AphasiaPhase 2NCT07036406
Comparing Traditional Semantic Feature Analysis (tSFA) and Semantic Feature Analysis + Metacognitive Strategy Training (SFA+MST)
A Phase 2 study testing Semantic Feature Analysis (traditional) and Semantic Feature Analysis + Metacognitive Strategy Training in people with Aphasia and Aphasia Following Cerebral Infarction, run by Teachers College, Columbia University at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The goal of this clinical trial is to compare the effectiveness of traditional Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) treatment to a modified SFA protocol that includes Metacognitive Strategy Training (SFA+MST) for adults with acquired aphasia. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 89 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Aphasia, Aphasia Following Cerebral Infarction, Aphasia, Acquired
- What is being tested?
- Semantic Feature Analysis (traditional) and Semantic Feature Analysis + Metacognitive Strategy Training
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 40 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 28 Jul 2025to Jul 2027
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
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 89 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Have aphasia due to a single acute event (e.g., left-hemisphere stroke, traumatic brain injury)
- Be at least six-months post aphasia-onset,
- Be a proficient English speaker,
- Have normal or corrected to normal hearing (i.e., hearing aids) and vision (i.e., eyeglasses),
- Have no history of neurodegenerative disease (e.g., dementia), severe motor speech disorder, significant mental illness, psychiatric disorder, drug/alcohol abuse, or neurological condition that could influence their cognitive, language, and memory systems
Who cannot join
- A history of neurodegenerative disease (e.g., dementia), severe motor speech disorder, significant mental illness, psychiatric disorder, drug/alcohol abuse, or neurological condition that could influence their cognitive, language, and memory systems,
- Children under the age of 18,
- Adults over the age of 89,
- Uncorrected hearing and vision.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
United States1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Teachers College, Columbia University
New York, New York, 10027
Victoria Tilton-Bolowsky, Ph.D. CCC-SLP, 212-678-8302, veb2119@tc.columbia.edu
About this study
Official title: Comparing the Effectiveness of Traditional Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) Versus SFA Plus Metacognitive Strategy Training (SFA+MST) for People With Acquired Aphasia
The goal of this clinical trial is to compare the effectiveness of traditional Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) treatment to a modified SFA protocol that includes Metacognitive Strategy Training (SFA+MST) for adults with acquired aphasia. The main questions it aims to answer are:
- What are the comparative outcomes in picture naming accuracy and strategy use during picture naming following 2 months of traditional SFA versus SFA + MST in adults with acquired aphasia?
- What are the comparative outcomes in percent of informative content and rate of informative content during spontaneous speech production following 2 months of traditional SFA versus SFA + MST in adults with acquired aphasia?
Read more
Researchers will compare outcomes between these two treatments to see if SFA+MST yields larger effects in picture naming and spontaneous speech outcomes than traditional SFA.
Participants will complete:
- 5-7 pre-treatment assessment sessions where they will be asked to name pictures, tell stories/describe pictures, answer questions, and complete questionnaires,
- 3 treatment sessions of SFA *OR* SFA+MST per week for 8 weeks, for a total of 24 sessions,
- 7 weekly probes (i.e., short, intermittent assessments throughout the treatment phase),
- 3 post-treatment assessment sessions immediately after treatment ends, where they will complete the same assessment tasks as they did pre-treatment (e.g., naming pictures, telling stories, etc.),
- 2 retention assessment sessions, one 30 days and the other 60 days following the final treatment session, where they will be asked to name pictures, tell stories/describe pictures, and describe what they learned during the study.
- Conditions
- Aphasia, Aphasia Following Cerebral Infarction, Aphasia, Acquired, Aphasia, Rehabilitation, Aphasia, Anomic, Aphasia, Broca
- Being tested
- Semantic Feature Analysis (traditional), Semantic Feature Analysis + Metacognitive Strategy Training
- Keywords
- Aphasia, Anomia, Stroke, Communication, Language
- Medical subject headings
- Aphasia, Anomia, Aphasia, Broca, Aphasia, Conduction, Stroke, Communication, Language
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Semantic Feature Analysis (traditional)Behavioural
This treatment involves naming pictures of objects, describing the objects' features (e.g., category membership, physical attributes, etc.), and creating sentences using the objects' names. It does not include direct metacognitive strategy training.
Semantic Feature Analysis + Metacognitive Strategy TrainingBehavioural
This treatment involves metacognitive teaching and practice, naming pictures of objects, describing the objects' features (e.g., category membership, physical attributes, etc), creating sentences using the objects' names, debriefing on overall performance, and discussing recent and future opportunities for strategy implementation in real life.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional Semantic Feature Analysis | Active comparator | A portion of the study participants will participate in traditional Semantic Feature Analysis treatment, as described in Gravier, M. L., Dickey, M. W., Hula, W. D., Evans, W. S., Owens, R. L., Winans-Mitrik, R. L., \& Doyle, P. J. (2018). What matters in semantic feature analysis: Practice-related predictors of treatment response in aphasia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 27(1S), 438-453. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_AJSLP-16-0196. Briefly, this treatment involves naming pictures of objects, describing the objects' features (e.g., category membership, physical attributes, etc.), and creating sentences using the objects' names. Receives: Behavioral: Semantic Feature Analysis (traditional) |
| Semantic Feature Analysis + Metacognitive Strategy Training | Experimental | A portion of the study participants will participate in traditional Semantic Feature Analysis treatment, as described in Tilton-Bolowsky, V. E., Brock, L., Nunn, K., Evans, W. S., \& Vallila-Rohter, S. (2023). Incorporating metacognitive strategy training into semantic treatment promotes restitutive and substitutive gains in naming: A single-subject investigation. American journal of speech-language pathology, 32(5), 1979-2020. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJSLP-22-00230. Briefly, this treatment involves metacognitive teaching and practice, naming pictures of objects, describing the objects' features (e.g., category membership, physical attributes, etc), creating sentences using the objects' names, debriefing on overall performance, and discussing recent and future opportunities for strategy implementation in real life. Receives: Behavioral: Semantic Feature Analysis + Metacognitive Strategy Training |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Confrontation naming accuracy
Participants will complete a 60-item confrontation naming assessment before, during, and after treatment. We will calculate the total number of items that participants name accurately across study phases.
Measured: Change from Baseline through study completion, an average of 6 months
Independent word-finding strategy use
Using the 60-item confrontation naming assessment, we will evaluate instances in which participants independently use a specific word-finding strategy (describing or talking around the word) in instances where they cannot name items successfully, and calculate the proportions of incorrect responses with and without strategy use across study phases.
Measured: Change from Baseline through study completion, an average of 6 months
Secondary outcomes (2)
Discourse informativeness
Participants will describe picture scenes and tell stories. We will calculate the amount of informative content in their descriptions/stories using Content Information Unit (%CIU; Nicholas \& Brookshire, 1993) analysis for descriptions/stories across study phases.
Measured: Change from Baseline through study completion, an average of 6 months
Discourse efficiency
Participants will describe picture scenes and tell stories. We will calculate the rate of informative content in their descriptions/stories using Content Information Unit (CIU/minute; Nicholas \& Brookshire, 1993) analysis for descriptions/stories across study phases.
Measured: Change from Baseline through study completion, an average of 6 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted25 Jun 2025
- Study start28 Jul 2025
- Primary completionDec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completionJul 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for AphasiaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- 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 2
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Teachers College, Columbia University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Victoria Tilton-Bolowsky, Teachers College, Columbia University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07036406
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- TeachersCCU
- Status last verified
- Jun 2026
- First submitted
- 9 Jun 2025
- Last updated
- 25 Jun 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
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 8487525Gravier ML, Dickey MW, Hula WD, Evans WS, Owens RL, Winans-Mitrik RL, Doyle PJ. What Matters in Semantic Feature Analysis: Practice-Related Predictors of Treatment Response in Aphasia. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018 Mar 1;27(1S):438-453. doi: 10.1044/2017_AJSLP-16-0196.
PubMed 29497754Tilton-Bolowsky VE, Brock L, Nunn K, Evans WS, Vallila-Rohter S. Incorporating Metacognitive Strategy Training Into Semantic Treatment Promotes Restitutive and Substitutive Gains in Naming: A Single-Subject Investigation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2023 Sep 11;32(5):1979-2020. doi: 10.1044/2023_AJSLP-22-00230. Epub 2023 Jul 11.
PubMed 37433115
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 25 Jun 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparing the Effectiveness of Traditional Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) Versus SFA Plus Metacognitive Strategy Training (SFA+MST) for People With Acquired Aphasia
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07036406
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- TeachersCCU
- Conditions
- Aphasia, Aphasia Following Cerebral Infarction, Aphasia, Acquired, Aphasia, Rehabilitation, Aphasia, Anomic, Aphasia, Broca
- Keywords
- Aphasia, Anomia, Stroke, Communication, Language
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Teachers College, Columbia UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 28 Jul 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Jul 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 25 Jun 2025 (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.
The goal of this clinical trial is to compare the effectiveness of traditional Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) treatment to a modified SFA protocol that includes Metacognitive Strategy Training (SFA+MST) for adults with acquired aphasia. The main questions it aims to answer are:
- What are the comparative outcomes in picture naming accuracy and strategy use during picture naming following 2 months of traditional SFA versus SFA + MST in adults with acquired aphasia?
- What are the comparative outcomes in percent of informative content and rate of informative content during spontaneous speech production following 2 months of traditional SFA versus SFA + MST in adults with acquired aphasia?
Researchers will compare outcomes between these two treatments to see if SFA+MST yields larger effects in picture naming and spontaneous speech outcomes than traditional SFA.
Participants will complete:
- 5-7 pre-treatment assessment sessions where they will be asked to name pictures, tell stories/describe pictures, answer questions, and complete questionnaires,
- 3 treatment sessions of SFA *OR* SFA+MST per week for 8 weeks, for a total of 24 sessions,
- 7 weekly probes (i.e., short, intermittent assessments throughout the treatment phase),
- 3 post-treatment assessment sessions immediately after treatment ends, where they will complete the same assessment tasks as they did pre-treatment (e.g., naming pictures, telling stories, etc.),
- 2 retention assessment sessions, one 30 days and the other 60 days following the final treatment session, where they will be asked to name pictures, tell stories/describe pictures, and describe what they learned during the study.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional Semantic Feature Analysis | Active comparator | Behavioral: Semantic Feature Analysis (traditional)A portion of the study participants will participate in traditional Semantic Feature Analysis treatment, as described in Gravier, M. L., Dickey, M. W., Hula, W. D., Evans, W. S., Owens, R. L., Winans-Mitrik, R. L., \& Doyle, P. J. (2018). What matters in semantic feature analysis: Practice-related predictors of treatment response in aphasia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 27(1S), 438-453. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_AJSLP-16-0196. Briefly, this treatment involves naming pictures of objects, describing the objects' features (e.g., category membership, physical attributes, etc.), and creating sentences using the objects' names. |
| Semantic Feature Analysis + Metacognitive Strategy Training | Experimental | Behavioral: Semantic Feature Analysis + Metacognitive Strategy TrainingA portion of the study participants will participate in traditional Semantic Feature Analysis treatment, as described in Tilton-Bolowsky, V. E., Brock, L., Nunn, K., Evans, W. S., \& Vallila-Rohter, S. (2023). Incorporating metacognitive strategy training into semantic treatment promotes restitutive and substitutive gains in naming: A single-subject investigation. American journal of speech-language pathology, 32(5), 1979-2020. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJSLP-22-00230. Briefly, this treatment involves metacognitive teaching and practice, naming pictures of objects, describing the objects' features (e.g., category membership, physical attributes, etc), creating sentences using the objects' names, debriefing on overall performance, and discussing recent and future opportunities for strategy implementation in real life. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 89 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Have aphasia due to a single acute event (e.g., left-hemisphere stroke, traumatic brain injury)
- Be at least six-months post aphasia-onset,
- Be a proficient English speaker,
- Have normal or corrected to normal hearing (i.e., hearing aids) and vision (i.e., eyeglasses),
- Have no history of neurodegenerative disease (e.g., dementia), severe motor speech disorder, significant mental illness, psychiatric disorder, drug/alcohol abuse, or neurological condition that could influence their cognitive, language, and memory systems
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- A history of neurodegenerative disease (e.g., dementia), severe motor speech disorder, significant mental illness, psychiatric disorder, drug/alcohol abuse, or neurological condition that could influence their cognitive, language, and memory systems,
- Children under the age of 18,
- Adults over the age of 89,
- Uncorrected hearing and vision.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Semantic Feature Analysis (traditional)This treatment involves naming pictures of objects, describing the objects' features (e.g., category membership, physical attributes, etc.), and creating sentences using the objects' names. It does not include direct metacognitive strategy training. | Behavioural | Traditional Semantic Feature Analysis |
| Semantic Feature Analysis + Metacognitive Strategy TrainingThis treatment involves metacognitive teaching and practice, naming pictures of objects, describing the objects' features (e.g., category membership, physical attributes, etc), creating sentences using the objects' names, debriefing on overall performance, and discussing recent and future opportunities for strategy implementation in real life. | Behavioural | Semantic Feature Analysis + Metacognitive Strategy Training |
Primary outcome
Confrontation naming accuracy
Time frame: Change from Baseline through study completion, an average of 6 months
Participants will complete a 60-item confrontation naming assessment before, during, and after treatment. We will calculate the total number of items that participants name accurately across study phases.
Independent word-finding strategy use
Time frame: Change from Baseline through study completion, an average of 6 months
Using the 60-item confrontation naming assessment, we will evaluate instances in which participants independently use a specific word-finding strategy (describing or talking around the word) in instances where they cannot name items successfully, and calculate the proportions of incorrect responses with and without strategy use across study phases.
2 secondary outcomes
Discourse informativeness
Time frame: Change from Baseline through study completion, an average of 6 months
Discourse efficiency
Time frame: Change from Baseline through study completion, an average of 6 months
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 25 Jun 2026.
- Background: PubMed 8487525Nicholas 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.
- Background: PubMed 29497754Gravier ML, Dickey MW, Hula WD, Evans WS, Owens RL, Winans-Mitrik RL, Doyle PJ. What Matters in Semantic Feature Analysis: Practice-Related Predictors of Treatment Response in Aphasia. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018 Mar 1;27(1S):438-453. doi: 10.1044/2017_AJSLP-16-0196.
- Background: PubMed 37433115Tilton-Bolowsky VE, Brock L, Nunn K, Evans WS, Vallila-Rohter S. Incorporating Metacognitive Strategy Training Into Semantic Treatment Promotes Restitutive and Substitutive Gains in Naming: A Single-Subject Investigation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2023 Sep 11;32(5):1979-2020. doi: 10.1044/2023_AJSLP-22-00230. Epub 2023 Jul 11.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Aphasia
RecruitingObservational study
Implementing Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in a Rehabilitation Setting
Aphasia, Stroke
RecruitingObservational study
Speech and Language Interventions for Italian People With PPA
Primary Progressive Aphasia(PPA)
Not yet recruiting
BrainGate2: Feasibility Study of an Intracortical Neural Interface System for Persons With Aphasia
Expressive Aphasia, Aphasia Following Cerebral Infarction
Recruiting
Music Therapy for Rehabilitation in Post-stroke Non-fluent Aphasia: the Indian Adaptation
Stroke Rehabilitation, Aphasia, Broca
RecruitingObservational study
ARTFL LEFFTDS Longitudinal Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (ALLFTD)
Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (FTLD), Progressive Supranuclear Palsy (PSP)
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.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 2 study testing Semantic Feature Analysis (traditional) and Semantic Feature Analysis + Metacognitive Strategy Training in people with Aphasia and Aphasia Following Cerebral Infarction, run by Teachers College, Columbia University at 1 site in United States.
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 4 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: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 25 Jun 2026. 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 United States. 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.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Victoria Tilton-Bolowsky, Ph.D. CCC-SLP (212-678-8302, veb2119@tc.columbia.edu), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Confrontation naming accuracy (time frame: Change from Baseline through study completion, an average of 6 months). 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 NCT07036406, which also lists 3 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 25 Jun 2026.