Beyond Utterances: Distributed Cognition as a Framework for Studying Discourse in Adults with Acquired Brain Injury

Abstract

Considerable effort has been directed at understanding the nature of the communicative deficits observed in individuals with acquired brain injuries. Yet several theoretical, methodological, and clinical challenges remain. In this article, we examine distributed cognition as a framework for understanding interaction among communication partners, interaction of communication and cognition, and interaction with the environments and contexts of everyday language use. We review the basic principles of distributed cognition and the implications for applying this approach to the study of discourse in individuals with cognitive-communication disorders. We also review a range of protocols and findings from our research that highlight how the distributed cognition approach might offer a deeper understanding of communicative mechanisms and deficits in individuals with cognitive communication impairments. The advantages and implications of distributed cognition as a framework for studying discourse in adults with acquired brain injury are discussed.

Keywords

Distributed cognition - discourse - brain injury

• References

• 1 Coelho C. Discourse production deficits following traumatic brain injury: a critical review of recent literature. Aphasiology 1995; 9: 409-429
• 2 Snow PC, Douglas JM. Conceptual and methodological challenges in discourse assessment with TBI speakers: towards an understanding. Brain Inj 2000; 14: 397-415
• 3 Togher L. Discourse sampling in the 21st century. J Commun Disord 2001; 34: 131-150
• 4 Turkstra LS. Should my shirt be tucked in or left out? The communication context of adolescence. Aphasiology 2000; 14: 349-364
• 5 Heilman KM, Safran A, Geschwind N. Closed head trauma and aphasia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1971; 34: 265-269
• 6 Holland A. Language Disorders in Adults. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press; 1984
• 7 Levin HS, Grossman RG, Kelly PJ. Aphasic disorder in patients with closed head injury. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1976; 39: 1062-1070
• 8 Coelho CA, Liles BZ, Duffy RJ. Analysis of conversational discourse in head-injured adults. J Head Trauma Rehabil 1991; 6: 92-99
• 9 Hartley LL, Jensen PJ. Three discourse profiles of closed-head-injury speakers: theoretical and clinical implications. Brain Inj 1992; 6: 271-281
• 10 Mentis M, Prutting CA. Analysis of topic as illustrated in a head-injured and a normal adult. J Speech Hear Res 1991; 34: 583-595
• 11 Snow P, Douglas JM, Ponsford J. Conversational discourse abilities following severe traumatic brain injury: a follow-up study. Brain Inj 1998; 12: 911-935
• 12 Cherney LR, Shadden BB, Coelho CA. Analyzing Discourse in Communicatively Impaired Adults. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers; 1998
• 13 Marsh NV, Knight RG. Relationship between cognitive deficits and social skills after head injury. Neuropsychology 1991; 5: 107-117
• 14 Rousseaux M, Vérigneaux C, Kozlowski O. An analysis of communication in conversation after severe traumatic brain injury. Eur J Neurol 2010; 17: 922-929
• 15 McDonald S, van Sommers P. Pragmatic language skills after closed head injury: ability to negotiate requests. Cogn Neuropsychol 1993; 10: 297-315
• 16 Coelho CA. Management of discourse deficits following traumatic brain injury: progress, caveats, and needs. Semin Speech Lang 2007; 28: 122-135
• 17 Douglas JM, Spellacy FJ. Correlates of depression in adults with severe traumatic brain injury and their carers. Brain Inj 2000; 14: 71-88
• 18 Engberg AW, Teasdale TW. Psychosocial outcome following traumatic brain injury in adults: a long-term population-based follow-up. Brain Inj 2004; 18: 533-545
• 19 Wehman P, Kregel J, Sherron P et al. Critical factors associated with the successful supported employment placement of patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj 1993; 7: 31-44
• 20 McDonald S, Tate R, Togher L et al. Social skills treatment for people with severe, chronic acquired brain injuries: a multicenter trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 89: 1648-1659
• 21 Ylvisaker M, Turkstra LS, Coelho C. Behavioral and social interventions for individuals with traumatic brain injury: a summary of the research with clinical implications. Semin Speech Lang 2005; 26: 256-267
• 22 Youse KM, Coelho CA. Working memory and discourse production abilities following closed-head injury. Brain Inj 2005; 19: 1001-1009
• 23 Hollan J, Hutchins E, Kirsh D. Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 2000; 7: 174-196
• 24 Hutchins E. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 1995
• 25 Salomon G. Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1993
• 26 Cole M, Engestrom Y. A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In: Salomon G, ed. Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1993
• 27 Wertsch JV. Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1985
• 28 Vygotsky LS. Mind in Society, the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1978
• 29 Hutchins EL, Palen L. Constructing meaning from space, gesture, and speech. In: Resneck LB, Saljo R, Pontecorvo C, Burge B, eds. Tools, and Reasoning: Essays in Situated Cognition. Vienna, Austria: Springer-Verlag; 1997
• 30 Prior PA, Hengst JA. Exploring Semiotic Remediation as Discourse Practice. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan; 2010
• 31 Rogers Y. Distributed cognition and communication. In: Brown K, ed. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford, UK: Elsevier; 2006: 181-202
• 32 Hutchins E. Distributed cognition. 2000. Available at: files.meetup.com/410989/DistributedCognition.pdf Accessed October 15, 2011
• 33 Hengst JA, Duff MC, Dettmer A. Rethinking repetition in therapy: repeated engagement as the social ground of learning. Aphasiology 2010; 24: 887-901
• 34 Hengst JA, Duff MC, Prior PA. Multiple voices in clinical discourse and as clinical intervention. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2008; 43 (Suppl 1) 58-68
• 35 Hengst J, Duff MC. Clinicians as communication partners: developing a mediated discourse elicitation protocol. Top Lang Disord 2007; 27: 37-49
• 36 Tannen D. Talking voices: repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Camridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1989
• 37 Duff MC, Hengst JA, Tranel D, Cohen NJ. Talking across time: using reported speech as a communicative resource in amnesia. Aphasiology 2007; 21: 702716-
• 38 Clark HH, Wilkes-Gibbs D. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 1986; 22: 1-39
• 39 Hengst JA. Collaborative referencing between individuals with aphasia and routine communication partners. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2003; 46: 831-848
• 40 Krauss RM, Glucksberg S. The development of communication: competence as a function of age. Child Dev 1969; 40: 255-266
• 41 Duff MC, Hengst J, Tranel D, Cohen NJ. Development of shared information in communication despite hippocampal amnesia. Nat Neurosci 2006; 9: 140-146
• 42 Duff MC, Gupta R, Hengst JA, Tranel D, Cohen NJ. The use of definite references signals declarative memory: evidence from patients with hippocampal amnesia. Psychol Sci 2011; 22: 666-673
• 43 Duff MC, Hengst JA, Gupta R, Tranel D, Cohen NJ. Distributed impact of cognitive-communication impairment: disruptions in the use of definite references when speaking to individuals with amnesia. Aphasiology 2011; 25: 675-687
• 44 Hengst JA, Duff MC, Prior P. Re-situating brain injury within functional systems: bridging brain-behavior-environment. Paper presentation at: the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA); November 2010; Philadelphia, PA
• 45 Ylvisaker M, Feeney TJ. Collaborative Brain Injury Intervention: Positive Everyday Routines. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group; 1998
• 46 Clark HH. Using Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1996
• 47 Emery NJ. The eyes have it: the neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2000; 24: 581-604
• 48 Brinton B, Fujiki M, Sonnenberg EA. Responses to requests for clarification by linguistically normal and language-impaired children in conversation. J Speech Hear Disord 1988; 53: 383-391
• 49 Fussell SR, Setlock LD, Yang J, Ou J, Mauer E, Kramer ADI. Gestures over video streams to support remote collaboration on physical tasks. Hum Comput Interact 2004; 19: 273-309
• 50 Richardson DC, Dale R. Looking to understand: the coupling between speakers’ and listeners’ eye movements and its relationship to discourse comprehension. Cogn Sci 2005; 29: 1045-1060
• 51 Brennan SE, Chen X, Dickinson CA, Neider MB, Zelinsky GJ. Coordinating cognition: the costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search. Cognition 2008; 106: 1465-1477
• 52 Bara BG, Cutica I, Tirassa M. Neuropragmatics: extralinguistic communication after closed head injury. Brain Lang 2001; 77: 72-94
• 53 Evans K, Hux K. Comprehension of indirect requests by adults with severe traumatic brain injury: contributions of gestural and verbal information. Brain Inj 2011; 25: 767-776
• 54 Ekman P, Friesen WV. Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry 1969; 32: 88-106
• 55 Garrod S, Anderson A. Saying what you mean in dialogue: a study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition 1987; 27: 181-218
• 56 Brennan SE. Lexical entrainment in spontaneous dialogue. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Spoken Dialogue, Philadelphia, PA. 1996: 41–44
• 57 Loomis JM, Blascovich JJ, Beall AC. Immersive virtual environment technology as a basic research tool in psychology. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 1999; 31: 557-564
• 58 Scassellati B. Using social robots to study abnormal social development. Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Epigenetic Robotics: Modeling Cognitive Development in Robotic Systems July 22–24, Nara, Japan; 2005: 11–14
• 59 Mutlu B, Yamaoka F, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N. Nonverbal leakage in robots: communication of intentions through seemingly unintentional behavior. Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, San Diego, CA; March 2009:69–76
• 60 Turkstra LS, Brehm SE, Montgomery Jr EB. Analysing conversational discourse after traumatic brain injury: isn’t it about time?. Brain Impair 2006; 7: 234-245
• 61 Buder EH. A nonlinear dynamic model of social interaction. Communic Res 1991; 18: 174-198
• 62 Cappella JN. Mutual adaptation and relativity of measurement. In: Montgomery BM, Duck S, eds. Studying Interpersonal Interaction. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1991: 103-117
• 63 Newtson D. The dynamics of action and interaction. In: Smith LB, Thelen E, eds. A Dynamic Systems Approach to Development: Applications. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1993: 241-264
• 64 Montgomery Jr EBJ. A new method for relating behavior to neuronal activity in performing monkeys. J Neurosci Methods 1989; 28: 197-204
• 65 Lemke J. Across the scales of time: artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial Systems. Mind Cult Act 2000; 7: 273-290
• 66 Jorgensen M, Togher L. Narrative after traumatic brain injury: a comparison of monologic and jointly-produced discourse. Brain Inj 2009; 23: 727-740
• 67 Kilov A, Togher L, Grant S. Problem solving with friends: discourse participation and performance of individuals with and without traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology 2009; 23: 584-605
• 68 Tu LV, Togher L, Power E. The impact of communication partner and discourse task on a person with traumatic brain injury: the use of multiple perspectives. Brain Inj 2011; 25: 560-580