How is right hemisphere communication disorder disabling? Evidence from response mobilizing actions in conversation

References

• Buntinx WHE, Schalock RL. Models of disability, quality of life, and individualized supports: implications for professional practice in intellectual disability. J Pol Prac Int Dis. 2010;7(4):283–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartley SD, Wirz SL. Development of a ‘communication disability model’ and its implication on service delivery in low-income countries. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(10):1543–1557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes S, Bloch S. Why is measuring communication difficult? a critical review of current speech pathology concepts and measures. Clin Linguist Phon. 2019;33(3):219–236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilari K, Cruice M, Sorin-Peters R, et al. Quality of life in aphasia: state of the art. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2015;67(3):114–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Dorze G, Signori FH. Needs, barriers and facilitators experienced by spouses of people with aphasia. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(13):1073–1087.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas J. So that’s the way it is for me — always being left out.”: acquired pragmatic language impairment and social functioning following traumatic brain injury. Brain Impair. 2017;18(3):321–331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finch E, French A, Ou R, et al. Participation in communication activities following traumatic brain injury: a time use diary study. Brain Inj. 2016;30(7):883–890.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker C, Worrall L, Rose M, et al. A systematic review of rehabilitation interventions to prevent and treat depression in post-stroke aphasia. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(16):1870–1892.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons-Mackie N, Raymer A, Cherney LR. Communication partner training in aphasia: an updated systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(12):2202–2221.e2208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Togher L, Wiseman-Hakes C, Douglas J, et al. INCOG recommendations for management of cognition following traumatic brain injury, Part IV: cognitive communication. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2014;29(4):353–368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hewetson R, Cornwell P, Shum D. Cognitive-communication disorder following right hemisphere stroke: exploring rehabilitation access and outcomes. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2017;24(5):330–336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackenzie C, Brady M. Communication difficulties following right-hemisphere stroke: applying evidence to clinical management. Eviden-Based Comm Assess Interven. 2008;2(4):235–247.
   Google Scholar
• Lehman Blake M, Frymark T, Venedictov R. An evidence-based systematic review on communication treatments for individuals with right hemisphere brain damage. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2013;22(1):146–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes S, Armstrong E. Conversation after right hemisphere brain damage: motivations for applying conversation analysis. Clin Linguist Phon. 2010;24(1):55–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehman Blake M. The right hemisphere and disorders of cognition and communication: theory and clinical practice. San Diego (CA): Plural Publishing; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Sherratt S, Bryan K. Discourse production after right brain damage: gaining a comprehensive picture using a multi-level processing model. J Neuroling. 2012;25(4):213–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Odell K, Wollack J, Flynn M. Functional outcomes in patients with right hemisphere brain damage. Aphasiology. 2005;19(9):807–830.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stella Stein M, Kilbride C, Reynolds FA. What are the functional outcomes of right hemisphere stroke patients with or without hemi-inattention complications? A critical narrative review and suggestions for further research. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38(4):315–328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hewetson R, Cornwell P, Shum D. Social participation following right hemisphere stroke: influence of a cognitive-communication disorder. Aphasiology. 2018;32(2):164–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron C, Goldsmith T, Beatty PW. Family and clinician perceptions of pragmatic communication skills following right hemisphere stroke. Top Stroke Rehab. 1999;5(4):55–63.
   Google Scholar
• Mackenzie C, Brady M, Begg T, et al. Communication ability following right brain damage: the family perspective. Adv Sp Lang Path. 2001;3(2):81–95.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes S, Toocaram S, Nickels L, et al. Everyday conversation after right hemisphere damage: a methodological demonstration and some preliminary findings. J Neuroling. 2019;52:1–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chantraine Y, Joanette Y, Ska B. Conversational abilities in patients with right hemisphere damage. J Neuroling. 1998;11(1–2):21–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brady M, Armstrong L, Mackenzie C. An examination over time of language and discourse production abilities following right hemisphere brain damage. J Neuroling. 2006;19(4):291–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy M. Topic scenes in conversations with adults with right-hemisphere brain damage. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2000;9(1):72–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff EA. Interaction: the infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language and the arena in which culture is enacted. In: Enfield NJ, Levinson SC, editors. Roots of human sociality: culture, cognition and interaction. London (UK): Berg; 2006. p. 70–96.
   Google Scholar
• Ferré P, Fonseca RP, Ska B, et al. Communicative clusters after a right-hemisphere stroke: are there universal clinical profiles? Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2012;64(4):199–207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff EA. Sequence organization in interaction: a primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers T, Rossano F. Mobilizing response. Res Lang Soc Interaction. 2010;43(1):3–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blythe J, Gardner R, Mushin I, et al. Tools of engagement: selecting a next speaker in Australian Aboriginal multiparty conversations. Res Lang Soc Interaction. 2018;51(2):145–170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers T. An overview of the question–response system in American English conversation. J Pragmatics. 2010;42(10):2772–2781.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers T, Robinson JD. A preference for progressivity in interaction. Lang Society. 2006;35:367–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolden GB. Across languages and cultures: brokering problems of understanding in conversational repair. Lang Soc. 2012;41(1):97–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidnell J, Stivers T, editors. The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester (UK): Wiley-Blackwell; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Humphreys GW, Bickerton W, Samson D, et al. BCoS: brain behaviour analysis. Hove (UK): Psychology Press; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Joanette Y, Ska B, Cote H, et al. Montreal Protocol for the Evaluation of Communication (MEC Protocol). Sydney (AU): ASSBI Resources; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Hepburn A, Bolden GB. Transcribing for social research. London (UK): Sage; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers T, Enfield NJ, Brown P, et al. Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proc Natl Acad Sci Usa. 2009;106(26):10587–10592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blythe J. Recruitments in Murrinhpatha and the preference organisation of their possible responses. In: Floyd S, Rossi G, Enfield NJ, editors. Getting others to do things: a pragmatic typology of recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press; forthcoming. p. 1–49.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner R. When listeners talk: response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam (NL): Benjamins; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage J. The epistemic engine: sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Res Lang Soc Interaction. 2012;45(1):30–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes S. Right hemisphere damage and other-initiation of repair in everyday conversation. Clin Ling Phon. 2019. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2019.1700309
   Google Scholar
• Englert C. Questions and responses in Dutch conversations. J Pragmatics. 2010;42(10):2666–2684.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann T. The question–response system of Danish. J Pragmatics. 2010;42(10):2703–2725.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossano F. Questioning and responding in Italian. J Pragmatics. 2010;42(10):2756–2771.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloch S, Wilkinson R. Acquired dysarthria in conversation: identifying sources of understandability problems. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2009;44(5):769–783.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloch S, Beeke S. Co-constructed talk in the conversations of people with dysarthria and aphasia. Clin Linguist Phon. 2008;22(12):974–990.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laakso M, Klippi A. A closer look at the ‘hint and guess’ sequences in aphasic conversation. Aphasiology. 1999;13(4–5):345–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antaki C, Crompton R, Walton C, et al. How adults with a profound intellectual disability engage others in interaction. Sociol Health Illn. 2017;39(4):581–598.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKeon A, McCue M, Skidmore E, et al. Ecological momentary assessment for rehabilitation of chronic illness and disability. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(8):974–987.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enfield NJ. Elements of agency. In: Enfield NJ, Kockelman P, editors. Distributed agency. New York (US): Oxford University Press; 2017. p 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Beeke S, Maxim J, Wilkinson R. Using conversation analysis to assess and treat people with aphasia. Semin Speech Lang. 2007;28(2):136–147.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Waring HZ, Creider S, Tarpey T, et al. A search for specificity in understanding. CA and Context. Discourse Stud. 2012;14(4):477–492.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lock S, Wilkinson R, Bryan K. Supporting partners of people with aphasia in relationships and conversation (SPPARC): a resource pack. Bichester (UK): Speechmark; 2001.
   Google Scholar