Impaired discourse gist and working memory in children after brain injury

Does Brain Volume Loss Predict Cognitive and Narrative Discourse Performance Following Traumatic Brain Injury?

“…In addition, IQ also had associations with a few sentence-level measures, discourse productivity, and cohesion. These findings are consistent with previous studies in which similar cognitive variables aligned more with discourse measures that considered the whole text rather than lexical or sentential aspects (Chapman et al, 2006;Hay & Moran, 2005;Youse & Coelho, 2005). The regression model for cognitive variables predicting narrative discourse performance substantiated these findings, accounting for the most variance in story completeness and story grammar.…”

“…A series of regression analyses in the same PHI cohort demonstrated that the Sorting Test (a measure of EF), immediate memory (IM), and WM were all significant predictors for story content and organization, measures in an index of story goodness . The link between WM and narrative ability is further supported by associations of WM with gist summaries (Chapman et al, 2006) and inference comprehension in narratives (Moran & Gillon, 2005).…”

“…Cognitive processes and domains, such as working memory (WM), declarative memory, executive functions (EF), and general intelligence have been shown to correlate with or predict narrative ability at multiple levels of analysis (e.g., Cannizzaro & Coelho, 2012;Chapman et al, 2006;Coelho et al, 2013;Kurczek & Duff, 2011;Wright, Capilouto, Srinivasan, & Fergadiotis, 2011). Studies of narrative discourse ability in healthy aging populations have found that performance on global (i.e., macro-level) measures is correlated with age and performance on a number of cognitive tasks.…”

Working memory performance following paediatric traumatic brain injury

“…Not surprisingly then, several studies have revealed WM impairment following TBI acquired in adulthood [19][20][21], with studies employing functional neuroimaging indicating a pattern of more diffuse frontal activation relative to control participants [22,23]. Relatively few studies have investigated WM performance in children following TBI and these studies have utilized a limited range of available WM measures, many of which are experimental rather than measures traditionally used in clinical practise [24][25][26]. Therefore, little is known about the sensitivity of different clinical WM measures to impairment subsequent to paediatric TBI or the factors that predict impairment on these measures.…”

Recommendations for the Use of Common Outcome Measures in Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury Research

“…Two main transcription conventions and software programs are used: Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (Miller and Chapman, 2004) and CHAT, the coding language of the Child Language Data Exchange System (MacWhinney, 2000). Language sample analysis has been found to discriminate between children and adolescents with and without TBI in several studies (Biddle et al, 1996;Brookshire et al, 2004;Campbell and Dollaghan, 1990, 1995Campbell et al, 2009;Chapman et al, 1992Chapman et al, , 1997Chapman et al, , 1998Chapman et al, , 2004Chapman et al, , 2006Coelho et al, 2005;Dennis et al, 1994;EwingCobbs and Barnes, 2002;Ewing-Cobbs et al, 1998a;Wilson and Proctor, 2002;Youse and Coelho, 2005). Content validity is high, as samples are taken with relevant partners (e.g., parents).…”