Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:36:45.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Communication behaviors associated with successful conversation in semantic variant primary progressive aphasia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2017

Cathleen Taylor-Rubin Open the ORCID record for Cathleen Taylor-Rubin [Opens in a new window] ,
Karen Croot ,
Emma Power ,
Sharon A. Savage ,
John R. Hodges  and
Leanne Togher
Cathleen Taylor-Rubin*
Affiliation:
Cognitive Sciences, Faculty of Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Speech Pathology Department, War Memorial Hospital, Waverley, Australia NHMRC Clinical Centre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation, Sydney, Australia
Karen Croot
Affiliation:
NHMRC Clinical Centre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation, Sydney, Australia School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Emma Power
Affiliation:
NHMRC Clinical Centre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation, Sydney, Australia Speech Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Sharon A. Savage
Affiliation:
The University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK
John R. Hodges
Affiliation:
Neuroscience Research Australia & School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia
Leanne Togher
Affiliation:
NHMRC Clinical Centre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation, Sydney, Australia Speech Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Cathleen Taylor-Rubin, Speech Pathology Department, War Memorial Hospital, 125 Birrell Street, Waverley, Australia. Phone: +61 418750657. Email: [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

Background:

Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) affects a range of language and cognitive domains that impact on conversation. Little is known about conversation breakdown in the semantic variant of PPA (svPPA, also known as semantic dementia). This study investigates conversation of people with svPPA.

Methods:

Dyadic conversations about everyday activities between seven individuals with svPPA and their partners, and seven control pairs were video recorded and transcribed. Number of words, turns, and length of turns were measured. Trouble-indicating behaviors (TIBs) and repair behaviors were categorized and identified as successful or not for each participant in each dyad.

Results:

In general, individuals with svPPA were active participants in conversation, taking an equal proportion of turns, but indicating a great deal of more trouble in conversation, shown by the significantly higher number of TIBs than evidenced by partners or control participants. TIBs were interactive (asking for confirmation with a shorter repetition of the original utterance or a repetition which included a request for specific information) and non-interactive (such as failing to take up or continue the topic or a minimal response) and unlike those previously reported for people with other PPA variants and dementia of the Alzheimer type. Communication behaviors of the partner were critical to conversational success.

Conclusions:

Examination of trouble and repair in 10-min conversations of individuals with svPPA and their important communication partners has potential to inform speech pathology interventions to enhance successful conversation, in svPPA and should be an integral part of the comprehensive care plan.

Keywords

aphasiadementiaspeech pathology
Type
Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 29 , Issue 10 , October 2017 , pp. 1619 - 1632
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boles, L. and Bombard, T. (1998). Conversational discourse analysis: appropriate and useful sample size. Aphasiology, 12, 547–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, A. (1992). Interpersonal aspects of aphasic communication. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 7, 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, A. (1994). The influence of aphasia, familiarity and activity on conversational repair. Aphasiology, 8, 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. and McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini-mental state. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research 12, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorno-Tempini, M. L. et al. (2011). Classification of primary progressive aphasia and its variants. Neurology, 76, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herbert, R., Best, W., Hickin, J., Howard, D. and Osborne, F. (2008). Measuring lexical retrieval in aphasic conversation: reliability of a quantitative approach. Aphasiology, 22, 184–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodges, J. R. and Patterson, K. (2007). Semantic dementia: a unique clinicopathological syndrome. The Lancet Neurology, 6, 1004–1014. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70266-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsieh, S., Schubert, S., Hoon, C., Mioshi, E. and Hodges, J. R. (2013). Validation of the Addenbrooke's cognitive examination III in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Dementia & Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 36, 242–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kindell, J., Sage, K. and Cruice, M., (2015). Supporting communication in semantic dementia: clinical consensus from expert practitioners. Quality in Ageing and Older Adults, 16, 153–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kindell, J., Sage, K., Keady, J. and Wilkinson, R. (2013). Adapting to conversation with semantic dementia: using enactment as a compensatory strategy in everyday social interaction. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 48, 497–507. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12023.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knibb, J. A., Woollams, A. M., Hodges, J. R. and Patterson, K. (2009). Making sense of progressive non-fluent aphasia: an analysis of conversational speech. Brain, 132, 2734–2746. doi: 10.1093/brain/awp207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kortte, K. B. and Rogalski, E. J. (2013). Behavioural interventions for enhancing life participation in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia and primary progressive aphasia. International Review of Psychiatry, 25, 237–245. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2012.751017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mesulam, M-M. (1982). Slowly progressive aphasia without generalized dementia. Annals of Neurology, 11, 592–598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meteyard, L. and Patterson, K. (2009). The relation between content and structure in language production: an analysis of speech errors in semantic dementia. Brain and Language, 110, 121–134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2009.03.007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mion, M. et al. (2010). What the left and right anterior fusiform gyri tell us about semantic memory. Brain, 133, 3256–3268. doi: 10.1093/brain/awq272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mioshi, E. et al. (2013). The impact of dementia severity on caregiver burden in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders; 27, 68–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mioshi, E., Dawson, K., Mitchell, J., Arnold, R.J. and Hodges, J. R. (2006). The Addenbrooke's cognitive examination revised (ACE-R): a brief cognitive test battery for dementia screening. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21, 1078–1085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perkins, L., Whitworth, A. and Lesser, R. (1998). Conversing in dementia: a conversation analytic approach. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 11, 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapolsky, D., Domoto-Reilly, K., Negreira, A., Brickhouse, M., McGinnis, S. and Dickerson, B. (2011). Monitoring progression of primary progressive aphasia: current approaches and future directions. Neurodegenerative Disease Management, 1, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, S., Hsieh, S., Leslie, F., Foxe, D., Piguet, O. and Hodges, J. R. (2013). Distinguishing subtypes in primary progressive aphasia: application of the Sydney language battery', Dementia & Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 35, 208–218. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000346389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simmons-Mackie, N. and Kagan, A. (1999). Communication strategies used by ‘good’ versus ‘poor’ speaking partners of individuals with aphasia. Aphasiology, 13, 807–820. doi: 10.1080/026870399401894.Google Scholar
Taylor, C., Croot, K., Power, E., Savage, S. A., Hodges, J. R. and Togher, L. (2014). Trouble and repair during conversations of people with primary progressive aphasia. Aphasiology, 28, 1069–1091. doi:10.1080/02687038.2014.930411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, C., Miles Kingma, R., Croot, K. and Nickels, L. (2009). Speech pathology services for primary progressive aphasia: exploring an emerging area of practice. Aphasiology, 23, 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Togher, L., McDonald, S., Tate, R., Power, E., Ylvisaker, M. and Rietdijk, R. (2002–2015). TBI Express Partner Training. Available at: http://Sydney.edu.au/health-sciences/tbi-express/credits.shtml; last accessed 10 March 2015.Google Scholar
Tombaugh, T. N. (2004). Trail making test A and B: normative data stratified by age and education. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tombaugh, T. N., Kozak, J. and Rees, L. (1999). Normative data stratified by age and education for two measures of verbal fluency: FAS and animal naming. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 14, 167–177.Google ScholarPubMed
Watson, C. M., Chenery, H. J. and Carter, M. S. (1999). Analysis of trouble and repair in the natural conversations of people with dementia of the Alzheimer's type. Aphasiology, 13, 195–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, S. M. et al. (2010). Connected speech production in three variants of primary progressive aphasia. Brain, 133 (Pt 7), 2069–2088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, S., Anand, R., Chapman, S., Rackley, A. and Zientz, J. (2009). When nouns and verbs degrade: facilitating communication in semantic dementia. Aphasiology, 23, 286–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yap, B. W. and Sim, C. H. (2011). Comparisons of various types of normality tests. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 81, 2141–2155. doi: 10.1080/00949655.2010.520163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar