ABSTRACT Background: Spoken word retrieval therapy forms an integral part of aphasia therapy. Due to the range of therapy options and variations, drawing clear-cut conclusions from the evidence base can be challenging. Aims: This paper consolidates recent findings (2008–2018), pertinent to spoken word-finding interventions. Specifically, we are interested in aphasia interventions: (1) that target single-word spoken naming; (2) whose participants are adults with acquired naming impairments after a stroke; and (3) whose treatment approach focusses on the use of language forms (i.e., semantics, phonology, and orthography). The over-arching objective is to determine the important therapy components underpinning successful single-word naming treatments. Methods and Procedures: A systematic literature search was conducted. This led to the compilation of a large-scale dataset (n=222 participants from 32 papers), with the heterogenous interventions dissected into their “active” therapy components. A detailed framework (“RITA”: (1) Regimen; (2) Item(s); (3) Technique(s); and (4) Application of technique(s) with their Adjuncts) was designed to organise these “active therapy ingredients”. Using random forest, we identified the crucial components responsible for the successful naming of treated and untreated items, respectively, at short-term and maintenance periods. Outcomes and Results: The role of the written form as therapeutic cues, presented either as a whole word or part-word, emerged to be a consistent and robust predictor, across the outcomes. Semantic tasks were useful in the successful naming of untreated items. Conclusions: Clinicians should consider using written prompts as part of spoken naming therapy. It is possible that the use of orthography underlies the success of multi-component techniques. Other clinical implications (e.g., homework, treatment intensity) are also discussed. In addition, we propose a comprehensive “RITA” framework, which summarises the “active” therapy components. “RITA” (available as a template in Appendix 3) is useful for clinicians and researchers as a guide to unpack language interventions. Furthermore, the paper highlights the strengths of a well-established method, random forest, as a valuable statistical tool to move aphasia research forward. Overall, the study refines our understanding of spoken naming treatment for those with aphasia, specifically individuals with word-finding deficits. Importantly, through the use of a robust statistical approach and an original framework designed to lay out language therapy components, the paper adds new clarity to the evidence base.

中文翻译：

---

确定成功的口语命名疗法的组成部分：成人失语症找词干预的荟萃分析

摘要背景：口语检索治疗是失语症治疗的一个组成部分。由于治疗选择和变化范围广泛，从证据基础得出明确的结论可能具有挑战性。目标：本文整合了最近的发现（2008-2018），与口语单词发现干预有关。具体来说，我们对失语症干预感兴趣：（1）针对单字口语命名；(2) 受试者为中风后获得性命名障碍的成年人；(3) 其处理方法侧重于语言形式的使用（即语义、音系和正字法）。总体目标是确定支持成功的单字命名治疗的重要治疗成分。方法和程序：进行了系统的文献检索。这导致了大规模数据集的汇编（n = 222 名参与者来自 32 篇论文），将异质干预分解为“主动”治疗成分。一个详细的框架（“RITA”：(1) 方案；(2) 项目；(3) 技术；和 (4) 技术及其附属物的应用）被设计来组织这些“活动治疗成分”。使用随机森林，我们确定了在短期和维护期间分别负责成功命名处理和未处理项目的关键组件。结果和结果：书面形式作为治疗线索的作用，以整个单词或部分单词的形式呈现，在结果中成为一致且稳健的预测指标。语义任务对于成功命名未经处理的项目很有用。结论：临床医生应考虑使用书面提示作为口语命名疗法的一部分。正字法的使用可能是多分量技术成功的基础。还讨论了其他临床意义（例如，家庭作业、治疗强度）。此外，我们提出了一个全面的“RITA”框架，它总结了“主动”疗法的组成部分。“RITA”（作为附录 3 中的模板提供）对于临床医生和研究人员来说，可用作解开语言干预的指南。此外，该论文强调了一种完善的方法随机森林的优势，它是推动失语症研究向前发展的宝贵统计工具。总体而言，该研究完善了我们对失语症患者口语命名治疗的理解，特别是有单词查找缺陷的个体。重要的，