Rapid Review of Consumer-Grade Software for Aphasia Rehabilitation

Aphasiology

Mabin, J., Shiggins, C., et al. (2026).

Aphasiology, 40(4), 798-824.

<div>This rapid review explores the effects of consumer-grade aphasia rehabilitation software on language and communication, quality of life, participant, and patient satisfaction in adults with post-stroke aphasia.</div>

National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia); Centre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation (Australia); Bowness Family Foundation (Australia)

From database inception to January 5, 2024

<div>Original, peer-reviewed studies</div>

20

<div>The following results were reported following interventions using consumer-grade aphasia treatment software (e.g., Constant Therapy, AphasiaMate, AphasiaScripts) in adults with stroke-associated aphasia:</div> <div> <ul> <li><strong>Language: </strong>Fourteen studies reported significant improvements in primary language outcomes using either standardized or bespoke measures. Specifically, there was: <ul> <li>Level II Evidence that StepByStep improved word retrieval, Oral Reading for Language in Aphasia (ORLA) improved oral reading, Listen-In improved auditory word comprehension, Power-Afa improved language skills, and that Constant Therapy improved aphasia severity and language skills.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li> <li>Level III Evidence that iReadMore improved single word reading and Tactus Therapy improved expressive language skills.</li> <li>Level IV Evidence that SentenceShaper improved narrative production, MossTalk Words improved word retrieval, AphasiaMate improved language skills, and that StepByStep improved word retrieval.&nbsp;</li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>Functional communication: </strong>Four studies reported significant improvements in functional communication using either standardized or informal measures. Specifically, the following Levels of Evidence were reported for improving functional communication: <ul> <li>Level II Evidence for Power-Afa;</li> <li>Level III Evidence for Tactus Therapy and AphsiaScripts; and</li> <li>Level IV Evidence for AphasiaMate.</li> </ul> </li> <li><strong>Quality of life: </strong>Two studies reported significantly improved quality of life using formal measures. There was Level II Evidence supporting the use of Power-Afa and Level III Evidence supporting the use of Constant Therapy to improve quality of life.&nbsp;</li> <li><strong>Patient satisfaction: </strong>While no study formally assessed patient satisfaction, five studies suggested positive patient satisfaction via patient interviews.</li> <li><strong>Participation:</strong> No studies reporting effects on participation were located.&nbsp;</li> </ul> <div> <div> <div>Limitations to this review include a small number of studies for each program, small sample sizes, heterogeneity across studies, and the potential for selection bias due to review methodology.</div> </div> </div> </div>

<div>The following Levels of Evidence were reported for specific consumer-grade aphasia treatment software programs when used with adults with stroke-associated aphasia:</div> <div> <ul> <li><strong>AphasiaMate:&nbsp;</strong>There was one Level IV study with eight participants that reported improved functional communication and reduced aphasia severity when this program was used for a minimum of one hour per week for an average total dosage of 21.48 hours.</li> <li><strong>AphasiaScripts:&nbsp;</strong>There was one Level III-3 study that reported significant improvements in trained script production and two Level IV studies that reported no significant improvement.</li> <li><strong>Constant Therapy:&nbsp;</strong>There was one Level II study of 17 participants that demonstrated reduced aphasia severity, improved quality of life, and improved language skills when used for 30 minutes a day, five days a week, for 10 weeks. Another Level IV study reported improvements, but did not report the degree or significance of these improvements.&nbsp;</li> <li><strong>iReadMore:</strong> One Level III-3 study of 21 participants reported improved reading accuracy for trained words, increased reading fluency, and better written semantic matching following 34.6 and 35.2 hours of therapy over two consecutive four-week blocks of treatment.</li> <li><strong>Listen-In: </strong>One Level II study of 35 participants reported improved auditory comprehension following an average of 85 hours of therapy.</li> <li><strong>MossTalk Words:&nbsp;</strong>Three Level IV studies reported variable results regarding word finding, with one reporting improvements, one reporting mixed results, and one reporting no significant improvement.&nbsp;</li> <li><strong>ORLA: </strong>One Level II study of 19 participants reported reduced aphasia severity following 90 minutes of treatment six days a week for six weeks. One Level II study of 11 participants reported no significant improvements (dosage not reported).&nbsp;</li> <li><strong>Power-Afa</strong>: One Level II study of 17 participants reported significant improvements in "denomination" (definition not available), writing, repetition, reading, functional independence, and quality of life following three 45-minute sessions per week for eight weeks.</li> <li><strong>SentenceShaper:&nbsp;</strong>One Level IV study reported improved narrative production in one participant after a prolonged treatment period including 13 hours of treatment over 10 weeks followed by 60 minutes per week over 22 weeks and independent use of the software for 35 hours over 12 weeks. One Level IV study reported no significant improvements (dosage not reported).&nbsp;</li> <li><strong>StepByStep:</strong> Two Level II studies and one Level IV study reported improved word-finding difficulty, with varying treatment dosages across groups</li> <li><strong>Tactus Therapy: </strong>One Level III study of 10 participants reported improved expressive language and functional communication. While the true dosage received by each participant was not reported, the participants were recommended to complete 20 minutes a day.</li> </ul> <div>Limitations to this review include a small number of studies for each program, small sample sizes, heterogeneity across studies, and the potential for selection bias due to review methodology.</div> </div>