Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
- Part of Periodical (1)
- Review (1)
Keywords
- Dysphagie (1)
- Patholinguistik (1)
- Pneumonie (1)
- Prosodic boundaries (1)
- Redeflussstörungen (1)
- Selbsthilfe (1)
- Sprachtherapie (1)
- Stottern (1)
- Therapeutische Mundpflege (1)
- coordinates (1)
Institute
Aspirationspneumonien sind eine häufige Todesursache bei Dysphagiepatient*innen. In diesem Beitrag wird durch die Evaluation relevanter Studien die Frage untersucht, ob die therapeutische Mundpflege bei Dysphagiepatient*innen zur Verringerung des Pneumonierisikos beitragen kann. Zudem wird auf dieser Grundlage eine Handlungsempfehlung für die Umsetzung der Mundpflege entwickelt.
Die ausgewählten Studien zeigen, dass die Mundpflege einen positiven Effekt auf das Pneumonie-Risiko von Dysphagiepatient*innen hat. Sie sollte auf den Grundsätzen Einfachheit, Sicherheit, Arbeitskräfteentlastung, Wirksamkeit, Universalität, Wirtschaftlichkeit und vollständige Mundpflege aller Teile der Mundhöhle beruhen und nimmt weniger als fünf Minuten täglich ein. Sie bereitet durch die taktile Stimulation auf die anschließende Dysphagie-Therapie vor und ist somit sinnvoll investierte Therapiezeit.
Das 12. Herbsttreffen Patholinguistik mit dem Schwerpunktthema »Weg(e) mit dem Stottern: Therapie und Selbsthilfe für Kinder und Erwachsene« fand am 24.11.2018 in Potsdam statt. Das Herbsttreffen wird seit 2007 jährlich vom Verband für Patholinguistik e.V. (vpl) durchgeführt. Der vorliegende Tagungsband beinhaltet die Vorträge zum Schwerpunktthema sowie Beiträge der Posterpräsentationen zu weiteren Themen aus der sprachtherapeutischen Forschung und Praxis.
Prosodic boundaries can be used to disambiguate the syntactic structure of coordinated name sequences (coordinates). To answer the question whether disambiguating prosody is produced in a situationally dependent or independent manner and to contribute to our understanding of the nature of the prosody-syntax link, we systematically explored variability in the prosody of boundary productions of coordinates evoked by different contextual settings in a referential communication task. Our analysis focused on prosodic boundaries produced to distinguish sequences with different syntactic structures (i.e., with or without internal grouping of the constituents). In German, these prosodic boundaries are indicated by three major prosodic cues: f0-range, final lengthening, and pause. In line with the Proximity/Anti-Proximity principle of the syntax-prosody model by Kentner and Fery (2013), speakers clearly use all three cues for constituent grouping and prosodically mark groups within and at their right boundary, indicating that prosodic phrasing is not a local phenomenon. Intra-individually, we found a rather stable prosodic pattern across contexts. However, inter-individually speakers differed from each other with respect to the prosodic cue combinations that they (consistently) used to mark the boundaries. Overall, our data speak in favour of a close link between syntax and prosody and for situational independence of disambiguating prosody.
Production and comprehension of prosodic boundary marking in persons with unilateral brain lesions
(2022)
Purpose: Persons with unilateral brain damage in the right hemisphere (RH) or left hemisphere (LH) show limitations in processing linguistic prosody, with yet inconclusive results on their ability to process prosodically marked structural boundaries for syntactic ambiguity resolution. We aimed at systematically investigating production and comprehension of three prosodic cues (f(0) range, final lengthening, and pause) at structural boundaries in coordinate sequences in participants with right hemisphere brain damage (RHDP) and participants with left hemisphere brain damage (LHDP). Method: Twenty RHDP and 15 LHDP participated in our study.
Comprehension experiment: Participants and a control group listened to coordinate name sequences with internal grouping by a prosodically marked structural boundary (grouped condition, e.g., "(Gabi und Leni) # und Nina") or without internal grouping (ungrouped condition, e.g., "Gabi und Leni und Nina") and had to identify the target condition. The strength and combinations of prosodic cues in the stimuli were manipulated.
Production experiment: Participants were asked to produce coordinate sequences in the two conditions (grouped, ungrouped) in two different tasks: a Reading Aloud and a Repetition experiment. Accuracy of participants' productions was subsequently assessed in a rating study and productions were analyzed with respect to use of prosodic cues.
Results: In the Comprehension experiment, RHDP and LHDP had overall lower identification accuracies than unimpaired control participants and LHDP were found to have particular problems with boundary identification when the pause cue was reduced. In production, LHDP and RHDP employed all three prosodic cues for boundary marking, but struggled to clearly mark prosodic boundaries in 28% of all productions. Both groups showed better performance in reading aloud than in repetition. LHDP relied more on using f(0) range and pause duration to prosodically mark structural boundaries, whereas RHDP employed final lengthening more vigorously than LHDP in reading aloud.
Conclusions: We conclude that processing of linguistic prosody is affected in RHDP and LHDP, but not completely impaired. Therefore, prosody can serve as a relevant communicative resource. However, it should also be considered as a target area for assessment and treatment in both groups.