Web searching for daily living

The Production of Gesture and Speech by People With Aphasia: Influence of Communicative Constraints

Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research ◽

10.1044/2019_jslhr-l-19-0020 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 62 (12) ◽

pp. 4417-4432 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Carola de Beer ◽

Jan P. de Ruiter ◽

Martina Hielscher-Fastabend ◽

Katharina Hogrefe

Keyword(s):

Language Impairment ◽

Daily Living ◽

Linguistic Performance ◽

Task Effects ◽

Communicative Abilities ◽

Gesture Production ◽

And Task ◽

Group Effects

Purpose People with aphasia (PWA) use different kinds of gesture spontaneously when they communicate. Although there is evidence that the nature of the communicative task influences the linguistic performance of PWA, so far little is known about the influence of the communicative task on the production of gestures by PWA. We aimed to investigate the influence of varying communicative constraints on the production of gesture and spoken expression by PWA in comparison to persons without language impairment. Method Twenty-six PWA with varying aphasia severities and 26 control participants (CP) without language impairment participated in the study. Spoken expression and gesture production were investigated in 2 different tasks: (a) spontaneous conversation about topics of daily living and (b) a cartoon narration task, that is, retellings of short cartoon clips. The frequencies of words and gestures as well as of different gesture types produced by the participants were analyzed and tested for potential effects of group and task. Results Main results for task effects revealed that PWA and CP used more iconic gestures and pantomimes in the cartoon narration task than in spontaneous conversation. Metaphoric gestures, deictic gestures, number gestures, and emblems were more frequently used in spontaneous conversation than in cartoon narrations by both participant groups. Group effects show that, in both tasks, PWA's gesture-to-word ratios were higher than those for the CP. Furthermore, PWA produced more interactive gestures than the CP in both tasks, as well as more number gestures and pantomimes in spontaneous conversation. Conclusions The current results suggest that PWA use gestures to compensate for their verbal limitations under varying communicative constraints. The properties of the communicative task influence the use of different gesture types in people with and without aphasia. Thus, the influence of communicative constraints needs to be considered when assessing PWA's multimodal communicative abilities.

Download Full-text

Assistive Technology for Cognition: Perspectives on Funding

Perspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech and Language Disorders ◽

10.1044/nnsld23.2.84 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 23 (2) ◽

pp. 84-89

Author(s):

Kathy de Domingo

Keyword(s):

Assistive Technology ◽

Daily Living ◽

Occupational Therapists ◽

Personal Digital Assistants ◽

Speech Language Pathology ◽

Prosthetic Devices ◽

Funding Sources ◽

Ankle Foot Orthoses ◽

Language Pathology ◽

Communication Challenges

Physical and occupational therapists commonly provide services that incorporate prosthetic and orthotic devices such as crutches, canes, reachers, and ankle–foot orthoses to support mobility and activities of daily living (ADLs). Likewise, speech-language pathologists provide services incorporating prosthetic devices to support communication such as an electrolarynx, microcomputers, and mobile devices and apps with voice output capability. Assistive technology for cognition (ATC) includes the use of personal digital assistants (PDAs), tablets, and smart phones — cognitive prostheses — to compensate for cognitive challenges following acquired brain injury (ABI). Whereas funding sources for devices and services that support/compensate for mobility, ADLs, and communication challenges are generally well established, funding for ATC devices and services is relatively new to the field of speech-language pathology. This article explores the funding aspect of ATC devices and services.

Download Full-text

Chewing activity and activities of daily living in the elderly

Journal of Oral Rehabilitation ◽

10.1046/j.1365-2842.1997.00530.x ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 24 (6) ◽

pp. 457-460 ◽

Cited By ~ 48

Author(s):

H. MIURA ◽

Y. ARAKI ◽

T. UMENAI

Keyword(s):

Activities Of Daily Living ◽

Daily Living ◽

The Elderly ◽

Chewing Activity

Download Full-text

Comparative Analysis: The State of Colorado Study, Part II

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2004.marapr01 ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 9 (2) ◽

pp. 1-16

Author(s):

Christopher R. Brigham ◽

Kathryn Mueller ◽

Douglas Van Zet ◽

Debra J. Northrup ◽

Edward B. Whitney ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Daily Living ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Pain Syndrome ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Clinical Assessments ◽

Physician Judgment ◽

History Of ◽

Key Terms ◽

Causation Analysis ◽

Work Interference

Abstract [Continued from the January/February 2004 issue of The Guides Newsletter.] To understand discrepancies in reviewers’ ratings of impairments based on different editions of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), users can usefully study the history of the revisions as successive editions attempted to provide a comprehensive, valid, reliable, unbiased, and evidence-based system. Some shortcomings of earlier editions have been addressed in the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, but problems remain with each edition, largely because of the limited scientific evidence available. In the context of the history of the different editions of the AMA Guides and their development, the authors discuss and contextualize a number of key terms and principles including the following: definitions of impairment and normal; activities of daily living; maximum medical improvement; impairment percentages; conversion of regional impairments; combining impairments; pain and other subjective complaints; physician judgment; and causation analysis; finally, the authors note that impairment is not synonymous with disability or work interference. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, contrasts impairment evaluations and independent medical evaluations (this was not done in previous editions) and discusses impairment evaluations, rules for evaluations, and report standards. Upper extremity and lower extremity impairment evaluations are discussed in terms of clinical assessments and rating processes, analyzing important changes between editions and problematic areas (eg, complex regional pain syndrome).

Download Full-text