What has been researched about implicit memory in speech-language-hearing pathology? A scoping review.
Fernanda Roberta de Faria Rocha da Silva, Gilberto da Cruz Leal, Roberta de Carvalho Barabás and 1 others
PMID 42561351WHAT IT FOUND
Most implicit memory research in speech-language-hearing looks at priming-based treatment, tested almost entirely in single-case or small studies.
Speech-language pathologists held negative implicit attitudes toward stuttering despite positive stated views, and voices were rated less severely dysphonic when the speaker's race was labelled Black.
Key findings
01In aphasia treatment studies that used priming, participants improved more on items that had been primed than on items that were only practised, and one study found some improvement on trained items still present three months later. Whether gains spread to untrained items varied.
02Speech-language pathologists scored as holding negative implicit attitudes toward stuttering, while their stated attitudes toward a person who stutters were positive, though less positive than toward a person who does not stutter. How much prior exposure they had to stuttering was not associated with either.
03Both Black and White speakers were rated less severely dysphonic when their race was labelled as Black, in a study of postgraduate speech-language pathology students listening to recordings of dysphonic voices.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Implicit memory is defined differently from study to study and the terms used are not standardised, so the studies are hard to compare with each other. The tasks used to measure implicit memory varied widely and none is standard, which is why results could not be combined across studies. Only 5.1% of the 39 included studies were well-conducted randomised trials. Most of the treatment evidence comes from one to five participants, so none of the treatment approaches described has been shown to work in a properly powered study. The review excluded studies that were not available in full or were behind a paywall, and much of the access came through one university's library subscription, so relevant work may be missing. The results on procedural learning in language disorder point in different directions depending on how the task was set up and how the impairment was defined, so no clear conclusion can be drawn from them. The review reports studies, not patients, so it cannot say how many people were treated in total or how they fared overall.
Declared interests
The authors state only that there was nothing to declare regarding financial support, in both the English and Portuguese versions of the statement. No funder is named and no competing interests are reported.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat this review as evidence that priming, errorless learning or spaced retrieval work. It maps what has been published, and only 5.1% of the included studies were well-conducted randomised trials, with most treatment findings coming from one to five participants. The stuttering finding comes from a survey of clinicians and the voice finding from students rating recordings, not from studies of whether patients get better.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →