Event Abstract

Back to Event

Why did the Cat Get up the Tree?
- What Picture Descriptions can Tell us about Conceptualisation Deficits in Aphasia -

Inga Hameister1, 2* and Lyndsey Nickels1
  • 1 Macquarie University, ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Department of Cognitive Science, Australia
  • 2 International Doctorate of Experimental Approaches to Language and Brain (IDEALAB, Universities of Trento (IT), Groningen (NL), Potsdam (DE), Newcastle (UK) and Macquarie University(AU)), Australia

Introduction Describing an event requires us to transform our general thoughts about that event into a form that we can express as a verbal message - this is known as “conceptualisation” (Levelt, 1989). While thinking and speaking are highly interlinked (e.g., Slobin, 1996), little is known about the conceptualisation skills of individuals with stroke-induced aphasia (Cairns, Marshall, Cairns, & Dipper, 2007; Dipper, Black, & Bryan, 2005). Single case reports suggest that subjects with conceptualisation deficits tend to produce a large number of irrelevant information units in their picture descriptions, so called “hyper-naming” (Cairns, 2006; Marshall, 2009). Nevertheless, these findings have not yet been replicated in a larger population of individuals with aphasia. Thus, this study aimed to identify possible key symptoms of conceptualisation deficits, specifically by examining the number, accuracy, completeness and order of concepts produced in the picture descriptions of 50 individuals with aphasia. Method From the AphasiaBank database (MacWhinney, Fromm, Forbes, & Holland, 2011), we extracted transcripts of 50 healthy subjects and 50 individuals with aphasia describing the 'Cat rescue' picture. First we identified relevant and main concepts in each participant’s picture description. We defined a relevant concept as a phrase that contained not more than one verb and provided information that represented the stimulus picture (c.f., Nicholas & Brookshire, 1995). A concept that was mentioned by more than 60% of all healthy participants was defined as a main concept (Richardson & Dalton, 2016). We then analysed the number, order, accuracy and completeness of concepts comparing those of healthy speakers and speakers with aphasia. Results Individuals with aphasia produced significantly fewer concepts (mean: 5.5, SD=1.5) than the healthy speakers (mean: 6.5, SD=1.3; two-sample t-test, t=3.529, p< .001,). They also had significantly reduced accuracy (t=5.7, p< .001) and completeness of concepts (t=6.8, p< .001,). Hyper-naming behaviour was not identified in any of the samples. Nevertheless, we found qualitative differences in the order of concepts produced: The majority of healthy subjects started the description with a concept focusing on the “girl” or the “cat” and mentioned the “man in the tree” next. In contrast, participants with aphasia were less consistent in their order of concept production (see Figure 1). Data analysis is still ongoing, and more detailed results will be presented at the conference. Discussion Our preliminary findings suggest that valuable information about the conceptualisation skills of individuals with aphasia may be gained from their picture description performance. The high variability in their order of concept production could suggest that some participants had difficulties in extracting the most important information from the picture stimuli and/or in identifying relationships between concepts. However, additional assessment would be necessary to evaluate the extent to which word retrieval and syntactic deficits impact on these findings. Nevertheless, this analysis approach provides a potentially valuable insight into the conceptualisation skills of people with aphasia which can inform further diagnostic assessment and treatment.

Figure 1
Image

References

Cairns, D. (2006). Processing Events: Investigating Event Conceptualisation in Aphasia. (Doctor of Philosophy), City University London, London.

Cairns, D., Marshall, J., Cairns, P., & Dipper, L. (2007). Event processing through naming: Investigating event focus in two people with aphasia. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(2), 201-233.

Dipper, L. T., Black, M., & Bryan, K. L. (2005). Thinking for speaking and thinking for listening: The interaction of thought and language in typical and non-fluent comprehension and production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(3), 417-441.

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking : from intention to articulation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

MacWhinney, B., Fromm, D., Forbes, M., & Holland, A. (2011). AphasiaBank: Methods for studying discourse. Aphasiology, 25(11), 1286-1307.

Marshall, J. (2009). Framing ideas in aphasia: the need for thinking therapy. Int J Lang Commun Disord, 44(1), 1-14.
Nicholas, L. E., & Brookshire, R. H. (1995). Presence, Completeness, and Accuracy of Main Concepts in the Connected Speech of Non-Brain-Damaged Adults and Adults with Aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38(1), 146-156.

Richardson, J. D., & Dalton, S. G. (2016). Main concepts for three different discourse tasks in a large non-clinical sample. Aphasiology, 30(1), 45-73.

Slobin, D. I. (1996). From "Thought and Language" to "Thinking for Speaking". In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 70 - 96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Keywords: Conceptualisation, Aphasia, Concept analysis, discourse, hyper-naming

Conference: 54th Annual Academy of Aphasia Meeting, Llandudno, United Kingdom, 16 Oct - 18 Oct, 2016.

Presentation Type: Platform Sessions

Topic: Student Submissions

Citation: Hameister I and Nickels L (2016). Why did the Cat Get up the Tree?
- What Picture Descriptions can Tell us about Conceptualisation Deficits in Aphasia -. Front. Psychol. Conference Abstract: 54th Annual Academy of Aphasia Meeting. doi: 10.3389/conf.fpsyg.2016.68.00063

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: 29 Apr 2016; Published Online: 15 Aug 2016.

* Correspondence: Ms. Inga Hameister, Macquarie University, ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia, inga.hameister@students.mq.edu.au