MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2589710143 · doi:10.1177/0145482x1611000305

Empowering Individuals with Aphasia and Visual Impairments through Effective Communication

2016· article· en· W2589710143 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Tammy Labreche, Melinda Szilva, Ann Plotkin

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Visual Impairment & Blindness · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Waterloo
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésVisual impairmentAphasiaOrientation and MobilityRehabilitationPsychologyPopulationStroke (engine)Vision rehabilitationPerceptionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePsychiatryOptometryNeuroscience

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Advances in medicine have enabled an aging population to survive neurological events such as strokes more frequently. Consequences of a stroke can be widespread and severe, and it is currently the leading cause of long-term disability in Canada (Public Health Agency of Canada [PHAC], 2011). The PHAC report indicated that in 2009 approximately 315,000 Canadians were living with the consequences of strokes (PHAC, 2011). Consequences of strokes may include hemiplegia, reduced cognition and emotional control, difficulty with language (aphasia), and visual impairment, to list a few of the impairments and disabilities that may occur (Warren, 2008). To address the needs of individuals with language impairments resulting from strokes, there is a need for low vision rehabilitation professionals (optometrists, ophthalmologists, low vision therapists, high technology assessors, orientation and mobility instructors, rehabilitation counsellors, independent living skills teachers, and occupational and physical therapists) to become familiar with the impact of neurological events on an individual's ability to communicate. An individual who has survived a stroke may be left with multiple impairments including those that affect vision and communication. Visual impairment is a possible result, and it may present as a defect of visual fields, impaired eye movements, and problems with perception or cortical blindness (Hillis, 2007; Jones & Shinton, 2006; Rowe et al., 2009). Up to a quarter of stroke survivors may have vision loss, according to the National Stroke Association (2012). It is not unusual to encounter patients who had a neurological event with multiple impairments (including vision loss) when assessing and implementing a low vision rehabilitation plan. This report describes some communication strategies that may be utilized to create a successful low vision rehabilitation assessment and plan for a patient with a coexisting visual impairment and aphasia following a stroke. WHAT IS APHASIA? Following a neurological event, some individuals experience aphasia, which is an acquired condition following damage to the speech and language areas in the brain and which affects a person's ability to communicate (Hillis, 2007). It is a problem with language, not intelligence (National Aphasia Association, 2015). The areas of the brain that are responsible for language are found on the left side (Damasio, 1992; Hillis, 2007). Individuals with aphasia may have difficulties speaking, understanding what others are saying, and problems with reading and writing. Due to the complex nature of communication, there are several different classifications of aphasia that are widely disputed (Ardila, 2010; Marshall, 2010). The broad and more classic classification used by the National Aphasia Association (2015), the Heart and Stroke Foundation (2013), the American Heart Association (2015), and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD, 2010) when discussing aphasia with the lay community includes three types: expressive aphasia, receptive aphasia, and global aphasia. Expressive aphasia Individuals with expressive aphasia are typically able to understand what is being communicated to them, but have difficulty or are unable to respond either verbally or in writing. This is also known as Broca's aphasia (attributed to the person who discovered the condition and the area of the brain that is thought to be affected) or nonfluent aphasia (as individuals with this type of aphasia exhibit great effort when attempting to speak). Any phrases that the individual uses are generally understood by their unaffected conversational partner, but speaking is very difficult, laborious, and slow. Individuals with expressive aphasia typically choose the correct nouns, but small words are often improperly used (Damasio, 1992; Hillis, 2007). There is a reduction in the length of the sentences expressed (Hillis, 2007). …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,036
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,621

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,360
Écart entre enseignants0,342 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Visual Impairment & BlindnessMême sujetNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismTravaux en français237 207