Discourse information content in non-aphasic adults with brain injury: A pilot study

References

• Goodglass H, Kaplan E. The Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, PA 1972
   Google Scholar
• Yorkston KM, Beukelman DR. An analysis of connected speech samples of aphasic and normal speakers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 1980; 45: 27–36
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Giles E, Patterson K, Hodges JR. Performance on the Cookie Theft picture description task in patients with early dementia of Alzheimer's type: Missing information. Aphasiology 1996; 10: 395–408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrlich JS. Selective characteristics of narrative discourse in head injured and normal adults. Journal of Communication Disorders 1988; 21: 1–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartley LL, Jensen PJ. Narrative and procedural discourse after closed head injury. Brain Injury 1991; 5: 267–285
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hartley LL, Jensen PJ. Three discourse profiles of closed head-injury speakers: Theoretical and clinical implications. Brain Injury 1992; 6: 271–282
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stout CL, Yorkston KM, Pimental JD. Discourse production following mild, moderate and severe TBI: Comparison of two tasks. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology 2000; 8: 15–25
   Google Scholar
• Shewan CM. The Shewan Spontaneous Language Analysis (SSLA) system for aphasic adults: Description, reliability and validity. Journal of Communication Disorders 1988; 21: 103–138
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig HK, Hinkley JJ, Winkelseth M, Carry L, Bardach L, Higman B, Hilfinger P, Shall C, Sheimo D. Quantifying connected speech samples of adults with chronic aphasia. Aphasiology 1993; 7: 155–163
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicholas L, Brookshire R. A system for quantifying the informativeness and efficiency of the connected speech of adults with aphasia. Journal of Speech Hearing Research 1993; 36: 338–350
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Menn L, Ramsberger G, Helm-Estabrooks N. A linguistic communication measure for aphasic narratives. Aphasiology 1994; 8: 343–359
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kertesz A. Western aphasia battery. Grune & Stratton, New York 1982
   Google Scholar
• Schuell H. The Minnesota test for differential diagnosis of aphasia. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN 1972
   Google Scholar
• Marini A, Caltagirone C, Pasqualetti P, Carlomagno S. Patterns of language improvement in patients with non-chronic non-fluent aphasia following specific therapies. Aphasiology 2007; 21: 164–186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doyle PJ, Goda AJ, Spencer KA. The Communicative informativeness and efficiency of connected discourse by adults with aphasia under structured and conversational sampling conditions. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 1995; 4: 130–134
   Google Scholar
• Oelschager ML, Thorne JC. Application of the correct information units analysis to naturally occurring conversation of a person with aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1999; 42: 636–648
   Google Scholar
• Brookshire RH, Nicholas LE. Speech sample size and test-re-test stability of connected speech measures for adults with aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1994; 37: 399–407
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ross KB, Wertz R. Comparison of impairment and disability measures for assessing severity of, and improvement in aphasia. Aphasiology 1999; 13: 113–124
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakobs BJ. Social validity of changes in informativeness and efficiency of aphasic discourse following Linguistic Specific Treatment (LST). Brain and Language 2001; 78: 115–127
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brookshire RH, Nicholas LE. Performance deviations in the connected speech of adults with no brain damage and adults with aphasia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 1995; 4: 118–123
   Google Scholar
• Glosser G, Deser T. Patterns of discourse production among neurological patients with fluent language disorders. Brain and Language 1990; 40: 67–88
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis GA, Coelho CA. Referential cohesion and logical coherence of narration after closed head injury. Brain and Language 2004; 89: 508–523
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mentis M, Prutting CA. Cohesion in the discourse of normal and head-injured adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1987; 30: 88–98
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Snow P, Douglas J. Conceptual and methodological challenges in discourse assessment with TBI speakers: Towards an under standing. Brain Injury 2000; 14: 397–415
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luzzatti C, Willems K, De Bleser R. Aachener Aphasie Test, Italian version. Organizzazioni Speciali, FirenzeItaly 1991
   Google Scholar
• Brookshire RH, Nicholas LE. Discourse Comprehension Test. BRK Publishers, Minneapolis, MN 1993
   Google Scholar
• Huber W, Gleber J. Linguistic and non-linguistic processing of narratives in aphasia. Brain and Language 1982; 16: 1–18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marini A, Boewe A, Caltagirone C, Carlomagno S. Age-related differences in the production of textual descriptions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2005; 34: 439–463
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haravon A, Obler L, Sarno M. A method for microanalysis of discourse in brain-damaged patients. Discourse analysis and applications: Studies in adult clinical populations, R Bloom, L Obler, S De Santi, J Ehrlich. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale 1994; 47–80
   Google Scholar
• Marini A, Spoletini I, Rubino IA, Ciuffa M, Banfi G, Siracusano A, Bria P, Caltagirone C, Spalletta G. The language of schizophrenia: An analysis of micro- and macrolinguistic abilities and their neuropsychological correlates. Schizophrenia Research 2008; 105: 144–155
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar