Investigating the Day-to-Day Experiences of Users with Traumatic Brain Injury with Conversational Agents

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) can cause cognitive, communication, and psychological challenges that profoundly limit independence in everyday life. Conversational Agents (CAs) can provide individuals with TBI with cognitive and communication support, although little is known about how they make use of CAs to address injury-related needs. In this study, we gave nine adults with TBI an at-home CA for four weeks to investigate use patterns, challenges, and design requirements, focusing particularly on injury-related use. The findings revealed significant gaps between the current capabilities of CAs and accessibility challenges faced by TBI users. We also identified 14 TBI-related activities that participants engaged in with CAs. We categorized those activities into four groups: mental health, cognitive activities, healthcare and rehabilitation, and routine activities. Design implications focus on accessibility improvements and functional designs of CAs that can better support the day-to-day needs of people with TBI.Comment: In Proceedings The 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS'23

Facial affect recognition in context in adults with and without TBI

IntroductionSeveral studies have reported impaired emotion recognition in adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI), but studies have two major design features that limit application of results to real-world contexts: (1) participants choose from among lists of basic emotions, rather than generating emotion labels, and (2) images are typically presented in isolation rather than in context. To address these limitations, we created an open-labeling task with faces shown alone or in real-life scenes, to more closely approximate how adults with TBI label facial emotions beyond the lab.MethodsParticipants were 55 adults (29 female) with moderate to severe TBI and 55 uninjured comparison peers, individually matched for race, sex, and age. Participants viewed 60 photographs of faces, either alone or in the pictured person’s real-life context, and were asked what that person was feeling. We calculated the percent of responses that were standard forced-choice-task options, and also used sentiment intensity analysis to compare verbal responses between the two groups. We tracked eye movements for a subset of participants, to explore whether gaze duration or number of fixations helped explain any group differences in labels.ResultsOver 50% of responses in both groups were words other than basic emotions on standard affect tasks, highlighting the importance of eliciting open-ended responses. Valence of labels by participants with TBI was attenuated relative to valence of Comparison group labels, i.e., TBI group responses were less positive to positive images and the same was true for negative images, although the TBI group responses had higher lexical diversity. There were no significant differences in gaze duration or number of fixations between groups.DiscussionResults revealed qualitative differences in affect labels between adults with and without TBI that would not have emerged on standard forced-choice tasks. Verbal differences did not appear to be attributable to differences in gaze patterns, leaving open the question of mechanisms of atypical affect processing in adults with TBI

INCOG 2.0 Guidelines for Cognitive Rehabilitation Following Traumatic Brain Injury: What’s Changed From 2014 to Now?

IT IS CRITICAL TO KEEP clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) up to date through integration of the latest evidence. Therefore, it is with great excitement that the INCOG team presents the INCOG 2.0 Guidelines for Cognitive Rehabilitation Following Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). In this brief introduction, we provide an overview of changes in the evidence from 2014; share insights into the current state and challenges implementing cognitive rehabilitation; and provide an overview of INCOG 2022

INCOG 2.0 Guidelines for Cognitive Rehabilitation Following Traumatic Brain Injury, Part IV: Cognitive-Communication and Social Cognition Disorders

Introduction: Moderate to severe traumatic brain injury causes significant cognitive impairments, including impairments in social cognition, the ability to recognize others\u27 emotions, and infer others\u27 thoughts. These cognitive impairments can have profound negative effects on communication functions, resulting in a cognitive-communication disorder. Cognitive-communication disorders can significantly limit a person\u27s ability to socialize, work, and study, and thus are critical targets for intervention. This article presents the updated INCOG 2.0 recommendations for management of cognitive-communication disorders. As social cognition is central to cognitive-communication disorders, this update includes interventions for social cognition. Methods: An expert panel of clinicians/researchers reviewed evidence published since 2014 and developed updated recommendations for interventions for cognitive-communication and social cognition disorders, a decision-making algorithm tool, and an audit tool for review of clinical practice. Results: Since INCOG 2014, there has been significant growth in cognitive-communication interventions and emergence of social cognition rehabilitation research. INCOG 2.0 has 9 recommendations, including 5 updated INCOG 2014 recommendations, and 4 new recommendations addressing cultural competence training, group interventions, telerehabilitation, and management of social cognition disorders. Cognitive-communication disorders should be individualized, goal- and outcome-oriented, and appropriate to the context in which the person lives and incorporate social communication and communication partner training. Group therapy and telerehabilitation are recommended to improve social communication. Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) should be offered to the person with severe communication disability and their communication partners should also be trained to interact using AAC. Social cognition should be assessed and treated, with a focus on personally relevant contexts and outcomes. Conclusions: The INCOG 2.0 recommendations reflect new evidence for treatment of cognitive-communication disorders, particularly social interactions, communication partner training, group treatments to improve social communication, and telehealth delivery. Evidence is emerging for the rehabilitation of social cognition; however, the impact on participation outcomes needs further research

Exploring the valued outcomes of school-based speech-language therapy services: a sequential iterative design

BackgroundAchieving outcomes that community members value is essential to high-quality, family-centred care. These valued outcomes should inform the production and interpretation of research evidence. To date, outcomes included in studies of service delivery models for speech-language services in schools have been narrowly defined, and do not match the outcomes suggested as important by families, teachers, and children. The most important outcomes of school-based, speech-languages services have not been directly and systematically investigated. We aimed to address this gap by asking school community members what outcomes were most relevant to evaluating and improving the delivery of speech-language services in schools.MethodsA sequential, iterative mixed-method study was conducted using interviews with 14 family members, educators, and speech-language therapists that asked what outcomes or impacts of school-based services they considered most important or valuable. Summative content analysis was used to analyse the data. Structural topic modelling between rounds of qualitative analysis was used to describe both the quality and the quantity of the interview content. School community members’ perspectives were compared through estimation of topic proportions within interviews from each member group and through qualitative comparison.ResultsStructural topic modelling diagnostics and qualitative interpretation of topic output suggested a six-topic solution. This solution was estimated successfully and yielded the following topics: (1) meeting all needs appropriately, (2) teamwork and collaboration, (3) building capacities, (4) supporting individual student needs in context, (5) coordinating care, and finally (6) supporting core educational goals. Families focused on school-based services meeting all needs appropriately and coordinating care, while educators highlighted supporting individual student needs in context. By contrast, speech-language therapists emphasized building capacities and supporting core educational goals. All school community members agreed that current assessment tools and outcome measures were inadequate to capture the most important impacts of school-based services.ConclusionsOutcomes identified by school community members as important or valuable were broad, and included individual student outcomes, interpersonal outcomes, and systems-level outcomes. Although these outcomes were discussed by all member groups, each group focused on different outcomes in the interviews, suggesting differences in the prioritization of outcomes. We recommend building consensus regarding the most important outcomes for school-based speech-language services, as well as the prioritization of outcomes for measure development

Recommendations for the use of common outcome measures in pediatric traumatic brain injury research

This article addresses the need for age-relevant outcome measures for traumatic brain injury (TBI) research and summarizes the recommendations by the inter-agency Pediatric TBI Outcomes Workgroup. The Pediatric Workgroup\u27s recommendations address primary clinical research objectives including characterizing course of recovery from TBI, prediction of later outcome, measurement of treatment effects, and comparison of outcomes across studies. Consistent with other Common Data Elements (CDE) Workgroups, the Pediatric TBI Outcomes Workgroup adopted the standard three-tier system in its selection of measures. In the first tier, core measures included valid, robust, and widely applicable outcome measures with proven utility in pediatric TBI from each identified domain including academics, adaptive and daily living skills, family and environment, global outcome, health-related quality of life, infant and toddler measures, language and communication, neuropsychological impairment, physical functioning, psychiatric and psychological functioning, recovery of consciousness, social role participation and social competence, social cognition, and TBI-related symptoms. In the second tier, supplemental measures were recommended for consideration in TBI research focusing on specific topics or populations. In the third tier, emerging measures included important instruments currently under development, in the process of validation, or nearing the point of published findings that have significant potential to be superior to measures in the core and supplemental lists and may eventually replace them as evidence for their utility emerges