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

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

• References

• 1 Alexander MP, Benson DF, Stuss DT. Frontal lobes and language. Brain Lang 1989; 37 (04) 656-691
• 2 Hartley LL, Jensen PJ. Narrative and procedural discourse after closed head injury. Brain Inj 1991; 5 (03) 267-285
• 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
• 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
• 5 Parasuraman R, Mutter SA, Molloy R. Sustained attention following mild closed-head injury. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1991; 13 (05) 789-811
• 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
• 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
• 8 Stierwalt JA, Murray LL. Attention impairment following traumatic brain injury. Semin Speech Lang 2002; 23 (02) 129-138
• 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
• 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
• 11 Sohlberg MM, Mateer CA. Effectiveness of an attention-training program. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1987; 9 (02) 117-130
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 16 Cannizzaro MS, Coelho CA. Treatment of story grammar following traumatic brain injury: a pilot study. Brain Inj 2002; 16 (12) 1065-1073
• 17 Penn C, Jones D, Joffe V. Hierarchical discourse therapy: a method for the mild patient. Aphasiology 1997; 11 (06) 601-613
• 18 Biggs JB, Collins KF. Evaluation of the Quality of Learning: The Solo Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). London: Academic Press; 1982
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 22 Adamovich B, Henderson J. Scales of Cognitive Ability for Traumatic Brain Injury. Austin, TX: Pro Ed; 1992
• 23 Reynolds CR. Comprehensive Trail Making Test. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 2002
• 24 Golden CJ, Freshwater SM. STROOP Color and Word Test. Dale, IL: Stoelting Co.; 2002
• 25 Wechsler D. Wechsler Memory Scale. 3rd ed. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation; 1997
• 26 Goodglass H, Kaplan E, Barresi B. The Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins; 2001
• 27 Longacre RE. The Grammar of Discourse. 2nd ed. New York: Plenum Press; 1996
• 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
• 29 Beeson PM, Robey RR. Evaluating single-subject treatment research: lessons learned from the aphasia literature. Neuropsychol Rev 2006; 16 (04) 161-169
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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