An analysis of communication in conversation after severe traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Communication disorders have been reported following severe traumatic brain injury. However, we have little information about patient behaviour during dyadic interaction. Here, we analyzed conversation at the rehabilitation and chronic phase post traumatic brain injury (TBI), to define the main mechanisms of verbal and non-verbal communication disorders and relationship with other cognitive difficulties. METHODS: Sixteen patients were evaluated at the rehabilitation phase (2-12 months) and 18 at the chronic phase (after 2 years) following severe TBI. They were compared with equivalent groups of matching (gender, age, education level) control subjects. We used the Lille Communication Test, which comprises three parts: participation to communication (greeting, attention, engagement), verbal communication (verbal comprehension, speech outflow, intelligibility, word production, syntax, verbal pragmatics, verbal feedback) and non-verbal communication (understanding gestures, affective expressivity, producing gestures, pragmatics, non-verbal feedback). We also investigated executive functions (Stroop test, trail-making test, categorical evocation), language (Montreal-Toulouse protocol) and behaviour (Neurobehavioural Rating Scale). Verbal communication disorders were relatively equivalent at the rehabilitation and chronic phases. RESULTS: Patients were impaired (P < or = 0.01) in their participation to communication, especially in greeting behaviour. Verbal communication was mostly affected by difficulties in producing fluent and intelligible language and using pragmatics (responding to open questions, presenting new information and introducing new themes, organizing discourse and adapting to interlocutor knowledge). Non-verbal communication was impaired by difficulties in using pragmatics (mostly adapted prosody). Participation and verbal communication correlated with the executive functions, language and behavioural assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Disorders of social communication justify systematic assessment in patients with TBI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".