Collaboration, trouble and repair in multiparty interactions involving couples with dementia or aphasia

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to identify problems with communication with persons with aphasia and persons with dementia in a collaborative interview setting with their significant others. In particular, to compare interactional practises used in order to resolve problems caused by specific symptoms.Method: Five persons with aphasia and five persons with dementia and their spouses participated in the present study. Interviews were carried out couple by couple, and the interviews had a task-oriented character with a main focus on interactive and communicative aspects rather than on topical content. The interviews were video and audio recorded. All interviews were transcribed according to conversation analytic principles. Result:The results demonstrated that repair sequences were frequent in interaction involving PWA, and even more so in interaction involving PWD. In general, it was the PWA/PWD that initiated the repair sequence more often than the spouse, thus keeping to the general rule of a preference for self-initiated repair compared to other-initiated repair. Conclusion:The active involvement of the conversational partners in trouble solving sequences in interaction with PWA/PWD demonstrated in the present study indicates that the interactional style of the conversational partner to PWA/PWD are important. This implies that conversation partner training programmes would be useful both for PWA and for PWD.

Toward the Development of SMART Communication Technology: Automating the Analysis of Communicative Trouble and Repair in Dementia

“…Establishing and maintaining common ground in a conversation involves the use of feedback signals ( Hyden, Plejert, Samuelsson, & Orulv, 2013 ), which include indicators of misunderstanding (trouble indicators), or requests for support (repair) to achieve mutual understanding. Understanding is achieved via the continual monitoring and modification of contributions from all conversational participants ( Samuelsson & Hyden, 2017 ), and this negotiation of contributions typically occurs over a number of conversational turns ( Clark, 1996 ; Clark & Schaefer, 1989a , 1989b). Just as humans practice these actions within everyday conversations, a device or technology that is designed to support communicative trouble must be able to monitor and generate feedback signals (either directly or passively), in the same way.…”

“…Similar to trouble-indicating behaviors, knowledge regarding repair types used by people with dementia and their carers in response to conversational trouble is also critical to the development of a SMART communication assistant in being able to offer effective repair strategies in real time. A repair sequence is initiated when a conversational contribution is not accepted (e.g., repetition is requested; Samuelsson & Hyden, 2017 ). The contribution is repaired, so that communication partners can achieve shared meaning, or common ground ( Schegloff et al, 1977 ).…”

The importance of situated language use for aphasia rehabilitation

“…in helping the PWA express themselves. For example, conversation partners have been shown to help the PWA in completing conversational turns when word finding difficulties occur (Bloch & Beeke, 2008;Oelschlaeger & Damico, 1998), and in repairing turns when the PWA experiences a communication breakdown more generally (Lindsay & Wilkinson, 1999;Perkins, 1995;Samuelsson & Hyde, 2016).…”

Facing dementia as a we: Investigating couples’ challenges and communicative strategies for managing dementia

“…Most spouses and family members try to address the communicative challenges caused by progressing AD by taking over some of the functions lost by the person with dementia. Sustaining joint storytelling involving a person with fairly advanced dementia involves extensive repair work (see Samuelsson & Hydén, 2017). Repair involves activities for managing challenges within the ongoing interaction, such as finding words or tasks of a more epistemic character (Hydén, 2011;Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks, 1977).…”

“…This includes challenges connected to finding words, naming, and understanding or using abstract language (Emery, 2000;Smith et al, 2011), as well as an increase in amount of repairs in interaction, as well as having challenges with providing repairs (Samuelsson & Hydén, 2017). As noted above, collaboration with others has been shown to be an effective way of meeting these challenges and sustaining common ground (e.g.…”