ABSTRACT
Miscomprehension of nonliteral ("figurative") language like metaphors, proverbs, idioms, and ironic expressions by patients with schizophrenia is a phenomenon mentioned already in historical psychiatric descriptions. However, it was only recently that studies did differentiate between novel and conventional metaphors, a factor that is known to influence the difficulty of comprehension in healthy subjects. Further, familiarity with stimuli is an important factor for comprehension, which was not recommended in utmost previous studies. In this study, 23 patients with DSM IV schizophrenia and 19 healthy control subjects performed a newly-developed German metaphor comprehension test with three types of stimuli: novel metaphors, conventional German metaphors, and meaningless statements. During the test procedure, participants indicated familiarity with the stimulus and then matched the meaning with one out of four given alternatives. Familiarity rankings did not significantly differ between patients and control subjects. However, on descriptive level, there was a tendency for healthy controls to be more familiar with conventional metaphors than schizophrenic patients. Further, comprehension of conventional and novel metaphors differed significantly between the groups, with higher performance in healthy controls. Considering only those metaphors that had been ranked as familiar, patients only revealed significant lower performance opposed to controls regarding novel metaphors, while they did not differ in conventional metaphors. Taken together, the results indicate that patients with schizophrenia might show an altered way of comprehension in novel metaphors, leading to more misunderstandings. However, their previously reported impairments in conventional metaphors might rather be due to a lack of familiarity with the stimuli-making conventional metaphors to novel metaphors in the individual case.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To examine the dose-response relationship between cumulative duration of work with highly elevated arms (work above shoulder level) as well as of manual material handling and ruptures of the supraspinatus tendon in a population-based case-control study. METHODS: In 14 radiologic practices, we recruited 483 male patients aged 25-65 with radiographically confirmed partial (n = 385) or total (n = 98) supraspinatus tears associated with shoulder pain. A total of 300 male control subjects were recruited. Data were gathered in a structured personal interview. To calculate cumulative exposure, the self-reported duration of lifting/carrying of heavy loads (>20 kg) as well as the duration of work with highly elevated arms was added up over the entire working life. RESULTS: The results of our study support a dose-response relationship between cumulative duration of work with highly elevated arms and symptomatic supraspinatus tendon tears. For a cumulative duration of >3,195 h work above shoulder level, the risk of a supraspinatus tendon rupture is elevated to 2.0 (95% CI 1.1-3.5), adjusted for age, region, lifting/carrying of heavy loads, handheld vibration, apparatus gymnastics/shot put/javelin/hammer throwing/wrestling, and tennis. The cumulative duration of carrying/lifting of heavy loads also yields a positive dose-response relation with disease (independent from work above shoulder level and from handheld vibration), with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.8 (95% CI 1.0-3.2) in the highest exposure category (>77 h). We find an increased risk for subjects exposed to handheld vibration with an adjusted OR of 3.2 (95% CI 1.7-5.9) in the highest exposure category (16 years or more in the job with exposure), but a clear dose-response relationship is lacking. CONCLUSIONS: This study points to a potential etiologic role of long-term cumulative effects of work with highly elevated arms and heavy lifting/carrying on shoulder tendon disorders.
