Talk:Apraxia
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between1 July 2019 and23 August 2019. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Jacklyn.Ang,Cpktruong,Emilyplasencia,Maludino.
Above undated message substituted fromTemplate:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment byPrimeBOT (talk)14:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that "apraxia" is more prevalant in the United States and "dyspraxia" is more prevalent in the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. I think a merger needs to be done, along with a significant section for verbal apraxia.Arthmelow20:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are completely separate things(217.42.84.16614:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC))-Agree - this proposal is nonsense. Apraxia is a symptom of a variety of different brain pathologies, and dyspraxia is a milder version of the same. The 'Dyspraxia' page actually described one cause of dyspractic symptomatology, specifically a poorly characterised condition that might be better referred to as 'DEvelopmental co-ordination disorder'.[reply]
Apologies: I am trying my best! I was trying to find a US link for dyspraxia and may have jumped the gun a bit while on the 50th page of google results. Have removed tags on both articlesArthmelow17:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can apraxia be the result of late-stage alcoholism?—Precedingunsigned comment added by68.162.137.127 (talk)15:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I recognise the possible validity of comments on apraxia/dyspraxia in general, it is certainly the case that with regard to speech, that Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS) and Developmental Verbal Dyspraxia (DVD) are US and UK names for the same diagnositc condition, with CAS holding sway in terms of terminology used in international research journals. It is not my specific area of practice, but I believe the same to be true of acquired apraxia of speech and acquired verbal dyspraxia also. It would make sense for these sections of the articles to highlight this, even if a merger is not practical.LoretteP (talk)22:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the neuroanatomical areas are different but if orobuccal apraxia is listed as a subgroup of ideomotor apraxia, why not limb kinetic too???91.109.71.75 (talk)22:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be clarified that apraxia is not a "genetic condition." It is a symptom, not a diagnosis or disease.—Precedingunsigned comment added by65.190.199.251 (talk)21:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, I am surprised that this article received the high mark that it did: B-class. To me, it seems to be a stub at best. The introductory paragraph doesn't offer a good, simple summary; it rambles on. The list of "different forms of apraxia" is overkill in the opening paragraph. That information should be moved down to the next section and duplicate info deleted. That last sentence in the paragraph would be an good second sentence. The opening paragraph is, however, jargon-free and the few terms that are used are defined. That's abig plus.
And why are only "some" or "several" forms of apraxia listed? Why those types and not others? What criteria was used for inclusion in this article?
Thanks for your time,68.197.49.241 (talk)22:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! I didn't realize that my log-in wasn't. Thanks again,Wordreader (talk)23:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
doi:10.1136/practneurol-2015-001354JFW | T@lk11:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link onApraxia. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed to let others know (documentation at{{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)17:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting (to me, anyhow!) to know the etymology of the word.24.37.29.254 (talk)13:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. Clean up the Types section. Bold the types and rearrange to be in alphabetical order.
2. Make sure all types of Apraxia are included and add examples of each type.
3. Add more information showing how many people are effected.
Emilyplasencia (talk)21:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~~~) (4 tildes)Health policy (talk)03:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
Yes, but I suggest considering breaking up the Treatment section into more paragraphs. You can also add a hyperlink or a sentence on communication boards.
2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
There are still edits that need to be made in order for the group's goal to be met, including putting the types of apraxia in alphabetical order. Overall, great job!
3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?
Yes, the format is correct.