Results supported the hypothesis. Story elicitation task differences, limitations of using simple memory span tests as indices of WM and clinical implications of the relationship between WM and discourse production are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: It is documented that individuals with closed head injury (CHI) demonstrate difficulty with narrative and conversational discourse. Effective conversational discourse requires a complex interaction of linguistic, cognitive, and social abilities [6]. Reduced attention and concentration are among the most common cognitive sequela following CHI [39]. Aims: The present study investigated whether treatment of attention would facilitate conversational discourse for individuals with CHI. Two treatment protocols were investigated, the first social skills-based, and the second attention-based. It was hypothesized that attention training would improve not only attentional skills but also conversation, however social skills training, would only facilitate conversational skills. Methods and Procedures: A single subject multiple treatments comparison design was employed with two individuals who were post-onset of CHI. Treatment effects on conversational performance were calculated using the f statistic [18] for measures of response appropriateness during conversations. Outcomes and Results: Effect sizes suggested that both treatments were active; however, the participants' performances were variable reducing the magnitude of change observed. Results indicated minimal change from baselines, only partially supporting the research hypotheses. Conclusions: Although the two treatment regimens had some effect on the participants' conversational performances it was not to the extent anticipated. The issues of candidacy for such treatments as well as the importance of incorporating natural contingencies into interventions for conversation training are discussed. discourse. Generally, individuals with CHI demonstrate difficulty with the dynamic aspects of conversation, which forces the communication partner to assume the greater responsibility for providing conversational structure [9,10,27,40,41]. Individuals with CHI appear less adept at developing and managing appropriate conversational content [40-42] and meeting the informational needs of the listener [22,34,35]. This is consistent with a noted decrease in response appropriateness [9,10], topic management [8,10,27], and cohesion [26] as well as the inclusion of irrelevant and tangential information [34,35]. As a result, conversations with individuals with CHI have been char-