What is an aphasia-friendly environment?

Background: The provision of aphasia-friendly environments is important for reducing the disability experienced by people with aphasia. However, the term aphasia-friendly environment has yet to be explicitly defined in the literature. Aims. This review defines aphasia-friendly environments, critically evaluates the relevant literature. and highlights the gaps in research in this area. Main Contribution: The World Health Organisation's (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) (WHO, 2001) is Used as a framework for identifying the specific barriers and facilitators that need to be considered when creating an aphasia-friendly environment. Research focusing on Multiple ICF environmental factor domains is presented, followed by a review Of Studies that focus on specific environmental factor domains. Conclusions. More research identifying the range of environmental factors that may be important to consider when creating aphasia-friendly environments is required. In addition, further rigorous studies focusing on specific ICF environmental factor domains are needed.

The functions of societies and the evolution of group living: Spider societies as a test case

Many models have been advanced to suggest how different expressions of sociality have evolved and are maintained. However these models ignore the function of groups for the particular species in question. Here we present a new perspective on sociality where the function of the group takes a central role. We argue that sociality may have primarily a reproductive, protective, or foraging function, depending on whether it enhances the reproductive, protective or foraging aspect of the animal's life (sociality may serve a mixture of these functions). Different functions can potentially cause the development of the same social behaviour. By identifying which function influences a particular social behaviour we can determine how that social behaviour will change with changing conditions, and which models are most pertinent. To test our approach we examined spider sociality, which has often been seen as the poor cousin to insect sociality. By using our approach we found that the group characteristics of eusocial insects is largely governed by the reproductive function of their groups, while the group characteristics of social spiders is largely governed by the foraging function of the group. This means that models relevant to insects may not be relevant to spiders. It also explains why eusocial insects have developed a strict caste system while spider societies are more egalitarian. We also used our approach to explain the differences between different types of spider groups. For example, differences in the characteristics of colonial and kleptoparasitic groups can be explained by differences in foraging methods, while differences between colonial and cooperative spiders can be explained by the role of the reproductive function in the formation of cooperative spider groups. Although the interactions within cooperative spider colonies are largely those of a foraging society, demographic traits and colony dynamics are strongly influenced by the reproductive function. We argue that functional explanations help to understand the social structure of spider groups and therefore the evolutionary potential for speciation in social spiders.

The rellationship between specific features of aphasia-friendly written material and comprehension of written material for people with aphasia: An exploratory study

Background: Written material is often inaccessible fro people with aphasia. The format of written material needs to be adapted to enable people with aphasia to read with understanding. Aims: This study aimed to further explore some issues raised in Rose, Worrall, and MacKenna (2003) concerning the effects of aphasia-friendly formats on the reading comprehension of people with aphasia. It was hypothesised that people with aphasia would comprehend significantly more paragraphs that were formatted in an aphasia-friendly manner than control paragraphs. This study also aimed to investigate if each single aspect of aphasia-friendly formatting (i.e., simplified vocabulary and syntax, large print, increased white spacem and pictures) used in isolation would result in increased comprehension compared to control paragraphs. Other aims were to compare the effect of aphasia-friendly fromatting with the effects of each single adaptation, and to investigate if the effects of aphasia-friendly formates were related to aphasia severity. Methods & Procedures: Participants with mild to moderately severe aphasia (N = 9) read a battery of 90 paragraphs and selected the best word of phrase from a choice of four to complete each paragraph. A linear mixed model (p < .05) was used to analyse the differences in reading comprehension with each paragraph fromat across three reading grade levels. Outcomes & Results: People with aphasia comprehended significantly more aphasia-friendly paragraphs than control paragraphs. They also comprehended significantly more paragraphs with each of the following single adaptations: simplified vocabulary and syntax, large ptint, and increased white spaces. Although people with aphasia tended to comprehend more paragraphs with pictures added than control paragraphs, this difference was not significant. No significant correlation between aphasia severity and the effect of aphasia-friendly formatting was found. Conclusion: This study supports the idea that aphasia-friendly formats increase the reading comprehension of people with aphasia. It suggests that adding pictures, particularly Clip Art pictures, may not significantly improve the reading the reading comprehension of people with aphasia. These findings have implications for all written communication with people with aphasia, both in the clinical setting and in the wider community. Applying these findings may enable people with aphasia to have equal access to written information and to participate in society.