Empowering Individuals with Aphasia and Visual Impairments through Effective Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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). …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".