{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp04_retrieval_first_paired20_20260802","cell_id":"negative_space_design__neuroscience","hypothesis_id":"H5","search_queries":["aphasia naming therapy adaptive cue delay response contingent cueing clinician wait time","aphasia naming treatment cueing hierarchy latency wait response time before cue","aphasia naming therapy delayed cue patient specific response deadline study","aphasia naming treatment distress frustration cueing wait time protocol","patent aphasia adaptive cueing response time naming therapy","\"Adaptive BEARS\" aphasia naming deadline distress frustration","\"constant time delay\" prompting adaptive wait interval rehabilitation naming","site:asha.org aphasia communication partner allow time respond cueing extra time"],"sources":[{"source_id":"PA1","title":"Adaptive balancing of effort, accuracy and response speed in anomia treatment for post-stroke aphasia in community-based settings in the USA: a within-subjects randomised controlled trial protocol","publisher":"BMJ Open","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13202119/","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Adaptive BEARS directly individualizes the naming deadline at which a repetition cue is delivered using patient-specific accuracy and response-time performance.","The protocol compares an adaptive 1.5–10-second deadline with immediate 0-second cueing and a fixed 10-second retrieval interval, substantially colliding with the proposed causal lever."]},{"source_id":"PA2","title":"Balancing Effortful and Errorless Learning in Naming Treatment for Aphasia (NCT05653440)","publisher":"ClinicalTrials.gov / U.S. National Library of Medicine","url":"https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05653440","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","claims_supported":["The official registration describes naming deadlines determined from clinician-provided accuracy and response-time ratings.","The registered treatment operationalizes patient-performance-adaptive timing before a clinician-provided naming cue."]},{"source_id":"PA3","title":"How Much Time Do People With Aphasia Need to Respond During Picture Naming? Estimating Optimal Response Time Cutoffs Using a Multinomial Ex-Gaussian Approach","publisher":"Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research / American Speech-Language-Hearing Association","url":"https://pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-19-00255","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Picture-naming response-time distributions can be used to estimate an individual optimal response deadline.","The work supports patient-specific rather than uniform naming cutoffs, although it is descriptive rather than itself a treatment comparison."]},{"source_id":"PA4","title":"Test-Enhanced Learning Versus Errorless Learning in Aphasia Rehabilitation: Testing Competing Psychological Principles","publisher":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4476962/","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Retrieval practice was compared directly with repetition-based errorless learning in people with aphasia.","Allowing effortful retrieval produced better delayed naming performance, supporting the concern that immediately supplying an answer can reduce useful retrieval practice."]},{"source_id":"PA5","title":"“If You Just Stay With Me and Wait…”: The Communicative Benefits of Time for Conversational Self-Repair for People With Aphasia","publisher":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology / American Speech-Language-Hearing Association","url":"https://pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/2022_AJSLP-21-00199","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","claims_supported":["Supportive, engaged waiting during aphasic word-search trouble allowed additional self-repair and meaningful information production.","The study establishes waiting as an active partner behavior, but it concerns natural conversation rather than trial-level naming treatment or adaptive cue deadlines."]},{"source_id":"PA6","title":"Aphasia","publisher":"American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Practice Portal","url":"https://www.asha.org/Practice-Portal/Clinical-Topics/Aphasia/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["ASHA describes aphasia treatment as individualized and person-centered and recognizes phonological and semantic word-retrieval cueing strategies.","The guidance supports tailoring prompting and preserving patient preferences but does not specify a distress-contingent adaptive naming deadline."]},{"source_id":"PA7","title":"US7203649B1 — Aphasia therapy system","publisher":"United States Patent and Trademark Office / Google Patents","url":"https://patents.google.com/patent/US7203649B1/en","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","claims_supported":["The patent describes self-paced, picture-prompted aphasia therapy with patient-controlled word cues and automated response evaluation.","It explicitly identifies impatient waiting by a human therapist as potentially uncomfortable and inhibitory, anticipating the hypothesis's concern with the interpersonal meaning of the wait, but it does not adapt cue latency from performance or distress."]},{"source_id":"PA8","title":"Constant Time Delay Prompting","publisher":"Nevada Dual Sensory Impairment Project, University of Nevada, Reno","url":"https://www.unr.edu/ndsip/services/resources/tips/constant-time-delay-prompting","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","claims_supported":["In the neighboring instructional domain, time-delay prompting deliberately inserts an interval in which the learner can respond independently before a controlling prompt.","The delay can be chosen for the learner and task, with criteria for increasing or reducing it, showing that protected prompt latency and performance-based adjustment are established prompting concepts outside aphasia."]}],"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Adaptive BEARS anomia-treatment protocol","similarity":"It directly implements a patient-performance-adaptive silent naming deadline, delivers a repetition cue when that deadline expires, and compares it with both immediate and fixed delayed cueing.","remaining_difference":"The located protocol does not appear to end the interval early on an explicitly coded distress signal or make session distress and untrained-item generalization the proposed joint success constraint.","source_ids":["PA1","PA2"]},{"name":"Individual optimal picture-naming response-time cutoff","similarity":"It supplies the patient-specific response-time modeling used to decide how long independent retrieval should remain available.","remaining_difference":"It estimates deadlines descriptively rather than testing a clinician policy with distress-sensitive termination.","source_ids":["PA3"]},{"name":"Retrieval-practice aphasia treatment","similarity":"It directly contrasts effortful retrieval with immediate answer exposure and reports superior delayed naming from retrieval practice.","remaining_difference":"Its retrieval opportunity is protocol-defined rather than continuously individualized or terminated by observable distress.","source_ids":["PA4"]},{"name":"Supportive waiting for aphasic conversational self-repair","similarity":"A higher-power communication partner deliberately remains engaged without completing the person's word search, preserving autonomous retrieval and attending to the interpersonal meaning of silence.","remaining_difference":"It addresses natural conversation rather than naming trials and does not specify a modeled maximum or adaptive cue-delivery rule.","source_ids":["PA5","PA6","PA7"]},{"name":"Time-delay prompting","similarity":"The neighboring-domain procedure reserves a response interval before assistance and adjusts timing according to learner performance or processing needs.","remaining_difference":"It is not an aphasia naming treatment and does not use distress-triggered termination or language-generalization outcomes.","source_ids":["PA8"]}],"overlapping_components":["Uncued prompt-to-response interval","Immediate-cue comparator","Fixed maximum naming deadline","Patient-specific response-time cutoff","Performance-adaptive cue timing","Response-contingent trial termination","Effortful retrieval before answer exposure","Least-assistance cueing logic","Supportive partner waiting","Independent-response measurement"],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"Within clinician-delivered aphasia naming therapy, the bounded search did not locate a policy that ends a patient-specific retrieval interval early on an explicitly operationalized distress signal and jointly tests untrained-item generalization and session distress against immediate cueing.","claim_falsifier":"This claim would be falsified by a treatment manual, trial protocol, completed study, product specification, or patent showing performance-adaptive aphasia naming deadlines that terminate on response or coded distress and report both untrained-item naming and distress relative to immediate cueing.","problem_support":"STRONG","recommendation":"REJECT","world_novelty_boundary":"The core mechanism is not world-novel within the bounded eight-query search: Adaptive BEARS already operationalizes patient-specific, performance-adaptive silence before a naming cue and directly compares it with immediate cueing; only the explicit distress-triggered stop rule and paired distress/generalization evaluation remain unlocated, and those constitute a narrow safety-and-outcome distinction rather than a distinct treatment mechanism."}