Search

Background: Right hemisphere communication disorders are neither consistently labelled nor adequately defined. Labels associated with right hemisphere brain damage (RHD) are broad and fail to capture the essence of communication challenges needed for stroke-related service provisions. Determination of rehabilitation needs and best-practice guidelines for the education, management and functional improvement of communication disorders after RHD are all predicated on an apt diagnostic label and disorder characteristics. Aims: In this paper "apragmatism" is proposed as a potential communication-specific diagnostic label for the impairments in communication that occur after RHD. In particular, the researchers aimed: (1) to establish an operational definition of apragmatism; and (2) to describe the linguistic, paralinguistic and extralinguistic communication deficits under the umbrella term "apragmatism." Methods & Procedures: An international collaborative of researchers with expertise in RHD followed a multilevel approach to consider the utility of apragmatism as a diagnostic label. Adopting the relational approach to concept mapping, the researchers engaged in a series of group meetings to complete four levels of mapping: (1) identify and review, (2) define, (3) expert discussion and (4) label determination. Main Contribution: Apragmatism was established as a suitable diagnostic label for the impairments in communication associated with RHD. The paper offers an operational definition and description of the linguistic, paralinguistic and extralinguistic features of apragmatism through evidence summaries and examples from people with RHD retrieved from the RHDBank. Conclusions & Implications: The adoption of the term apragmatism offers an opportunity to capture the hallmark of RHD communication deficits. The use of the term is recommended when referencing the pragmatic language impairments in this population. Apragmatism, which may co-occur with or be exacerbated by cognitive impairments, can interfere with the ability to interpret and convey intended meaning and impact the lives of right hemisphere stroke survivors and their families.

Purpose: Atypical pragmatic language can impede quality health care access. Right hemisphere brain damage (RHD) results in changes in pragmatic language use; however, little is known about whether there are racial/ethnic influences. Recent research indicated differences in question-asking when RHD survivors were compared with healthy controls, prompting the current examination of question production in women by race/ethnicity and the presence of RHD. Method: Participants were eight Black and eight White women who sustained a single right hemisphere stroke at least 6 months prior to data collection (2016-2020), and eight Black and eight White control participants from the Right Hemisphere Damage Bank (https://rhd.talkbank.org). Videos of informal, first-encounter conversational discourse tasks were transcribed and coded. Analyses were conducted for frequency of questions and question type. Results: Race/ethnicity had a statistically significant effect on the total number of questions and number of content and polar questions. The mean total of questions, number of content questions, and mean number of polar questions for Black participants was significantly less than White participants. There was less variability in question type for Black participants than White participants, and a tendency for Black participants to ask fewer questions regardless of RHD or control status. Conclusions: Acquisition of health information and ensuing health care might be less fruitful for Black women communicating with someone who may not know to conduct comprehension checks and be proactive in provision of information. To be culturally responsive to Black patients with communication disorders, providers might apply this awareness of reduced question-asking to their strategies to improve patient-provider communication.

Background: Right hemisphere brain damage (RHD) can cause challenges with information gathering. Cognitive processes aid in implicit and explicit information gathering, yet the relationship between these processes and question-asking, the most explicit avenue of information gathering, has not been explored. The purpose of this exploratory descriptive study was to test the hypothesis that adults with RHD differ from controls in the types of questions produced during a conversational discourse task and whether observed differences are associated with cognitive limitations. Method: Adults with RHD (n = 15) and controls (n = 15) participated in a 5-min "first-encounter conversation" and were assessed for attention, memory, executive functioning (EF), visuospatial skills, and language domains using the Cognitive Linguistic Quick Test (CLQT). Questions produced during the conversation were coded and tallied by type: polar (yes/no), content (wh-), or alternative (A or B) using Computerized Language Analysis programs. Groups were compared on total questions used, use of questions by type, and CLQT domain scores; associations were computed between cognitive domain scores and question types. Results: Compared with controls, adults with RHD used half as many questions overall and scored significantly lower on the attention, executive function, and visuospatial domains of the CLQT. For the RHD group, there was a significant correlation between EF scores and the production of content and polar questions. Conclusions: The frequency of question-asking is important to understanding the communication profile in adults with RHD. Executive function, attention, and, to a lesser extent, visuospatial capabilities may contribute to question-asking behaviors in conversation in this population. The RHD Framework for Asking Questions is proposed to illustrate the potential areas of deficit in the question-asking process after RHD.

Purpose: Diagnosis of language impairments after stroke is important to optimizing stroke outcomes. After right hemisphere brain damage (RHD), apragmatism can impact the comprehension and production of pragmatic language. However, despite decades of empirical evidence, there is no International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code for RHD pragmatic language impairments. The absence of an ICD code has far reaching ramifications that impact patient outcomes, including reduced clinical and public awareness, limited curricular content, and underdiagnosis. This viewpoint justifies the need to appropriately classify the pragmatic language symptomology after RHD with an ICD code., Conclusion: An ICD code can positively influence health care practitioner knowledge, education, and practice while informing public health considerations vital to epidemiological analyses.