Karin van Nispen

Pantomime production by people with aphasia : What are influencing factors?

PURPOSE The present article aimed to inform clinical practice on whether people with aphasia (PWA) deploy pantomime techniques similarly to participants without brain damage (PWBD) and if not, what factors influence these differences. METHOD We compared 38 PWA to 20 PWBD in their use of 6 representation techniques (handling, enact, object, shape, deictic, and other) when pantomiming objects, and determined whether PWA used the same defaults as PWBD. We assessed the influence of (non-)dominant arm use, ideomotor apraxia, semantic processing, aphasia severity, and oral naming. RESULTS PWA used various pantomime techniques. Enact, deictic, and other were used infrequently. No differences were found for the use of shape techniques, but PWA used fewer handling and object techniques than PWBD and they did not use these for the same objects as PWBD did. No influence was found for (non-)dominant arm use. All other variables correlated with the use of handling, object, and defaults. CONCLUSION In our study, PWA were able to use various pantomime techniques. As a group, they used these techniques differently from PWBD and relied more heavily on the use of shape techniques. This was not influenced by a hemiparesis, but seemed dependent on semantic processing. Clinical implications are discussed.

Part of the message comes in gesture: how people with aphasia convey information in different gesture types as compared with information in their speech

ABSTRACT Background: Studies have shown that the gestures produced by people with aphasia (PWA) can convey information useful for their communication. However, the exact significance of the contribution to message communication via gesture remains unclear. Furthermore, it remains unclear how different gesture types and representation techniques impact message conveyance. Aims: The present study aimed to investigate the contribution of gesture to PWA’s communication. We specifically focussed on the degree to which different gesture types and representation techniques convey information absent in the speech of PWA. Methods & Procedure: We studied the gestures produced by 46 PWA and nine non-brain-damaged participants (NBDP) during semi-structured conversation. For each of the different types of gestures and representation techniques we identified whether these conveyed essential information, that is information that was absent in speech. Rather than looking at information that was either similar to information in speech or additional to information in speech, we focused on the essential gestures only. Outcomes & Results: For PWA, a fifth of their gestures were Essential. Despite individual differences between PWA, the majority produced more Essential gestures than NBDP, who produced limited amounts of Essential gestures. Essential information was mostly conveyed by specific gesture types: Pointing, Emblems and Iconic gesture. Within the group of iconic gestures, not only Handling and Enact but also Object and Shape gestures, were often Essential. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that a great proportion of gestures produced by most PWA convey information essential for understanding their communication. In their communication advice, speech language therapists could draw attention to specific gesture types to make sure that interlocutors pay more attention to these gestures when communicating with PWA.

The comprehensibility of pantomimes produced by people with aphasia

BACKGROUND People with aphasia (PWA) use pantomime, gesture in absence of speech, differently from non-brain-damaged people (NBDP). AIMS To evaluate through an exploratory study the comprehensibility of PWAs 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 pantomimes comprehensibility: individual factors, manner of depiction and information needed to be depicted. OUTCOME & RESULTS Although comprehensibility scores for PWAs 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.