Testing causal theories of pantomimic deficits in aphasia using path analysis

Duffy, Robert J.; Watt, James H.; Duffy, Joseph R.

doi:10.1080/02687039408248665

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most studies looking at pantomime use by PWA have focused on pantomime of tool use, i.e., a handling technique, only. This is a test often used to assess ideomotor apraxia (Duffy et al 1994, Goldenberg et al 2003, 2007, hereafter referred to as 'apraxia'. Apraxia is an impairment in purposeful movements, which frequently co-occurs with aphasia .…”

Section: Pantomime Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The comprehensibility of pantomimes produced by people with aphasia

Nispen

Mieke

Sandt‐Koenderman

et al. 2017

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: People with aphasia (PWA) use pantomime, gesture in absence of speech, differently from non-braindamaged people (NBDP). Aims: To evaluate through an exploratory study the comprehensibility of PWA's pantomimes and to find out whether they can compensate for information PWA are unable to convey in speech. Methods & Procedures:A total of 273 naïve observers participated in one of two judgement tasks: forced-choice and open-ended questions. These were used to determine the comprehensibility of pantomimes produced to depict objects by PWA as compared with NBDP. Furthermore, we compared the information conveyed in pantomime with the information in speech. We looked into factors influencing pantomime's comprehensibility: individual factors, manner of depiction and information needed to be depicted. Outcome & Results: Although comprehensibility scores for PWA's pantomimes were lower than for those produced by NBDP, all PWA were able to convey information in pantomime that they could not convey in speech. Comprehensibility of pantomimes was predicted by apraxia. The inability to use the right hand related to slightly lower comprehensibility scores. Objects for which individuals depicted its use were best understood. Conclusion & Implications: Our findings highlight the potential benefit of pantomime for clinical practice. Pantomimes, even though sometimes impaired, can convey information that PWA cannot convey in speech. Clinical implications are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Pantomime Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is a test often used to assess ideomotor apraxia (Duffy et al . , Goldenberg et al . , ), hereafter referred to as ‘apraxia’.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The comprehensibility of pantomimes produced by people with aphasia

Nispen

Mieke

Sandt‐Koenderman

et al. 2017

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As most research involving brain damage in human beings is necessarily nonexperimental, determining causal relationships is not straightforward. To address this problem, Duffy, Watt, and Duffy (1994) used path analyses to study relationships between pantomime recognition and expression, aphasic impairment (PICA), intellectual deficits, and limb apraxia. They found the most parsimonious model to be that treating the aphasic deficit as the primary determinant of the other variables.…”

Section: The Central Deficit In Aphasia: Asymbolia Versus Apraxiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Verbal and Nonverbal Communication: Distinguishing Symbolic, Spontaneous, and Pseudo-Spontaneous Nonverbal Behavior

Buck

VanLear

2002

Journal of Communication

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Verbal and nonverbal communication are seen in terms of interacting streams of spontaneous and symbolic communication, and posed "pseudo-spontaneous" displays. Spontaneous communication is defined as the nonintentional communication of motivational-emotional states based upon biologically shared nonpropositional signal systems, with information transmitted via displays. Symbolic communication is the intentional communication, using learned, socially shared signal systems, of propositional information transmitted via symbols. Pseudospontaneous communication involves the intentional and strategic manipulation of displays. An original meta-analysis demonstrates that, like verbal symbolic communication, nonverbal analogic (pantomimic) communication is related to lefthemisphere cerebral processing. In contrast, spontaneous communication is related to the right hemisphere.A general theory of communication should account for the natural biologically based aspects of communication as well as its learned and symbolically structured aspects. Further, such a general theory should include a feedback process-explanations of message production alone or message reception alone, although potentially useful, are incomplete. A corollary of these two criteria is that a general theory of communication should account for the coevolution of symbolic and nonsymbolic feedback processes and their integration into systems of communication characteristic of the human species. Whereas the explication of such a general theory is beyond the scope of this article, developmental interactionist theory (Buck, 1984(Buck, , 1989(Buck, , 1994 does aim to offer such an integrated view. The current article poses how developmental interactionist theory deals with the topic of this special issue of Journal of Communication-the relationship between verbal and nonverbal communication.Ross Buck (PhD, University of Pittsburgh) is a professor of communication sciences and psychology at the University of Connecticut, where C. Arthur VanLear (PhD, University of Utah) is an associate professor of communication sciences.

show abstract

“…Insufficient selection of discrete features and the inability to combine them for production of comprehensible messages are the essence of general 'asymbolia' which has repeatedly been accused as being a core deficit of patients with left brain damage and aphasia. 11,12,[23][24][25][26][27] It may be questioned whether such a profound deficiency is amenable to therapy at all, but in any case it seems unlikely that training the distinction between spatial elements of manual actions suffices for its restitution. For practised gestures, the demonstration of a comprehensible gesture by the therapist circumvents the need to create it by selection and combination of distinctive features.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%