Lina Urh , Daniele Piscitelli , Massimiliano Beghi , Silvia Diotti , Giuseppe Erba , Adriana Magaudda , Mikhail Zinchuk , Alla Guekht , Cesare Maria Cornaggia
{"title":"癫痫和精神性非癫痫发作鉴别诊断中的隐喻语言:是时候向前迈进了","authors":"Lina Urh , Daniele Piscitelli , Massimiliano Beghi , Silvia Diotti , Giuseppe Erba , Adriana Magaudda , Mikhail Zinchuk , Alla Guekht , Cesare Maria Cornaggia","doi":"10.1016/j.ebr.2023.100639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Conversation analysis (CA) to identify metaphoric language (ML) has been proposed as a tool for the differential diagnosis of epileptic (ES) and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES). However, the clinical relevance of metaphoric conceptualizations is not clearly defined. The current study aims to investigate the ML utilized by individuals with ES and PNES in a pulled multi-country sample. Two blinded researchers examined the transcripts and videos of 54 interviews of individuals (n = 29, Italy; n = 11, USA; n = 14, Russia) with ES and PNES, identifying the patient-seizure relationship representative of the patient's internal experience. The diagnoses were based on video-EEG. Metaphors were classified as “Space/place”, “External force”, “Voluntary action”, and “Other”. A total of 175 metaphors were identified. No differences between individuals with ES and PNES were found in metaphoric occurrence (χ<sup>2</sup> (1, N = 54) = 0.07; p = 0.74). No differences were identified when comparing the types of metaphors utilized by participants with ES and those with PNES. Patients with PNES and ES did not demonstrate differences in terms of occurrence and categories in ML. Therefore, researchers and clinicians should carefully consider the use of metaphor conceptualizations for diagnostic purposes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36558,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsy and Behavior Reports","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 100639"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589986423000576/pdfft?md5=411a649fa7d199bc1a8d75b113ac942d&pid=1-s2.0-S2589986423000576-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metaphoric language in the differential diagnosis of epilepsy and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures: Time to move forward\",\"authors\":\"Lina Urh , Daniele Piscitelli , Massimiliano Beghi , Silvia Diotti , Giuseppe Erba , Adriana Magaudda , Mikhail Zinchuk , Alla Guekht , Cesare Maria Cornaggia\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ebr.2023.100639\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Conversation analysis (CA) to identify metaphoric language (ML) has been proposed as a tool for the differential diagnosis of epileptic (ES) and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES). However, the clinical relevance of metaphoric conceptualizations is not clearly defined. The current study aims to investigate the ML utilized by individuals with ES and PNES in a pulled multi-country sample. Two blinded researchers examined the transcripts and videos of 54 interviews of individuals (n = 29, Italy; n = 11, USA; n = 14, Russia) with ES and PNES, identifying the patient-seizure relationship representative of the patient's internal experience. The diagnoses were based on video-EEG. Metaphors were classified as “Space/place”, “External force”, “Voluntary action”, and “Other”. A total of 175 metaphors were identified. No differences between individuals with ES and PNES were found in metaphoric occurrence (χ<sup>2</sup> (1, N = 54) = 0.07; p = 0.74). No differences were identified when comparing the types of metaphors utilized by participants with ES and those with PNES. Patients with PNES and ES did not demonstrate differences in terms of occurrence and categories in ML. Therefore, researchers and clinicians should carefully consider the use of metaphor conceptualizations for diagnostic purposes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36558,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epilepsy and Behavior Reports\",\"volume\":\"25 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100639\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589986423000576/pdfft?md5=411a649fa7d199bc1a8d75b113ac942d&pid=1-s2.0-S2589986423000576-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epilepsy and Behavior Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589986423000576\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsy and Behavior Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589986423000576","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
隐喻语言(ML)的会话分析(CA)已被提议作为癫痫(ES)和精神性非癫痫发作(PNES)的鉴别诊断工具。然而,隐喻概念化的临床意义尚未得到明确界定。本研究旨在调查多国样本中 ES 和 PNES 患者使用的 ML。两名盲人研究人员检查了 54 位 ES 和 PNES 患者(意大利,29 人;美国,11 人;俄罗斯,14 人)的访谈记录和视频,确定了代表患者内心体验的患者与癫痫发作的关系。诊断以视频脑电图为依据。隐喻分为 "空间/地点"、"外力"、"自愿行为 "和 "其他"。共识别出 175 个隐喻。在隐喻出现方面,ES 和 PNES 患者之间未发现差异(χ2 (1, N = 54) = 0.07; p = 0.74)。在比较 ES 患者和 PNES 患者使用的隐喻类型时,未发现差异。PNES 患者和 ES 患者在 ML 的出现率和类别方面并无差异。因此,研究人员和临床医生在使用隐喻概念进行诊断时应慎重考虑。
Metaphoric language in the differential diagnosis of epilepsy and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures: Time to move forward
Conversation analysis (CA) to identify metaphoric language (ML) has been proposed as a tool for the differential diagnosis of epileptic (ES) and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES). However, the clinical relevance of metaphoric conceptualizations is not clearly defined. The current study aims to investigate the ML utilized by individuals with ES and PNES in a pulled multi-country sample. Two blinded researchers examined the transcripts and videos of 54 interviews of individuals (n = 29, Italy; n = 11, USA; n = 14, Russia) with ES and PNES, identifying the patient-seizure relationship representative of the patient's internal experience. The diagnoses were based on video-EEG. Metaphors were classified as “Space/place”, “External force”, “Voluntary action”, and “Other”. A total of 175 metaphors were identified. No differences between individuals with ES and PNES were found in metaphoric occurrence (χ2 (1, N = 54) = 0.07; p = 0.74). No differences were identified when comparing the types of metaphors utilized by participants with ES and those with PNES. Patients with PNES and ES did not demonstrate differences in terms of occurrence and categories in ML. Therefore, researchers and clinicians should carefully consider the use of metaphor conceptualizations for diagnostic purposes.