Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2020; 41(05): 365-382
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1712116
Review Article

Improving Discourse following Traumatic Brain Injury: A Tale of Two Treatments

Amy Henderson
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
,
Mackenzie A. Roeschlein
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
,
Heather Harris Wright
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) often present with discourse-level deficits that affect functional communication. These deficits are not thought to be primarily linguistic in nature but instead are thought to arise from the interaction of linguistic and cognitive processes. Discourse processing treatment (DPT) is a discourse-based treatment protocol which targets discourse deficits frequently seen in TBI. Attention Process Training-2 (APT-2) is a published treatment protocol which targets four levels of attention. The purpose of this article is to investigate the effectiveness of DPT and APT-2 in improving discourse production and cognition in adults with TBI. Our results suggest that DPT results in greater improvement in discourse informativeness and coherence, but the combination of DPT and APT-2 resulted in greater generalization to untrained stimuli. Both DPT and APT-2 appear to have some potential to improve cognition, but there was intersubject variability with regard to which treatment is more effective.

Keywords

TBI - discourse - attention


Publication History

Article published online:
18 May 2020

Thieme Medical Publishers
333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

 

  • References

  • 1 Alexander MP, Benson DF, Stuss DT. Frontal lobes and language. Brain Lang 1989; 37 (04) 656-691
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hartley LL, Jensen PJ. Narrative and procedural discourse after closed head injury. Brain Inj 1991; 5 (03) 267-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Galetto V, Andreetta S, Zettin M, Marini A. Patterns of impairment of narrative language in mild traumatic brain injury. J Neurolinguist 2013; 26 (06) 649-661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hinchliffe FJ, Murdoch BE, Chenery HJ. Towards a conceptualization of language and cognitive impairment in closed-head injury: use of clinical measures. Brain Inj 1998; 12 (02) 109-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Parasuraman R, Mutter SA, Molloy R. Sustained attention following mild closed-head injury. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1991; 13 (05) 789-811
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bohnen N, Jolles J, Twijnstra A. Neuropsychological deficits in patients with persistent symptoms six months after mild head injury. Neurosurgery 1992; 30 (05) 692-695 , discussion 695–696
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Paré N, Rabin LA, Fogel J, Pépin M. Mild traumatic brain injury and its sequelae: characterisation of divided attention deficits. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2009; 19 (01) 110-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Stierwalt JA, Murray LL. Attention impairment following traumatic brain injury. Semin Speech Lang 2002; 23 (02) 129-138
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Brooks N, McKinlay W, Symington C, Beattie A, Campsie L. Return to work within the first seven years of severe head injury. Brain Inj 1987; 1 (01) 5-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Youse KM, Coelho CA. Treating underlying attention deficits as a means for improving conversational discourse in individuals with closed head injury: a preliminary study. NeuroRehabilitation 2009; 24 (04) 355-364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Sohlberg MM, Mateer CA. Effectiveness of an attention-training program. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1987; 9 (02) 117-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sohlberg MM, Johnson L, Paule L, Raskin SA, Mateer CA. Attention Process Training II: A Program to Address Attentional Deficits in Persons with Mild Cognitive Dysfunction. Puyallup, WA: Association for Neuropsychological Research and Development; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Palmese CA, Raskin SA. The rehabilitation of attention in individuals with mild traumatic brain injury, using the APT-II programme. Brain Inj 2000; 14 (06) 535-548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Pero S, Incoccia C, Caracciolo B, Zoccolotti P, Formisano R. Rehabilitation of attention in two patients with traumatic brain injury by means of ‘attention process training’. Brain Inj 2006; 20 (11) 1207-1219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sohlberg MM, McLaughlin KA, Pavese A, Heidrich A, Posner MI. Evaluation of attention process training and brain injury education in persons with acquired brain injury. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2000; 22 (05) 656-676
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Cannizzaro MS, Coelho CA. Treatment of story grammar following traumatic brain injury: a pilot study. Brain Inj 2002; 16 (12) 1065-1073
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Penn C, Jones D, Joffe V. Hierarchical discourse therapy: a method for the mild patient. Aphasiology 1997; 11 (06) 601-613
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Biggs JB, Collins KF. Evaluation of the Quality of Learning: The Solo Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). London: Academic Press; 1982
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Kintz S, Hibbs V, Henderson A, Andrews M, Wright HH. Discourse-based treatment in mild traumatic brain injury. J Commun Disord 2018; 76: 47-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Henderson A, Kim H, Kintz S, Frisco N, Wright HH. Working memory in aphasia: considering discourse processing and treatment implications. Semin Speech Lang 2017; 38 (01) 40-51
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Beukelman DR, Mirenda P. Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Management of Severe Communication Disorders in Children and Adults. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Adamovich B, Henderson J. Scales of Cognitive Ability for Traumatic Brain Injury. Austin, TX: Pro Ed; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Reynolds CR. Comprehensive Trail Making Test. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Golden CJ, Freshwater SM. STROOP Color and Word Test. Dale, IL: Stoelting Co.; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Wechsler D. Wechsler Memory Scale. 3rd ed. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Goodglass H, Kaplan E, Barresi B. The Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Longacre RE. The Grammar of Discourse. 2nd ed. New York: Plenum Press; 1996
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Marini A, Boewe A, Caltagirone C, Carlomagno S. Age-related differences in the production of textual descriptions. J Psycholinguist Res 2005; 34 (05) 439-463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Beeson PM, Robey RR. Evaluating single-subject treatment research: lessons learned from the aphasia literature. Neuropsychol Rev 2006; 16 (04) 161-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Wright HH, Koutsoftas AD, Capilouto GJ, Fergadiotis G. Global coherence in younger and older adults: Influence of cognitive processes and discourse type. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 2014; 21 (02) 174-196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Peach RK. The cognitive basis for sentence planning difficulties in discourse after traumatic brain injury. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2013; 22 (02) S285-S297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Marini A, Galetto V, Bencich E, Zettin M. Discourse production after TBI: Is there a severity effect?. Brain Inj 2016; 30 (5-6): 654-655
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Peach RK, Beck KM, Gorman M, Fisher C. Clinical outcomes following language-specific attention treatment versus direct attention training for aphasia: a comparative effectiveness study. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62 (08) 2785-2811
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Gabbatore I, Sacco K, Angeleri R, Zettin M, Bara BG, Bosco FM. Cognitive pragmatic treatment: a rehabilitative program for traumatic brain injury individuals. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2015; 30 (05) E14-E28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar