Authors
- Koroleva Elizaveta A.
- Orlova Olga S. Doctor of Education Sciences
- Larina Olga D.
Annotation
The article reports a study aimed at identifying rehabilitation potential among elderly individuals suffering from aphasia. Its importance stems from global increases in longevity and the widespread occurrence of neurological issues following strokes, especially those affecting speech and communication abilities in senior populations. Current conventional diagnostic tools inadequately address certain critical aspects of communication, neglecting spoken language proficiency, socio-cultural context, and integration of digital technologies into communication processes. The paper elaborates on definitions of “rehabilitation potential,” “social-communicative potential,” and “phatic function” from a speech pathology perspective. The objective was to design a diagnostic tool capable of assessing rehabilitation potential specifically tailored for geriatric aphasic patients. Methodologically, the study relied upon analyses of existing theoretical literature, clinical examinations, surveys, interviews, observations, interpretations of findings, and hierarchical classification schemes. The outcome includes an optimized evaluation protocol that incorporates assessments of speech functionality alongside social-communicative skills and feasibility of employing digital technology during rehabilitation procedures. A detailed description of the Modified Intensified Method of Quantitative Assessment of Speech (MIMQAS) is provided, enabling correlation between speech evaluations and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) metrics. A total of 1,943 subjects underwent examination, out of which 319 participants aged 65 or above diagnosed with aphasia were selected for inclusion in the study cohort. Novelty and practical utility reside in the applicability of combining MIMQAS with the “Colloquial Speech Study Protocol” aligned with ICF scales, thus facilitating creation of customized medical rehabilitation plans leveraging digital innovations.
References
1.
1. Stakhovskaya, L. V., Klochikhina, O. A., Bogatyreva, M. D., & Kovalenko, V. V. (2013). Epidemiology of stroke in the Russian Federation: results of territory’s population registry (2009–2010). S. S. Korsakov Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry, 113(5), 4–10. (In Russ.). https://www.mediasphera.ru/issues/zhurnal-nevrologii-i-psikhiatrii-im-s-s-korsakova/2013/5/031997-7298201351
2.
2. Pisova, N. V. (2023). Ischemic stroke and age. Poliklinika, 3(2), 49–52. (In Russ.). https://poliklin.ru/imagearticle/2023-3-%20Revma/Poliklinika_3(2)_Nevro_2023_page_49-52.pdf
3.
3. Kadykov, A. S. (2017). Rehabilitation after stroke. Moscow: LLC “Medical Information Agency”. 240 p. (In Russ.). https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=35144937
4.
4. Kaczorowska-Bray, K., Milewski, S. (2017). Sociolinguistic aspects of communication with older people. Systems Psychology and Sociology, 4(24), 65–75.
5.
5. Oppel, V. V. (1963). Speech restoration in aphasia. Leningrad. 108 p. (In Russ.). https://pedlib.ru/Books/3/0350/3_0350-1.shtml
6.
6. Bain, E. S. (1964). Aphasia and ways to overcome it. Leningrad: Medicine. 235 p. (In Russ.). https://rusneb.ru/catalog/000199_000009_005962963/
7.
7. Belkin, A. A., Belkina, Yu. B., Prudnikova, S. S., Skripai, E. Yu., Ermakova, E. V., Iakimova, A. S., Baryshnikova, Yu. S., Ladeishchikova, Yu. A., Nikitenko, T. V., Pinchuk, E. A., & Safonova, T. Yu. (2021). A medical speech therapist in a multidisciplinary rehabilitation team. Practical experience of the Clinic of the Brain Institute. Consilium Medicum, 2, 136–143. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.26442/20751753.2021.2.200644
8.
8. Doedens, W., Bose, A., Lambert, L., & Meteyard, L. (2021). Face-to-Face Communication in Aphasia: The Influence of Conversation Partner Familiarity on a Collaborative Communication Task. Frontiers in Communication, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.574051
9.
9. Orlova, O. S., & Estrova, P. A. (2018). Innovative technologies in the comprehensive rehabilitation of persons with voice and speech disorders. In Actual problems of education of people with disabilities. Proceedings of a Scientific and practical conference with international participation, Moscow, April 19–21, 2018 (pp. 126–130). Edited by E. G. Rechitskaya and V. V. Linkov. Moscow: Moscow Pedagogical State University. (In Russ.). https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=35610598
10.
10. Ivanova, G. E. (2020). Medical rehabilitation: tasks and solutions. Kliničeskoe pitanie i metabolism,? 1(1), 8–9. (In Russ.). https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=46322966
11.
11. Todhunter-Brown, A., Sellers, C. E., Baer, G. D., Choo, P. L., Cowie, J., Cheyne, J. D., Langhorne, P., Brown, J., Morris, J., & Campbell, P. (2025). Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2(2), CD001920. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001920.pub4
12.
12. Shklovskiĭ, V. M. (2015). Neurorehabilitation of patients after stroke and brain injury. S. S. Korsakov Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry, 115(32), 7581. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17116/jnevro20151153275-81
13.
13. Svetlichny, E. G., & Vesetiu, E. V. (2023). The influence of the social environment on the educational success and plans of modern adolescents. The world of science, culture, education, 2(99), 309–311. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24412/1991-5497-2023-299-309-311
14.
14. De Main, A. S., & Xie, B. (2020). Social Environment and Mental and Behavioral Health Outcomes in Older Adults: A Critical Review. Innov Aging, 4(1), 467. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igaa057.1512
15.
15. Smolyanskaya, E. I. (2022). Elderly people: social activity and communicative competence interrelation. Psychology. Historicalcritical Reviews and Current Researches, 11(4A), 318–327. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.34670/AR.2022.23.66.040
16.
16. Larina, O. D. (2019). Interactive tools for stimulation of the socio-communicative potential of patients with aphasia. Special education, 3, 65–79. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.26170/sp19-03-05
17.
17. Pushina, N. I. (2024). Fatika and its features in the modern communication space. Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Seriya «Istoriya i filologiya», 34(6), 1269–1276. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.35634/2412-9534-2024-34-6-1269-1276
18.
18. Matveeva, T. V., Shalina, I. V., Vepreva, I. T. et al. (2021). The value content of conversational dialogue. A monograph. Edited by T. V. Matveeva and I. V. Shalina. Yekaterinburg: Ural Publishing House of University. 228 p. (In Russ.). https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=47108668
19.
19. Zuckerman, Ch. (2020). Phatic, the: Communication and Communion (pp. 1–5). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786093.iela0311
20.
20. Poirier, S.-È., Voyer, L.-A., Poulin, V., Lamontagne, M.-E., & Monetta, L. (2024). Communication Challenges for People with Chronic Aphasia: A Systematic Qualitative Review of Barriers and Facilitators in Local Services. Disabilities, 4(3), 616–631. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities4030038
21.
21. Hinckley, J., & Jayes, M. (2023). Person-centered care for people with aphasia: tools for shared decision-making. Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 4, 1236534. https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2023.1236534
22.
22. Azios, J. H., Archer, B., Simmons-Mackie, N., Raymer, A., Carragher, M., Shashikanth, Sh., et al. (2022). Conversation as an outcome of aphasia intervent. ASHA journals. https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21514062.v1
23.
23. Keegan, L. C., Hoepner, J. K., Togher, L., Kennedy, M., Bogart, E., Brunner, M., et al. (2025). SoCIAL framework. ASHA journals. https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28872272.v1
24.
24. Elbourn, E., MacWhinney, B., Fromm, D., Power, E., Steel, J., & Togher, L. (2023). TBIBank: An International Shared Database to Enhance Research, Teaching and Automated Language Analysis for Traumatic Brain Injury Populations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 104(5), 824–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2022.12.192
25.
25. Kelly, H., Kearns, Á., & Bell, S. (2024). Innovative use of technology in aphasia. Advances in Communication and Swallowing, 27(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3233/ACS-249000
26.
26. Larina, O. D., Orlova, O. S., & Degtyareva, M. V. Digital therapeutics as an innovative area of logopedic work. Special education, 3(63), 115–139. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26170/1999-6993_2021_03_09
27.
27. Arntz, A., Weber, F., Handgraaf, M., Lällä, K., Korniloff, K., Murtonen, K. P., Chichaeva, J., Kidritsch, A., Heller, M., Sakellari, E., Athanasopoulou, C., Lagiou, A.,
Tzonichaki, I., Salinas-Bueno, I., Martínez-Bueso, P., Velasco-Roldán, O., Schulz, R. J., & Grüneberg C. (2023). Technologies in Home-Based Digital Rehabilitation: Scoping Review. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol, 27(10), e43615. https://doi.org/10.2196/43615
28.
28. Dermody, G., Whitehead, L., Wilson, G., & Glass, C. (2020). The Role of Virtual Reality in Improving Health Outcomes for Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res, 1, 22(6), e17331. https://doi.org/10.2196/17331
29.
29. Jamwal, R., Jarman, H. K., Roseingrave, E., Douglas, J., & Winkler, D. (2022). Smart home and communication technology for people with disability: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 17(6), 624–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1818138
30.
30. Matamala-Gomez, M., Maisto, M., Montana, L., Mavrodiev, P. A., Baglio, F., Rossetto, F., Mantovani, F., Riva, G. & Realdon, O. (2020). The Role of Engagement in Teleneurorehabilitation: A Systematic Review. Front. Neurol, 11, 354. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2020.00354
31.
31. Hocking, J., Oster, C., & Maeder, A. (2021). Use of conversational agents in rehabilitation following brain injury, disease, or stroke: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evid Synth, 19(6), 1369–1381. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00225.
32.
32. Busnatu, Ș. S., Niculescu A. G., Bolocan A., Andronic O., Pantea Stoian A. M., Scafa-Udriște A., Stănescu A. M., Păduraru D. N., Nicolescu M. I., Grumezescu A. M., & Jinga V. (2022). A Review of Digital Health and Biotelemetry: Modern Approaches towards Personalized Medicine and Remote Health Assessment. J Pers Med, 12(10), 1656. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12101656
33.
33. Luria, A. R. (2024). Higher human cortical functions. (The series “Masters of Psychology”). Saint-Petersburg: Piter. 768 p. https://www.piter.com/collection/all/product/vysshiekorkovye-funktsii-cheloveka
34.
34. Tsvetkova, L. S., Akhutina, T. V., & Pylaeva, N. M. (1981). Methods of speech assessment in aphasia. Textbook for special practice for students of psychology. Moscow: Publishing House of Moscow State University. 167 p. https://rusneb.ru/catalog/000199_000009_001074776/
35.
35. Anastasios, M. G., & Kambanaros, M. (2023). Therapies and Challenges in the Post- Stroke Aphasia Rehabilitation Arena: Current and Future Prospects. Medicina (Kaunas), 59(9), 1674. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/medicina59091674
36.
36. Orlova, O. S., Estrova, P. A., & Kalmykova, A. S. (2015). Neuroplasticity is an innovative trend in speech therapy. Psychological and pedagogical support of the educational process: problems, prospects, technologies: Scientific papers of the participants of the IV International Scientific and Practical Conference, I. S. Turgenev Oryol State University (pp. 33–39). (In Russ.). https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=24764110
37.
37. Babaei, Z., & Yadegari, F. (2024). Tools for Assessing Quality of Life in People with Stroke-Induced Aphasia: A Literature Review. Folia Phoniatr Logop, 77(3), 300–318. https://doi.org/10.1159/000541400
38.
38. Panuccio, F., Rossi, G., Di Nuzzo, A., Ruotolo, I., Cianfriglia, G., Simeon, R., Sellitto, G., Berardi, A., & Galeoto, G. (2025). Quality of Assessment Tools for Aphasia: A Systematic Review. Brain Sci, 3, 15(3), 271. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15030271