Use of Spatial Communication in Aphasia

Johnson, Sarah; Cocks, Naomi; Dipper, Lucy

doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12022

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As hypothesised, and consistent with previous studies (Cruice et al, 2014 ; Johnson et al, 2013 ; Ulatowska et al, 1981 ; Webster et al, 2007 ), PWA in the current study produced syntactically and semantically less complex language in their discourses. However, contrary to hypotheses and the majority of previous studies (Cicone et al, 1979 ; Cocks et al, 2013 ; Feyereisen, 1983 ; Hadar et al, 1998 ; Herrmann et al, 1988 ; Lanyon & Rose, 2009 ; Orgassa, 2005 ; Sekine et al, 2013 ), both groups used similar quantities and types of gestures.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…First, for example, PWA use fewer Correct Information Units (defined as any single word, intelligible, informative, and relevant in context) in discourse than NHP (Nicholas & Brookshire, 1993 ). Second, PWA also use fewer types and tokens of spatial language in spatial tasks than NHP (Johnson, Cocks, & Dipper, 2013 ). Finally, speakers with aphasia and verb production deficits also use verbs differently to speakers without verb production deficits, using a high level of semantically “light” verbs containing little semantic information, such as come, go, make, take, get, give, do, have, be , and put (Berndt et al, 1997 ).…”

Section: Aphasia and Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Language and iconic gesture use in procedural discourse by speakers with aphasia

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Conveying instructions is an everyday use of language, and gestures are likely to be a key feature of this. Although co-speech iconic gestures are tightly integrated with language, and people with aphasia (PWA) produce procedural discourses impaired at a linguistic level, no previous studies have investigated how PWA use co-speech iconic gestures in these contexts. Aims: This study investigated how PWA communicated meaning using gesture and language in procedural discourses, compared with neurologically healthy people (NHP). We aimed to identify the relative relationship of gesture and speech, in the context of impaired language, both overall and in individual events. Methods & Procedures: Twenty-nine PWA and 29 NHP produced two procedural discourses. The structure and semantic content of language of the whole discourses were analysed through predicate argument structure and spatial motor terms, and gestures were analysed for frequency and semantic form. Gesture and language were analysed in two key events, to determine the relative information presented in each modality. Outcomes & Results: PWA and NHP used similar frequencies and forms of gestures, although PWA used syntactically simpler language and fewer spatial words. This meant, overall, relatively more information was present in PWA gesture. This finding was also reflected in the key events, where PWA used gestures conveying rich semantic information alongside semantically impoverished language more often than NHP. Conclusions: PWA gestures, containing semantic information omitted from the concurrent speech, may help listeners with meaning when language is impaired. This finding indicates gesture should be included in clinical assessments of meaning-making.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Aphasia and Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%

Language and iconic gesture use in procedural discourse by speakers with aphasia

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2018). Johnson et al (2013) reported marked differences in the abilities of their participants to use gesture to compensate for their difficulties accessing verbal spatial language, arguing that this indicated the importance of clinicians investigating the language and gesture profile of individuals with aphasia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, other researchers have argued that, if confounding factors such as limb apraxia and comprehension impairments are controlled for, people with aphasia's gesture production can remain functional, even when language is severely impaired (Akhavan et al 2018). Johnson et al (2013) reported marked differences in the abilities of their participants to use gesture to compensate for their difficulties accessing verbal spatial language, arguing that this indicated the importance of clinicians investigating the language and gesture profile of individuals with aphasia.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They found that people with aphasia used more essential gestures than healthy controls, indicating that gesture carried a heavier communicative load. Johnson et al (2013) investigated use of speech and gesture during tasks requiring participants to convey spatial information. They found that people with aphasia were more reliant on gesture than healthy controls, using more gesture in the absence of speech, when verbal spatial language was unavailable to them.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The City Gesture Checklist: The development of a novel gesture assessment

Caute

Dipper

Roper

2020

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: People with aphasia rely on gesture more than healthy controls to get their message across, but use a limited range of gesture types. Gesture therapy is thus a potential avenue of intervention for people with aphasia. However, currently no gesture assessment evaluates how they use gesture. Such a tool could inform therapy targets and measure outcomes. In gesture research, many different coding categories are used to describe gesture forms and functions. These coding methods are prohibitively time-consuming to use in clinical practice. There is therefore a need for a 'quick and dirty' method of assessing gesture use. Aims: To investigate current practice among UK-based clinicians (speech and language therapists) in relation to gesture assessment and therapy, to synthesize gesture-coding frameworks used in aphasia research, to develop a gesture checklist based on the synthesized coding frameworks suitable for use in clinical practice, and to investigate the interrater reliability (IRR) of the checklist among experienced and unfamiliar users. Methods & Procedures: The research team synthesized seven gesture-coding frameworks and trialled three resulting prototype checklists at a co-design workshop with 20 clinicians. Attending clinicians were also consulted about their current clinical gesture practice using a questionnaire. A final City Gesture Checklist (CGC) was developed based upon outcomes and feedback from the workshop. The IRR of the CGC was evaluated between the research team and 11 further clinicians within a second workshop. Both groups used the CGC to count gestures in video clips of people with aphasia talking to a conversation partner. Main Contribution: A total of 18 workshop attendees completed the current practice questionnaire. Of these, 10 reported assessing gesture informally and five also used formal assessment. Gesture-coding synthesis highlighted six main categories of gesture form. Clinicians at the co-design workshop provided feedback on prototype checklists regarding the relevance and usability of the gesture categories, layout, use of images and instructions. A final version of the CGC was created incorporating their recommendations. The IRR for the CGC was moderate between both the researchers and clinicians. Conclusions & Implications: The CGC can be used to assess the types of gesture that people with aphasia produce. The IRR was moderate amongst both experienced users and new users who had received no training. Future research directions include investigating how to improve IRR, evaluating intra-rater reliability and sensitivity to change, and exploring use of the CGC in clinical practice.

show abstract