Event Abstract

Back to Event

Face-to-Face Communication in Aphasia: An Experimental Approach to Everyday Communication

Willemijn Doedens1*, Arpita Bose1 and Lotte Meteyard1
  • 1 University of Reading, United Kingdom

Introduction. In aphasia, functional communication is an important outcome measure for speech and language therapy (SLT; Brady, Godwin, Enderby, Kelly, & Campbell, 2016). Historically, aphasiology has relied heavily on decontextualized psycholinguistic measures such as picture naming and repetition to describe different aphasia types. These measures give a linguistically well-defined profile of impairment, but research shows that they do not fully predict how People With Aphasia (PWA) use language in everyday life (Holland, 1982). The literature shows a lack of consensus over what everyday communication is and how it should be measured (Brady, Godwin, Enderby, Kelly, & Campbell, 2016; Wallace, et al., 2018). In this project we use an experimental approach that is well known from studies on communication with neurologically unimpaired subjects to investigate (1) the influence of speaker familiarity on communication for PWA and (2) which measures are meaningful in objectively defining communicative ability in PWA. Methods. The experimental design consists of a collaborative, referential communication task (Clark & Krych, 2004) that allows pairs to interact and communicate freely, replicating a real-life face-to-face communicative setting. Pairs sit across from each other, in front of identical playmobile rooms, while the view of the other’s room is blocked by a low barrier. Five high-frequency items are placed in one room (instructor), and outside the other with an additional distractor item (follower). Pairs are asked to discuss the items in the instructor’s room with the aim of replicating the setup in the follower’s room. Each pair repeats the game six times: first with a familiar partner, then with an unfamiliar partner (the partner of a different PWA with a similar aphasia profile). For each trial, roles (instructor/follower) are swapped. Six different setups are used across trials, the order is randomized for each pair. 20 PWA are included along with someone they speak with often. 20 pairs of neurologically unimpaired subjects (age and education matched) complete the task to give normative data for comparison. Familiarity of the conversation partner varied on a personal level (i.e. having shared experiences) and on knowledge of aphasia (i.e. what it is and how to support communication). The full method is pre-registered at http://osf.io/9xwm7. Results. Preliminary results of the experiment will compare communicative efficiency (i.e. accuracy, time taken to complete) between groups (PWA and HC) and conditions (familiar vs unfamiliar), and between trials (first game vs last game). These variables will be related to measures of linguistic impairment, executive control, and a standardized measure of everyday communication. Plans for further analyses will be presented: error detection, self- and other-monitoring, and measures taken from Conversation Analysis such as repairs and patterns of sequence construction. Discussion. This experiment is the first step in a systematic, theoretically founded, experimental approach to the study of everyday communication in PWA. Improving our understanding of everyday communication in aphasia and its underlying mechanisms will help us understand the relationship between traditional linguistic measures, intervention and communication in everyday life.

Acknowledgements

This project was conducted as part of a doctoral research project funded by the Magdalen Vernon Studentship provided by the School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences at the University of Reading, UK.

References

Brady, M. C., Godwin, J., Enderby, P., Kelly, H., & Campbell, P. (2016). Speech and Language Therapy for Aphasia After Stroke: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. Stroke, 47, E236-E237. doi:10.1161/Strokeaha.116.014439 Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark, H. H., & Krych, M. A. (2004). Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 62-81. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.004 Holland, A. (1982). Observing functional communication of aphasic adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 50–56. Wallace, S., Worrall, L., Rose, T., Le Dorze, G., Breitenstein, C., Enderby, P., Bose, A., Brady, M., Cruice, M., Copland, D., Hersh, D., Cherney, L., Babbitt, E., Rochon, E., Pearl, G., Hilari, K., Marshall, J., Webster, J., Kelly, H., Howe, T., Kiran, S., Nicholas, M., Rose, M., Sage, K., Laska, A. C., Patterson, J. and Small, S. (2018). A core outcome set for aphasia treatment research: Consensus statement. International Journal of Stroke. doi: 10.1177/1747493018806200

Keywords: Aphasia, multimodal, Functional communication, Interaction, common ground

Conference: Academy of Aphasia 57th Annual Meeting, Macau, Macao, SAR China, 27 Oct - 29 Oct, 2019.

Presentation Type: Poster presentation

Topic: Eligible for student award

Citation: Doedens W, Bose A and Meteyard L (2019). Face-to-Face Communication in Aphasia: An Experimental Approach to Everyday Communication. Front. Hum. Neurosci. Conference Abstract: Academy of Aphasia 57th Annual Meeting. doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2019.01.00103

Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.

The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.

Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.

For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.

Received: 30 Apr 2019; Published Online: 09 Oct 2019.

* Correspondence: Ms. Willemijn Doedens, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom, w.j.doedens@pgr.reading.ac.uk