Microlinguistic deficits in the narrative discourse of adults with traumatic brain injury

References

• Coelho CA. Story narratives of adults with closed head injury and non-brain-injured adults: Influence of socioeconomic status, elicitation task, and executive functioning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2002;45: 1232–1248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coelho CA, Liles BZ, Duffy RJ. Discourse analyses with closed head injured adults: Evidence for differing patterns of deficits. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1991;72:465–468.
   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
• Hartley LL, Jensen P. Narrative and procedural discourse after closed head injury. Brain Injury 1991;5:267–285.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liles BZ, Coelho CA, Duffy RJ, et al. Effects of elicitation procedures on the narratives of normal and closed head-injured adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 1989;54:356–366.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Snow P, Douglas J, Ponsford J. Discourse assessment following traumatic brain injury: A pilot study examining some demographic and methodological issues. Aphasiology 1995;9:365–380.
   Google Scholar
• Stout CE, Yorkston KM, Pimental JI. Discourse production following mild, moderate, and severe traumatic brain injury: A comparison of two tasks. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology 2000;8:15–25.
   Google Scholar
• Tucker FM, Hanlon RE. Effects of mild traumatic brain injury on narrative discourse production. Brain Injury 1998;12:783–792.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Leer E, Turkstra L. The effect of elicitation task on discourse coherence and cohesion in adolescents with brain injury. Journal of Communication Disorders 1999;32: 327–349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ewing-Cobbs L, Brookshire B, Scott M, et al. Children's narratives following traumatic brain injury: Linguistic structure, cohesion, and thematic recall. Brain and Language 1998;61:395–419.
   Google Scholar
• Wolfolk WB, Fucci D, Dutka FE, et al. Differences in narrative productions of closed head-injured adults. The Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 1992;30:226–228.
   Google Scholar
• Mentis M, Pruning CA. Cohesion in the discourse of normal and head-injured adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1987;30:583–595.
   Google Scholar
• Peach RK, Schaude BA. Reformulating the notion of 'preserved' syntax following closed head injury. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, November 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Kamhi AG, Johnston JR. Semantic assessment: Determining propositional complexity. In: Secord WE, Damico JS, editors. Best practices in school speech-language pathology: Descriptive/nonstandardized language assessment. New York: The Psychological Corp. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.; 1992. pp 99–105.
   Google Scholar
• Kintsch W. The psychology of discourse processing. In: Gemsbacher MA, editor. Handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego: Academic Press; 1994. pp 721–740.
   Google Scholar
• Chapman SB, Culhane KA, Levin HS, et al. Narrative discourse after closed head injury in children and adolescents. Brain and Language 1992;43:42–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald S. Pragmatic language skills after closed head injury: Ability to meet the informational needs of the listener. Brain and Language 1993;44:28–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt K. Syntactic maturity in school children and adults. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 1970;35(Serial No. 134).
   Google Scholar
• Kertesz A. Western aphasia battery. New York: Grune & Stratton; 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Hagan C, Malkmus D, Durham P. Levels of cognitive functioning. In: Hagan C, editor. Rehabilitation of the head injured adult: Comprehensive physical management. Downey, CA: Professional Staff Association of Rancho Los Amigos Hospital; 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Levin HS, O'Donnell VM, Grossman RG. The Galveston orientation and amnesia test: A practical scale to assess cognition after head injury. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 1979;167:675–684.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattis S. Mental status examination for organic mental syndrome in the elderly patient. In: Bellak L, Karasu TB, editors. Geriatric psychiatry. New York: Grune and Stratton; 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Hollingshead A. Four factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, Yale University, New Haven; 1972.
   Google Scholar
• Lezak M. Neuropsychological assessment. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Winter P. The bear and the fly. New York: Crown Publishers; 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes D, McGillvray L, Schmidek M. Guide to narrative language. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Revised ed. New York: Academic Press; 1977.
   Google Scholar
• Frederiksen CH, Bracewell RJ, Breuleux A, et al. The cognitive representation and processing of discourse: Function and dysfunction. In: Joanette Y, Brownell HH, editors. Discourse ability and brain damage: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1990. pp 69–112.
   Google Scholar
• Kintsch W, Van Dijk TA. Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review 1978;85:363–394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glosser G. Discourse production patterns in neurologically impaired and aged populations. In: Brownell HH, Joanette Y, editors. Narrative discourse in neurologically impaired and normal aging adults. San Diego, CA: Singular; 1993. pp 191–212.
   Google Scholar
• Ylvisaker M, Szekeres SF, Feeney T. Communication dis-orders associated with traumatic brain injury. In: Chapey R, editor. Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2001. pp 745–800.
   Google Scholar
• Ulatowska HK, Allard L, Chapman SB. Narrative and procedural discourse in aphasia. In: Joanette Y, Brownell HH, editors. Discourse ability and brain damage: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1990. pp 180–198.
   Google Scholar
• Penn C, Jones D, Joffe V. Hierarchical discourse therapy: A method for the mild patient. Aphasiology 1997;11:601–632.
   Google Scholar
• Snow PC, Douglas JM. Conceptual and methodological challenges in discourse assessment with TBI speakers: Towards an understanding. Brain Injury 2000;14:397–415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cannizzaro MS, Coelho CA. Treatment of story grammar following traumatic brain injury: A pilot study. Brain Injury 2000;14:397–415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parente R, Herrmann D. Retraining cognition: Techniques and applications. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers; 1996.
   Google Scholar