According to the World Health Organization, 795,000 Americans suffer a stroke each year and of those who survive, twenty-five to forty percent will become aphasic. The National Aphasia Association defines aphasia as "a language impairment, affecting the production or comprehension of speech and the ability to read or write. Several approaches have been shown to be effective in alleviating the symptoms of aphasia. Studies have been performed to evaluate the language outcomes of patients undergoing intensive or non-intensive therapy for aphasia, as well as to identify the causes of aphasia which specific intensive therapies are effective. One of these types of therapy is constraint-induced language therapy (CILT). Another topic of interest in the aphasia community concerns the "window of recovery" for people with aphasia. It was commonly accepted that language recovery after aphasia stabilized during the first year following a stroke (Pedersen et al., 1995); however, emerging evidence suggests that when intensive therapy such as CILT is implemented, results can be seen several years later. This article will examine the role that intensity plays in the treatment of aphasia, take a closer look at CILT in comparison to other approaches, and evaluate current research regarding the "recovery window" in patients with aphasia. Most of the research examining treatment intensity (sometimes known as dosage) has been done in the past twenty years. Among these studies, there was evidence both for and against implementing therapy intensively...... middle of article...... look at the effect that these variables had on measures of language impairment in people with stroke. -induced aphasia. This study also supported the idea that increased intensity of therapy was associated with improvement in language impairment. Many studies exploring the effects of treatment intensity on recovery from aphasia do so by examining a specific type of intensive therapy known as constraint-induced language therapy (CILT). Pulvermuller et al. (2001) were the first to examine how constraints imposed on a person with aphasia to limit them to a single means of verbal communication could improve verbal production. The idea stems from evidence in the field of physical therapy that significant motor improvements are possible when the less affected limb is constrained and intensive therapy is provided to the more severely affected limb (Taub, Uswatte, Pidikiti)., 1999).