable self-report outcome measure for pragmatic trials of communication therapy following stroke: the Communication Outcome after Stroke (COAST) scale. Clin Rehabil. 2008 Dec;22(12):1083-94. doi: 10.1177/0269215508090091.
- Background: PubMed 19482891Long A, Hesketh A, Bowen A; ACT NoW Research Study. Communication outcome after stroke: a new measure of the carer's perspective. Clin Rehabil. 2009 Sep;23(9):846-56. doi: 10.1177/0269215509336055. Epub 2009 May 29.
- BackgroundMasterson, J., & Druks, J. (1998). Description of a set of 164 nounsand 102 verbs matched for printed word frequency, familiarityand age-of-acquisition. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 11(4), 331-354
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Aphasia
Not yet recruiting
BrainGate2: Feasibility Study of an Intracortical Neural Interface System for Persons With Aphasia (BG-Aphasia-01)
Expressive Aphasia, Aphasia Following Cerebral Infarction
Recruiting
Effect of Anomia Rehabilitation Combined With Metacognitive Training in Patients With Chronic Vascular Aphasia
Aphasia, Stroke
Not yet recruiting
Restoring Speech With an Intracortical Neuroprosthesis for Post-Stroke Agrammatic Aphasia (BG-Aphasia-02)
Aphasia, ALS
Not yet recruiting
Cerebellar Brain Stimulation Plus Language Therapy for People at Risk of Poor Aphasia Recovery After Stroke
Aphasia, Stroke
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Detecting and Predicting Post-stroke Cognitive Impairment Using the Oxford Cognitive Screen
Stroke, Ischemic Stroke
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Francesca Longoni, Dr. principal investigator
Inst of Neurosci & Physiology, Speech & Language Pathology Unit, University of Gothenburg
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Verb Network Strenghtening Treatment (VNeST) in people with Aphasia and Anomia, run by Vastra Gotaland Region at 1 site in Sweden.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 7 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 12 Jun 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Sweden. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change from baseline in naming ability of trained items at week 10. (time frame: Baseline, 10 weeks). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06096662, which also lists 15 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 12 Jun 2025.