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

Karin van Nispen, Mieke van de Sandt-Koenderman, Elisabeth Mol, Emiel Krahmer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: The present paper aimed to inform clinical practice on whether people with aphasia (PWA) deploy pantomime techniques similarly to non-brain damaged participants (NBDP) and if not, what factors influence these differences.
Method: We compared 38 PWA to 20 NBDP in their use of six representation techniques (handling, enact, object, shape, deictic and other) when pantomiming objects and determined whether PWA used the same defaults as NBDP. 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 NBDP and they did not use these for the same objects as NBDP 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 NBDP and relied more heavily on the use of shape techniques. This was not influenced by a hemiparesis, but seemed much dependent on semantic processing. Clinical implications are discussed.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)745–758
JournalJournal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research
Volume59
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Fingerprint

speech disorder
Ideomotor Apraxia
semantics
Pantomime
Aphasia
Handling (Psychology)
Group

Keywords

  • aphasia
  • semantic processing
  • hemiparesis
  • ideomotor apraxia
  • iconicity
  • pantomime
  • gesture

Cite this

van Nispen, Karin ; van de Sandt-Koenderman, Mieke ; Mol, Elisabeth ; Krahmer, Emiel. / Pantomime production by people with aphasia. What are influencing factors?. In: Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research. 2016 ; Vol. 59. pp. 745–758.
@article{7ce73eb0c97340b3932e9be8cc66dcc4,
title = "Pantomime production by people with aphasia. What are influencing factors?",
abstract = "Purpose: The present paper aimed to inform clinical practice on whether people with aphasia (PWA) deploy pantomime techniques similarly to non-brain damaged participants (NBDP) and if not, what factors influence these differences. Method: We compared 38 PWA to 20 NBDP in their use of six representation techniques (handling, enact, object, shape, deictic and other) when pantomiming objects and determined whether PWA used the same defaults as NBDP. 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 NBDP and they did not use these for the same objects as NBDP 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 NBDP and relied more heavily on the use of shape techniques. This was not influenced by a hemiparesis, but seemed much dependent on semantic processing. Clinical implications are discussed.",
keywords = "aphasia, semantic processing, hemiparesis, ideomotor apraxia, iconicity, pantomime, gesture",
author = "{van Nispen}, Karin and {van de Sandt-Koenderman}, Mieke and Elisabeth Mol and Emiel Krahmer",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-15-0166",
language = "English",
volume = "59",
pages = "745–758",
journal = "Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research",
issn = "1092-4388",
publisher = "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)",

}

Pantomime production by people with aphasia. What are influencing factors? / van Nispen, Karin; van de Sandt-Koenderman, Mieke; Mol, Elisabeth; Krahmer, Emiel.

In: Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, Vol. 59, 2016, p. 745–758.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pantomime production by people with aphasia. What are influencing factors?

AU - van Nispen, Karin

AU - van de Sandt-Koenderman, Mieke

AU - Mol, Elisabeth

AU - Krahmer, Emiel

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Purpose: The present paper aimed to inform clinical practice on whether people with aphasia (PWA) deploy pantomime techniques similarly to non-brain damaged participants (NBDP) and if not, what factors influence these differences. Method: We compared 38 PWA to 20 NBDP in their use of six representation techniques (handling, enact, object, shape, deictic and other) when pantomiming objects and determined whether PWA used the same defaults as NBDP. 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 NBDP and they did not use these for the same objects as NBDP 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 NBDP and relied more heavily on the use of shape techniques. This was not influenced by a hemiparesis, but seemed much dependent on semantic processing. Clinical implications are discussed.

AB - Purpose: The present paper aimed to inform clinical practice on whether people with aphasia (PWA) deploy pantomime techniques similarly to non-brain damaged participants (NBDP) and if not, what factors influence these differences. Method: We compared 38 PWA to 20 NBDP in their use of six representation techniques (handling, enact, object, shape, deictic and other) when pantomiming objects and determined whether PWA used the same defaults as NBDP. 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 NBDP and they did not use these for the same objects as NBDP 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 NBDP and relied more heavily on the use of shape techniques. This was not influenced by a hemiparesis, but seemed much dependent on semantic processing. Clinical implications are discussed.

KW - aphasia

KW - semantic processing

KW - hemiparesis

KW - ideomotor apraxia

KW - iconicity

KW - pantomime

KW - gesture

U2 - 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-15-0166

DO - 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-15-0166

M3 - Article

VL - 59

SP - 745

EP - 758

JO - Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research

JF - Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research

SN - 1092-4388

ER -