LOGOS – APHASIA:A computerized tool designed to be used by the speech and language pathologist for the assessment of Aphasia in Greek

Definition of the problem:The process of aphasia assessment is a detailed and

complex aspect for the clinician. New technologies canpossibly present the option to evaluate a situation fasterand more accurately.

Research Questions:What are the effects of computerized assessment

procedures designed for the evaluation of Greek aphasicadults?

Does the computer software LOGOS – APHASIA thatwas developed specifically for this use in Greek, do the jobit was designed to do?

In particular is the software working efficiently for:test administrationscoring interpreting communication

Is it easy to use:clinician perspective?patient perspective?

Can it be considered that it is accepted as a clinicaldiagnostical tool?

Software Description:The aim is to create a computerized clinical tool for the

Greek language, that the clinician can use as an objectivemethodology for the evaluation of aphasia.

The LOGOS – APHASIA test evaluates five sections:1. Ακουστική Κατανόηση - Listening (Comprehension)2. Λεξιλόγιο - Vocabulary 3. Ανάγνωση - Reading4. Γραφή - Writing5. Γνωστικές Ικανότητες - Cognitive Ability

According to the patient needs, the clinicial can apply any of the above section evaluation or the evaluation of the whole five sections.

At the end of each running of an evaluation test the software automatically evaluates the answers and produces results to external text files. The formations of the results are of two types:

score in each evaluation sectionDetailed report on the results that the patient can

not function.Test administration differs every time it runs making it

possible to retest the same patient on equivalent material.

Methodology:Participants: Normal population (<40 years old),

N=110 (final year students of the department of Speechand Language Therapy, TEI of Epirus, Ioannina, ELLAS)1. They were tested using the software on theirlinguistic abilities2. Asked to fill in a questionnaire, consisted of threesections, as follows:

Personal details and medical historytheir opinion of the process as end userstheir opinion of the process as to their clinical

identity

ResultsStudents Performance

Summary of the work

Systemic Approach of Evaluation Procedures

Speech production: Presently no objective methods for automatically scoring therefore the clinician in his own way can evaluate the certain section in a subjective manner.

Purpose of the study was to use only objective evaluation methods.

The results indicate that such a system has the potential to become a valuable clinical tool for the clinician in evaluating aspects of adult language.

Future workSoftware Evaluation:

• on all age groups of normal population• on aphasic patients• on other neurogenic communication problems

Scheduled for LOGOS – APHASIA upgrades:• Speech production instructions & Recording for further process & evaluation (not in real time).• Hand writing Recording• Patients Database Handling

AcknowledgementsSupported by EPEAEK II: Reformation Program of

Undergraduate Studies, Speech and Language TherapyDepartment, TEI of Epirus, ELLAS. (ΠρόγραμμαΑναμόρφωσης Προπτυχιακών Σπουδών ΤμήματοςΛογοθεραπείας, ΤΕΙ ΗΠΕΙΡΟΥ)

Μέτρο 2.2.: «Αναμόρφωση Προγραμμάτων Σπουδών – Διεύρυνση Τριτοβάθμιας» Τίτλος Πράξης: «Διεύρυνση Τριτοβάθμιας Εκπαίδευσης – ΤΕΙ ΗΠΕΙΡΟΥ (2001-2004)»Υποέργο: ΤΜΗΜΑ ΛΟΓΟΘΕΡΑΠΕΙΑΣ

Eugenia I. Toki and Konstantinos D. PlachourasSpeech and Language Therapy Department, TEI of Epirus, Ioannina, ELLAS

Email: toki@ioa.teiep.gr, kplachouras@ioa.teiep.gr, Tel: ++302651050720, ++302651050707

ReferencesBates E., Wulfeck B.and MacWhinney B., 1991. Cross-linguistic research in aphasia: an overview. Brain and Language, 41(2):123-48.

Chapey, R., 2001. Language Intervention Strategies in Aphasia and Related Neurogenic Communication Disorders, (4th. ed.). Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins

Garcia, L. J.; Rebolledo, M.; Metthé, Lynn and Lefebvre, R., 2007. The Potential of Virtual Reality to Assess Functional Communication in Aphasia, Topics in Language Disorders. Virtual Reality: Exploring New Dimensions for Conversation, Language, and Learning. 27(3):272-288, July/September

2007.

Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Barresi, B., 2001. The assessment of aphasia and related disorders (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

Kambanaros, M., 2008. The trouble with nouns and verbs in Greek fluent aphasia, Journal of Communication Disorders, 41(2008): 1–19.

Neuropsychology Central, 2002. Aphasia Assessment. Retrieved March 26, 2006, from the Neuropsychology Central Wed site http://www.neuropsychologycentral.com/interface/content/resources/resources_interface_frameset.html

Patricacou, A., Psallida, E., Pring, T. and Dipper, L., 2007. The Boston Naming Test in Greek: Normative data and the effects of age and education on naming, Aphasiology, 21(12):1157-1170.

Siegal, M. and Varley, R., 2006. Aphasia, language and theory of mind. Social Neuroscience 1:167-174.

Voos, J.A. Vigliecca, N.S. and Gonzalez E.A., 2007. Web based aphasia test using service oriented architecture, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 90, 16th Argentine Bioengineering Congress and the 5th Conference of Clinical Engineering, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/90/1/012003

Westbury, C., 2006. The Alberta language function assessment battery, Brain and Language, 99(1-2): 53-54, doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2006.06.041

Difficulty

108 98,2 98,2 98,22 1,8 1,8 100,0

110 100,0 100,0

01Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

Test durationAverage duration: 3,9 minutes

Ease of use as an end user

Opinion in the sense of clinical process •test administration: 100% satisfaction •Scoring: 86% satisfaction•Interpretation: 98% satisfaction •Realization of other procedures needed: 60%

Adapting it as a tool in evaluation: 100%

Diagnostic System

Patient’s Medical Record

LOGOS -APHASIA

Diagnosis