Abstract
The conversational language of individuals with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) is circumstantial. The micro- and macrolinguistic underpinnings of this disturbance in narrative discourse, and the role of epilepsy and cognitive variables warrants exploration. We examined the elicited narrative output of 15 surgically-naïve individuals with TLE and 14 healthy controls. To replicate and extend Field and colleagues’ (2000) work, participants were shown an eight-frame cartoon Cowboy Story from Joanette and colleagues (1986) and were asked to produce five immediately consecutive elicitations of the narrative. Following transcription and coding, detailed multi-level discourse analysis demonstrated a typical pattern of compression across repetitions in controls. They produce increasingly concise and coherent output, reflective of a refined mental representation of the narrative, while individuals with TLE fail to do so. The narratives produced by individuals with TLE do not compromise the essential story components, although they are less informative overall: producing fewer novel units, and introducing more content that is repetitive, extraneous, and does not progress the narrative. Their narratives are ultimately less fluent, less cohesive, and less coherent relative to controls. Change across trials suggests that there are significant group by trial interactions in sample length, spontaneous duration, and total statements, which are not explained by seizure burden, age, or lexical retrieval deficits among those with TLE. These findings replicate the pattern of findings previously identified by Field and colleagues (2000), with novel insights into the macrolinguistic disturbances that characterise their narrative discourse over sequential repetitions. These findings suggest that individuals with TLE do not benefit from repeated engagement with a narrative in the same way that neurologically normal individuals do. We conclude that disturbances to social cognition and ultimately pragmatics in TLE might underpin inefficiencies in their communication.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was financially supported by the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship (Stipend and Fee offset) awarded by the Australian Commonwealth Government and the University of Melbourne to the first author
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This multi-site study received ethical approval from the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee (Royal Melbourne Hospital) under National Mutual Acceptance
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Figure 1 revised
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
