Predicting discourse ability in TBI: Cognitive and communicative factors

预测 TBI 中的话语能力：认知和沟通因素

• 批准号: 8664736
• 负责人: Karen Le
• 金额: $ 4.04万
• 依托单位: UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT STORRS
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 财政年份: 2012
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2012-08-28 至 2014-07-27
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/8664736
• 关键词: Accounting; Adopted; Area; Brain; Clinical; Cognitive; Communication impairment; Complex; Comprehension; Data; Dependence; Development; Dimensions; Equation; Event; Foundations; Goals; Impairment; Individual; Influentials; Intervention; Knowledge; Language; Linguistics; Link; Literature; Marshal; Measures; Memory; Modality; Modeling; Neurologic; Outcome Measure; Participant; Performance; Population; Process; Production; Refit; Research; Resources; Role; Short-Term Memory; Solid; Structure; System; Testing; Traumatic Brain Injury; Update; Work; base; executive function; injured; insight; mental representation; public health relevance; skills; theories

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The goal of the proposed research is to advance our knowledge of cognitive-communicative disorders following traumatic brain injury (TBI) by identifying the cognitive and communicative processes underlying narrative discourse ability. Using structural equation modeling, the proposed research will examine the role of working memory (WM) and inferencing in narrative discourse and test key assumptions posited by the Structure Building Framework (SBF), a cognitive model of normative discourse comprehension. Aspects of executive functions, such as WM, have emerged as potential substrates of discourse. A related factor is inferencing, an often diminished ability in TBI. Discourse production deficits are well-documented in the TBI literature, but data on discourse comprehension in TBI is scarce. The extent to which discourse comprehension predicts discourse production remains unclear. The lack of a discourse model to explain cognitive-communicative breakdowns in neurologic populations hinders the development of theoretically-based discourse interventions. The SBF is a potential candidate, but its assumptions need to be tested, in particular the positing of deployed cognitive processes as domain-general. First, we examine the contributions of WM and inferencing to narrative discourse ability. Second, we test the hypothesis that discourse relies on domain- general processes by using verbal and nonverbal WM tasks. Third, we investigate the extent to which narrative discourse comprehension accounts for narrative discourse production. Analysis 1 uses verbal and nonverbal WM updating and inferencing tasks to predict performance on two narrative discourse comprehension tasks. Analysis 2 uses the same predictors as Analysis 1 to predict performance on two discourse production tasks, story completeness and story grammar. The literature suggests that WM underpins both discourse modes. If WM is domain-general in discourse, we predict that verbal WM will not account for discourse comprehension beyond that of nonverbal WM and vice versa. This hypothesis will hold if performance on verbal and nonverbal WM is highly correlated and the amount of variance in discourse tasks explained by the verbal and nonverbal WM is equivalent. If inferencing contributes to discourse ability after accounting for WM, this suggests that inferencing also marshals other cognitive processes. In Analysis 2, we predict that WM will carry more of the variance in the content measure, story completeness, than inferencing whereas inferencing will carry more of the variance in the organizational measure, story grammar. Analysis 3 examines the prediction of discourse production from discourse comprehension. The magnitude of the contribution of discourse comprehension to discourse production reflects the dependence of production on comprehension. A greater magnitude of the relationship implicates that discourse production and comprehension likely operate in the same system while a smaller one would suggest that comprehension and production operate as parallel systems that draw upon the same cognitive processes but to differing degrees.

描述（由申请人提供）：拟议研究的目标是通过识别叙事话语能力背后的认知和沟通过程来增进我们对创伤性脑损伤（TBI）后认知沟通障碍的了解。拟议的研究将使用结构方程模型来检验工作记忆（WM）和推理在叙事话语中的作用，并测试结构构建框架（SBF）（一种规范话语理解的认知模型）提出的关键假设。执行功能的各个方面，例如 WM，已成为话语的潜在基础。一个相关因素是推理能力，这是 TBI 中经常减弱的能力。 TBI 文献中详细记录了话语产生缺陷，但 TBI 话语理解的数据却很少。话语理解在多大程度上预测话语产生仍不清楚。缺乏解释神经群体认知沟通障碍的话语模型阻碍了基于理论的话语干预的发展。 SBF 是一个潜在的候选者，但其假设需要进行测试，特别是将已部署的认知过程定位为通用领域。首先，我们考察了 WM 和推理对叙事话语能力的贡献。其次，我们通过使用言语和非言语 WM 任务来检验话语依赖于领域通用过程的假设。第三，我们研究叙事话语理解在多大程度上解释了叙事话语产生。分析 1 使用言语和非言语 WM 更新和推理任务来预测两项叙事话语理解任务的表现。分析 2 使用与分析 1 相同的预测变量来预测两个话语生成任务（故事完整性和故事语法）的表现。文献表明 WM 支持这两种话语模式。如果 WM 在话语中是领域通用的，我们预测言语 WM 将不会解释超出非言语 WM 的话语理解，反之亦然。如果语言和非语言 WM 的表现高度相关，并且语言和非语言 WM 解释的话语任务的差异量相等，则该假设成立。如果在考虑了 WM 后推理对话语能力有所贡献，这表明推理还可以整理其他认知过程。在分析 2 中，我们预测 WM 在内容度量、故事完整性方面将比推理带来更多的方差，而推理将在组织度量、故事语法方面带来更多的方差。分析3检验了从语篇理解对语篇产生的预测。语篇理解对语篇生成的贡献大小反映了生成对理解的依赖程度。较大的关系意味着话语生成和理解可能在同一系统中运行，而较小的关系则表明理解和生成作为并行系统运行，它们利用相同的认知过程但程度不同。