Introduction to the Special Issue: Select Papers From the Third International Cognitive-Communication Disorders Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessAmerican Journal of Speech-Language PathologyIntroduction23 Mar 2023Introduction to the Special Issue: Select Papers From the Third International Cognitive-Communication Disorders Conference Margaret Lehman Blake Margaret Lehman Blake https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6096-8174 University of Houston, TX Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJSLP-23-00050 SectionsAboutAbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Welcome to the second publication from the International Cognitive-Communication Disorders Conference! We're thrilled to share some of the content that was presented at the virtual conference sponsored by Chapman University in January 2022. This issue of AJSLP contains 10 papers from the conference. The papers reflect a variety of research methods (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods), kinds of articles (clinical focus, research, and viewpoints), a range of cognitive and communication impairments and severity levels, and perspectives from people with brain injury as well as health care providers and researchers from around the world. The papers present not only clinical challenges, but also some solutions for improving communication and quality of life for people with acquired brain injury. The issue begins with the description of a free neurorehabilitation clinic staffed by volunteers to fill the gap for people with physical, cognitive, and communication disorders (Haarbauer-Krupa et al., 2023). There are currently three such clinics in the United States (Colorado, Georgia, and Texas), and the information may spark others to develop more. In clinical practice, it can be invaluable to understand the perspectives of both clients and the providers. Christensen et al. (2022) interviewed health care workers' experiences in communicating with people with traumatic brain injury (TBI). They found that staff want to learn communication strategies and have additional resources, because they have personally struggled with the challenge of communicating with people with TBI. Hoepner and Keegan (2022) studied the other side of the coin, examining the experiences of people with TBI in health care settings. These individuals described their frustration with providers and reported that while finding supports is crucial, there is a lack of supports. Concussion recovery often is discussed as a dichotomous state: Either you have a concussion, or you've recovered from one. But people with concussion, according to Kemp et al. (2022), talk about recovery as an ongoing process and suggest that there is a need to reconceptualize the concept of recovery. Specifically in relation to mild TBI, Norman et al. (2023) explored the perceived relationships between cognitive-communication disorders (CCDs), concerns about cognition and communication abilities, and neurobehavioral symptoms. The individuals are aware of the consequences of CCDs on mental health, coping, and social participation. While these connections are well-established for more severe TBI, we now see that even mild TBIs impact success at work, school, and in relationships. People with TBI are interested in and can benefit from technology. But, it's not always easy. Two teams from Australia (Brassel et al., 2022; Brunner et al., 2022) describe the development and use of the Social-ABI-lity training program to improve use of social media and safety online, as well as the pros and cons of using virtual reality in cognitive-communication rehabilitation. There has been a growing awareness of specific populations that are especially affected by TBI and CCDs. Wiseman-Hakes et al. (2023) in Canada examined social communication after TBI in the context of the criminal justice system. While there were few overall differences in this group compared to others with TBIs, the impact may be much more severe because of the life-altering conversations that occur in the justice system, often involving complex and unfamiliar words, phrases, and concepts. The last two articles help us to consider how and why we do what we do in clinical practice. Morrow and Duff (2022) suggest that we should pay more attention to word learning and how that task can be used to better understand TBI, memory deficits, and the influence of various individual factors (e.g., sleep) that impact memory and learning. Keegan et al. (2022) provide a sociolinguistic model for CCD that is not just theoretical, but clinically relevant for planning assessment and treatment. I'd like to end with a note of thanks to the editors for this issue—Angela Ciccia, Katy O'Brien, and Emma Finch—who shepherded the papers through the review process. They did a fantastic job in finding reviewers and then consolidating the reviewers' recommendations to guide the authors in how best to strengthen their manuscripts. Thanks also to the reviewers who helped to make these papers stronger and, in some cases, brought up questions and ideas that will fuel future work. This issue would not have come to be without all of you. References Brassel, S., Brunner, M., Power, E., Campbell, A., & Togher, L. (2022). Speech-language pathologists' views of using virtual reality for managing cognitive-communication disorders following traumatic brain injury.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJSLP-22-00077 ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Brunner, M., Rietdijk, R., Avramovic, P., Power, E., Miao, M., Rushworth, N., MacLean, L., Brookes, A.-M., & Togher, L. (2022). Developing Social-ABI-lity: An online course to support safe use of social media for connection after acquired brain injury.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJSLP-22-00099 ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Christensen, I., Power, E., Togher, L., & Norup, A. (2022). “Communication is not exactly my field, but it is still my area of work”: Staff and managers' experiences of communication with people with traumatic brain injury.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJSLP-22-00074 ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Haarbauer-Krupa, J., Eugene, D., Wallace, T., & Johnson, S. (2023). Neurorehabilitation for the uninsured: Georgia Rehabilitation Services Volunteer Partnership Clinic.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJSLP-22-00100 ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Hoepner, J. K., & Keegan, L. C. (2022). “I avoid interactions with medical professionals as much as possible now”: Health care experiences of individuals with traumatic brain injuries.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJSLP-22-00103 ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Keegan, L. C., Hoepner, J. K., Togher, L., & Kennedy, M. (2022). Clinically applicable sociolinguistic assessment for cognitive-communication disorders.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJSLP-22-00102 ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Kemp, A. M., O'Brien, K. H., & Wallace, T. (2022). Reconceptualizing recovery after concussion: A phenomenological exploration of college student experiences.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJSLP-22-00076 ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Morrow, E. L., & Duff, M. C. (2022). Word learning as a window to memory and rehabilitation outcomes in traumatic brain injury.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJSLP-22-00073 ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Norman, R., Flaugher, T., Chang, S., & Power, E. (2023). Self-perception of cognitive-communication functions after mild traumatic brain injury.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJSLP-22-00101 ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Wiseman-Hakes, C., Magor, T., Bauman, N., Colantonio, A., & Matheson, F. I. (2023). Exploring the cognitive-communication challenges of adults with histories of traumatic brain injury and criminal justice system involvement: A pilot study.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJSLP-22-00086 ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Author Notes Disclosure: Margaret Lehman Blake is a conference program committee member for the ICCDC. Correspondence to Margaret Lehman Blake: [email protected] Editor-in-Chief: Katherine C. Hustad Publisher Note: This article is part of the Special Issue: Select Papers From the Third International Cognitive-Communication Disorders Conference. Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 32Issue 2SMarch 2023Pages: 815-816 HistoryReceived: Feb 7, 2023Accepted: Feb 9, 2023 Published online: Mar 14, 2023 Published in issue: Mar 23, 2023PubMed ID: 36917801 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library Metrics Topicsasha-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2023 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF downloadLoading ...
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".