Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2020; 41(01): 032-044
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3400990
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Moving Toward Non-transcription based Discourse Analysis in Stable and Progressive Aphasia

Sarah Grace Hudspeth Dalton
1   Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
,
H. Isabel Hubbard
2   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky
,
Jessica D. Richardson
3   Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico
› Author Affiliations Funding S.G.H.D. receives salary from Marquette University. She has no other disclosures.
H.I.H receives salary from the University of Kentucky. She has no other disclosures.
J.D.R. receives salary from the University of New Mexico and grant support through an Institutional Development Award (IDeA) from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under grant number P20GM109089. She also serves as Co-Chair of the Research Committee at the Triangle Aphasia Project.
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 December 2019 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Measurement of communication ability at the discourse level holds promise for predicting how well persons with stable (e.g., stroke-induced), or progressive aphasia navigate everyday communicative interactions. However, barriers to the clinical utilization of discourse measures have persisted. Recent advancements in the standardization of elicitation protocols and the existence of large databases for development of normative references have begun to address some of these barriers. Still, time remains a consistently reported barrier by clinicians. Non-transcription based discourse measurement would reduce the time required for discourse analysis, making clinical utilization a reality. The purpose of this article is to present evidence regarding discourse measures (main concept analysis, core lexicon, and derived efficiency scores) that are well suited to non-transcription based analysis. Combined with previous research, our results suggest that these measures are sensitive to changes following stroke or neurodegenerative disease. Given the evidence, further research specifically assessing the reliability of these measures in clinical implementation is warranted.

Keywords

transcription - discourse - aphasia - clinical utility

Supplementary Material

 

  • References

  • 1 Worrall L, Sherratt S, Rogers P. , et al. What people with aphasia want: their goals according to the ICF. Aphasiology 2011; 25 (03) 309-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Brady MC, Kelly H, Godwin J, Enderby P, Campbell P. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke. Cochrane database of Syst Rev 2016; (06) 1-314
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ash S, Grossman M. Why study connected speech production. In: Willems R. , ed. Cognitive Neuroscience of Natural Language Use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2015: 29-58
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kim H, Kintz S, Zelnosky K, Wright HH. Measuring word retrieval in narrative discourse: core lexicon in aphasia. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2019; 54 (01) 62-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kong AP, Linnik A, Law SP, Shum WW. Measuring discourse coherence in anomic aphasia using Rhetorical Structure Theory. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2018; 20 (04) 406-421
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Richardson JD, Dalton SG. Main concepts for three different discourse tasks in a large non-clinical sample. Aphasiology 2016; 30 (01) 45-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Whitworth A, Claessen M, Leitão S, Webster J. Beyond narrative: Is there an implicit structure to the way in which adults organise their discourse?. Clin Linguist Phon 2015; 29 (06) 455-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Wright HH, Capilouto GJ, Koutsoftas A. Evaluating measures of global coherence ability in stories in adults. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2013; 48 (03) 249-256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Boyle M. Stability of word-retrieval errors with the AphasiaBank stimuli. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2015; 24 (04) S953-S960
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Leaman MC, Edmonds LA. Revisiting the correct information unit: measuring informativeness in unstructured conversations in people with aphasia. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2019; 28 (03) 1099-1114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Pritchard M, Hilari K, Cocks N, Dipper L. Psychometric properties of discourse measures in aphasia: acceptability, reliability, and validity. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2018; 53 (06) 1078-1093
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Armstrong E, Bryant L, Ferguson A, Simmons-Mackie N. Approaches to assessment and treatment of everyday talk in aphasia. In: Papathanasiou I, Coppens P, Potagas C. , eds. Aphasia and Related Neurogenic Communication Disorders. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2016: 269-285
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Bryant L, Ferguson A, Spencer E. Linguistic analysis of discourse in aphasia: a review of the literature. Clin Linguist Phon 2016; 30 (07) 489-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Linnik A, Bastiaanse R, Höhle B. Discourse production in aphasia: a current review of theoretical and methodological challenges. Aphasiology 2016; 30 (07) 765-800
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ash S, Moore P, Antani S, McCawley G, Work M, Grossman M. Trying to tell a tale: discourse impairments in progressive aphasia and frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 2006; 66 (09) 1405-1413
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ash S, Evans E, O'Shea J. , et al. Differentiating primary progressive aphasias in a brief sample of connected speech. Neurology 2013; 81 (04) 329-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Dalton SGH, Shultz C, Henry ML, Hillis AE, Richardson JD. Describing phonological paraphasias in three variants of primary progressive aphasia. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2018; 27 (1S): 336-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Fraser KC, Meltzer JA, Graham NL. , et al. Automated classification of primary progressive aphasia subtypes from narrative speech transcripts. Cortex 2014; 55: 43-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Sajjadi SA, Patterson K, Tomek M, Nestor PJ. Abnormalities of connected speech in the non-semantic variants of primary progressive aphasia. Aphasiology 2012; 26 (10) 1219-1237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hird K, Brown R, Kirsner K. Stability of lexical deficits in primary progressive aphasia: evidence from natural language. Brain Lang 2006; 99 (1–2): 147-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Knibb JA, Woollams AM, Hodges JR, Patterson K. Making sense of progressive non-fluent aphasia: an analysis of conversational speech. Brain 2009; 132 (Pt 10): 2734-2746
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Taylor C, Croot K, Power E, Savage SA, Hodges JR, Togher L. Trouble and repair during conversations of people with primary progressive aphasia. Aphasiology 2014; 28 (8–9): 1069-1091
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Croot K, Taylor C, Abel S. , et al. Measuring gains in connected speech following treatment for word retrieval: a study with two participants with primary progressive aphasia. Aphasiology 2014; 29 (11) 1265-1288
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Whitworth A, Cartwright J, Beales A, Leitão S, Panegyres PK, Kane R. Taking words to a new level: a preliminary investigation of discourse intervention in primary progressive aphasia. Aphasiology 2017; 32 (11) 1284-1309
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kagan A, Simmons-Mackie N. Beginning with the end: outcome-driven assessment and intervention with life participation in mind. Top Lang Disord 2007; 27 (04) 309-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Simmons-Mackie N, Threats TT, Kagan A. Outcome assessment in aphasia: a survey. J Commun Disord 2005; 38 (01) 1-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Goodglass H, Kaplan E, Brand S, Barresi B. The Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Kertesz A. Western Aphasia Battery - Revised. San Antonio: Pearson; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Prins R, Bastiaanse R. Analyzing the spontaneous speech of aphasic speakers. Aphasiology 2004; 18 (12) 1075-1091
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Wright HH, Fergadiotis G. Conceptualising and measuring working memory and its relationship to aphasia. Aphasiology 2012; 26 (3-4): 258-278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Nicholas LE, Brookshire RH. A system for quantifying the informativeness and efficiency of the connected speech of adults with aphasia. J Speech Hear Res 1993; 36 (02) 338-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Nicholas LE, Brookshire RH. Presence, completeness, and accuracy of main concepts in the connected speech of non-brain-damaged adults and adults with aphasia. J Speech Hear Res 1995; 38 (01) 145-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Mayer J, Murray L. Functional measures of naming in aphasia: word retrieval in confrontation naming versus connected speech. Aphasiology 2003; 17 (05) 481-497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Dodd B. Evidence-based practice and speech-language pathology: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2007; 59 (03) 118-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Jette DU, Bacon K, Batty C. , et al. Evidence-based practice: beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors of physical therapists. Phys Ther 2003; 83 (09) 786-805
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Dysart AM, Tomlin GS. Factors related to evidence-based practice among U.S. occupational therapy clinicians. Am J Occup Ther 2002; 56 (03) 275-284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Nail-Chiwetalu BJ, Ratner NB. Information literacy for speech-language pathologists: a key to evidence-based practice. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2006; 37 (03) 157-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Brookshire RH, Nicholas LE. Speech sample size and test-retest stability of connected speech measures for adults with aphasia. J Speech Hear Res 1994; 37 (02) 399-407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Capilouto G, Wright HH, Wagovich SA. CIU and main event analyses of the structured discourse of older and younger adults. J Commun Disord 2005; 38 (06) 431-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Nicholas LE, Brookshire RH. A system for scoring main concepts in the discourse of non-brain-damaged and aphasic speakers. Clinical Aphasiology Archive 1993; 21: 87-99
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Wright HH, Shisler RJ. Working memory in aphasia: theory, measures, and clinical implications. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2005; 14 (02) 107-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 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
  • 43 Fergadiotis G, Wright HH, Capilouto GJ. Productive vocabulary across discourse types. Aphasiology 2011; 25 (10) 1261-1278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Pratt MW, Boyes C, Robins S, Manchester J. Telling tales: aging, working memory, and the narrative cohesion of story retellings. Dev Psychol 1989; 25 (04) 628-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Yorkston KM, Beukelman DR. An analysis of connected speech samples of aphasic and normal speakers. J Speech Hear Disord 1980; 45 (01) 27-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Mackenzie C, Brady M, Norrie J, Poedjianto N. Picture description in neurologically normal adults: Concepts and topic coherence. Aphasiology 2007; 21 (3–4): 340-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Macwhinney B, Fromm D, Forbes M, Holland A. AphasiaBank: methods for studying discourse. Aphasiology 2011; 25 (11) 1286-1307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Forbes MM, Fromm D, Macwhinney B. AphasiaBank: a resource for clinicians. Semin Speech Lang 2012; 33 (03) 217-222
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Fromm D, Forbes M, Holland A, MacWhinney B. Using AphasiaBank for discourse assessment. Semin Speech Lang 2020; 41: 10-19
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Duncan EA, Murray J. The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2012; 12 (01) 96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Kim H, Wright HH. A tutorial on core lexicon: development, use, and application. Semin Speech Lang 2020; 41: 20-31
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Armstrong L, Brady M, Mackenzie C, Norrie J. Transcription-less analysis of aphasic discourse: a clinicians dream or a possibility?. Aphasiology 2007; 21 (3–4): 355-374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Boles L, Bombard T. Conversational discourse analysis: appropriate and useful sample sizes. Aphasiology 1998; 12 (7–8): 547-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Olness GS, Gyger J, Thomas K. Analysis of narrative functionality: toward evidence-based approaches in managed care settings. Semin Speech Lang 2012; 33 (01) 55-67
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Bryant L, Spencer E, Ferguson A. Clinical use of linguistic discourse analysis for the assessment of language in aphasia. Aphasiology 2016; 31 (10) 1105-1126
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Kong AP. The use of main concept analysis to measure discourse production in Cantonese-speaking persons with aphasia: a preliminary report. J Commun Disord 2009; 42 (06) 442-464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Dalton SGH, Richardson JD. A large-scale comparison of main concept production between persons with aphasia and persons without brain injury. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2019; 28 (1S): 293-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Fromm D, Forbes M, Holland A, Dalton SG, Richardson J, MacWhinney B. Discourse characteristics in aphasia beyond the western aphasia battery cutoff. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2017; 26 (03) 762-768
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Hameister I, Nickels L. The cat in the tree – using picture descriptions to inform our understanding of conceptualisation in aphasia. Lang Cogn Neurosci 2018; 33 (10) 1296-1314
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Kong AP. The main concept analysis in Cantonese aphasic oral discourse: external validation and monitoring chronic aphasia. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2011; 54 (01) 148-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Kong AP, Whiteside J, Bargmann P. The main concept analysis: validation and sensitivity in differentiating discourse produced by unimpaired English speakers from individuals with aphasia and dementia of Alzheimer type. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 2016; 41 (03) 129-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Ross K, Wertz RT. Comparison of impairment and disability measures for assessing severity of, and improvement in, aphasia. Aphasiology 1999; 13 (02) 113-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Boyle M. Test-retest stability of word retrieval in aphasic discourse. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2014; 57 (03) 966-978
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Richardson JD, Dalton SGH. Main concepts for two picture description tasks: an addition to Richardson and Dalton, 2016. Aphasiology 2019; 1-18 . [Epub ahead of print]
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Dalton SG, Richardson JD. Core-lexicon and main-concept production during picture-sequence description in adults without brain damage and adults with aphasia. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2015; 24 (04) S923-S938
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Fromm DA, Forbes M, Holland A, MacWhinney B. PWAs and PBJs: language for describing a simple procedure. [Abstract]. Arch Clinical Aphasiology 2013. Available at: http://aphasiology.pitt.edu/id/eprint/2491 . Accessed October 10, 2019
    PubMed
  • 67 MacWhinney B, Fromm D, Holland A, Forbes M, Wright H. Automated analysis of the Cinderella story. Aphasiology 2010; 24 (6-8): 856-868
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Dalton SGH, Kim H, Richardson JD, Wright HH. A compendium of core lexicon checklists. Semin Speech Lang 2020; 41: 45-60
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Doyle PJ, Goda AJ, Spencer KA. The communicative informativeness and efficiency of connected discourse by adults with aphasia under structured and conversational sampling conditions. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1995; 4 (04) 130-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Armstrong E. Aphasic discourse analysis: the story so far. Aphasiology 2000; 14 (09) 875-892
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Ballard KJ, Thompson CK. Treatment and generalization of complex sentence production in agrammatism. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1999; 42 (03) 690-707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Jacobs BJ. Social validity of changes in informativeness and efficiency of aphasic discourse following linguistic specific treatment (LST). Brain Lang 2001; 78 (01) 115-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Mozeiko J, Coelho CA, Myers EB. The role of intensity in constraint-induced language therapy for people with chronic aphasia. Aphasiology 2016; 30 (04) 339-363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Savage MC, Donovan NJ. Comparing linguistic complexity and efficiency in conversations from stimulation and conversation therapy in aphasia. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2017; 52 (01) 21-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Carlomagno S, Giannotti S, Vorano L, Marini A. Discourse information content in non-aphasic adults with brain injury: a pilot study. Brain Inj 2011; 25 (10) 1010-1018
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Boyle M. Choosing discourse outcome measures to assess clinical change. Semin Speech Lang 2020; 41: 1-9
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Gorno-Tempini ML, Hillis AE, Weintraub S. , et al. Classification of primary progressive aphasia and its variants. Neurology 2011; 76 (11) 1006-1014
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Caso F, Mandelli ML, Henry M. , et al. In vivo signatures of nonfluent/agrammatic primary progressive aphasia caused by FTLD pathology. Neurology 2014; 82 (03) 239-247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Collins JA, Montal V, Hochberg D. , et al. Focal temporal pole atrophy and network degeneration in semantic variant primary progressive aphasia. Brain 2017; 140 (02) 457-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Rohrer JD, Caso F, Mahoney C. , et al. Patterns of longitudinal brain atrophy in the logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia. Brain Lang 2013; 127 (02) 121-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Cupit J, Rochon E, Leonard C, Laird L. Social validation as a measure of improvement after aphasia treatment: Its usefulness and influencing factors. Aphasiology 2010; 24 (11) 1486-1500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Avent J, Austermann S. Reciprocal scaffolding: a context for communication treatment in aphasia. Aphasiology 2003; 17 (04) 397-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Albright E, Purves B. Exploring SentenceShaper™: treatment and augmentative possibilities. Aphasiology 2008; 22 (7–8): 741-752
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Coelho CA, McHugh RE, Boyle M. Semantic feature analysis as a treatment for aphasic dysnomia: a replication. Aphasiology 2000; 14 (02) 133-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Stark JA. Content analysis of the fairy tale Cinderella – a longitudinal single-case study of narrative production: “From rags to riches. Aphasiology 2010; 24 (6–8): 709-724
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar