Issue Of Topics Research Articles

Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Programs (ICAPs): Launching the next decade of research and clinical implementation

ABSTRACT Background The Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Program (ICAP) is a rehabilitation service delivery model initially articulated in a seminal article featured in the 2013 Special Issue of Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation. Over the past decade, the ICAP model has experienced a notable surge in prominence, leading to a burgeoning research base and worldwide implementation in clinical practice. Aim This special issue serves as a comprehensive exploration of how the theoretical underpinnings of the ICAP components manifest in contemporary practice by presenting recent outcomes from active clinical ICAPs. The primary objective of this introduction is to establish a contextual framework for the articles comprising this special issue. Main Contribution The introduction delineates the fundamental components of the ICAP model, offering succinct summaries of the relevant literature that catalyzed the conceptualization of these components by Rose and colleagues. Conclusions This introduction along with the collective works within this issue, positions the ICAP model within the broader aphasia rehabilitation continuum of care. Furthermore, it serves as a pivotal starting point for shaping the ICAP research agenda for the next decade. Specific expansions to the evidence are imperative, including single-site and multi-site randomized controlled trials featuring consistent outcome measures that include discourse measures and follow-up data points, investigations into cost-effectiveness and sustainability, and systematic examinations of the active ingredients of therapeutic elements within the model.

Motivation and Literacy Development in Students With or at Risk for Reading Difficulties and Other Diverse Learners

In this issue of Topics in Language Disorders, guest issue editor Dr. Eunsoo Cho invited authors to present research and ideas related to the role of human motivation in providing effective instruction and intervention for at-risk children and those identified with learning disabilities. Motivation is complex and multidimensional; nevertheless, it is an important factor to consider, as this collection of studies demonstrates. In the first article, Louick et al. conducted a systematic review of research that incorporated motivational constructs in vocabulary instruction for at-risk learners or those identified with learning disabilities. Of the 21 studies they reviewed, all integrated at least one aspect of motivation when providing vocabulary instruction/intervention. Many involved processes associated with self-regulation, such as goal setting and self-monitoring or using positive self-talk, or methods to enhance student interest in materials or the instructional delivery. Few studies explicitly acknowledged a theoretical framework for their approach to addressing motivation. In the second article, Cho et al., following a comprehensive review of major motivation theories and constructs, report a meta-analysis of 53 studies to examine the impact of motivation supports and strategies on reading outcomes for children with reading difficulties. They employed a “piggyback” approach to their analysis, using identified studies from a prior meta-analysis of reading interventions for K–5 students with or at risk for dyslexia. Of the 70 treatment conditions in these 53 studies, less than half included any motivational practices. Almost all of these (nearly 85%) included only motivational supports (e.g., game-like activities, opportunities for peer collaboration, focus on improvement), whereas the rest taught motivational strategies (e.g., setting goals and monitoring progress, making constructive attributions, using self-talk). Almost all of the treatment conditions that provided motivational strategy instruction also incorporated at least one motivational support. Although interventions with motivational strategy instruction tended to have larger effects than interventions with no motivational practices at all when examining effects on overall reading outcomes and word-level outcomes, these differences were not statistically different with various covariates considered. For reading comprehension outcomes, interventions with motivational strategy instruction and interventions with motivational supports had, on average, relatively larger effects than interventions that did not incorporate any motivational practices, but interventions with supports appeared slightly more beneficial. Again, these differences were not significant when covariates such as grade, sample size, intervention dosage, and so forth were included in analysis. Next, Al Otaiba et al. present results from a study, conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, in which the effects of a reading intervention with embedded growth mindset (i.e., reading ability is malleable) training delivered one-to-one through a virtual meeting platform was compared with business-as-usual instruction (most of reading instruction in this control condition was Tier 1) among fourth graders with weak reading skills. Although the authors did find a significant effect favoring the treatment group over the control group of the mindset-enhanced reading intervention on untimed letter and word reading, only nonsignificant but promising effects on untimed decoding and passage comprehension were observed. In addition, the research team found significant moderation by initial mindset for the word reading fluency and oral reading fluency outcomes, suggesting those with an incoming fixed mindset (i.e., reading ability is not amendable to change) may have benefitted more from the intervention and those with a more growth-oriented mindset may have benefitted more from the control condition on these outcomes. Thus, students with an intact growth mindset may not benefit much from more growth mindset training. In the last article in this issue, Camacho et al. explore the association between different motivational profiles, generated through cluster analysis, and writing performance in a sample of sixth-grade Portuguese students. Motivational profiles were based on students' implicit theories of ability (i.e., growth vs. fixed ability mindset) and achievement goals. Cluster analyses revealed two distinct writing motivation profiles—students with a growth mindset who were less oriented toward performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals and students with a fixed mindset who were more oriented toward performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals. Students in the growth mindset and less performance-oriented profile cluster wrote opinion texts with better quality and earned higher writing grades than students in the fixed mindset and more performance-oriented profile cluster. Overall, the articles in this issue of Topics in Language Disorders suggest that attending to motivation when providing instruction and interventions to students who struggle with literacy may be beneficial, though the evidence is in the emergent stages of development and thus far appears mostly suggestive but not conclusive in terms of the positive impacts associated with the addition of motivational supports and strategies. This issue should help readers come away with a greater understanding of the complexities of human motivation and ways in which it can be addressed in instructional and intervention contexts. —Gary A. Troia, PhD, CCC-SLP —Sarah E. Wallace, PhD, CCC-SLP Co-Editors

Stakeholder-Engaged Research: Examples From Aphasia

The other research ... it's like guinea pigs ... they tell you what is about and really you can't change it. —Participant B.G. from McMenamin et al. (2021, p. 6) In this issue of Topics in Language Disorders, Guest Issue Editor Dr. Jacqueline Hinckley invited research teams to share work influenced by stakeholder engagement via Project BRIDGE, a PCORI Eugene Washington Engagement-funded stakeholder engagement effort. As guest issue editor, she carefully crafted this issue to cover various types of stakeholder engagement and various outcomes of this process. First, Brancamp (2023) shares about the influence the project BRIDGE team had on her ongoing project related to posttraumatic growth in aphasia. Next, Szabo et al. (2023) describe the intersection of the Life Participation Approach to Aphasia with stakeholder engagement in aphasia research. Then, Off et al. (2023) describe their research, with students as engaged stakeholders further expanding the view and approach of stakeholder engagement in pedagogical research. The next two articles by Strong et al. (2023) and Madden et al. (2023) highlight the process and outcomes of stakeholder engagement in research about friendship and aphasia.1 Finally, Kim et al. (2023) describe how their team, which included multiple stakeholders, conducted a project about creating more aphasia-friendly retail businesses in their area. In summary, Dr. Hinckley and the authors of this issue (many of whom are stakeholders) provide multiple perspectives of the different strategies and approaches to stakeholder-engaged aphasia research. —Sarah E. Wallace, PhD —Gary A. Troia, PhD Co-Editors

Stuttering: Beyond Disfluencies

Rather than focusing on research topics that are in vogue at a particular points in time (e.g., kinematics in the 1980's), we need to accept a variety of perspectives.... Knowledge about all aspects of stuttering should be our goal, and our focus should be based on our clients' needs.... —Quesal (1989, p. 163) In this issue of Topics in Language Disorders, Guest Issue Editor, Dr. Amanda Hampton Wray, invited authors to highlight important current topics related to stuttering, with a particular emphasis on highlighting issues beyond dysfluencies. As guest editor, she carefully crafted this issue to cover multiple aspects of stuttering from research and theoretical updates, to considerations for therapeutic approaches, and finally to an intervention study with preliminary results. First, Brundage and Bernstein Ratner (2022) share a research update on the important interaction between language and stuttering, emphasizing that stuttering should be considered beyond only speech production. Next, Usler (2022) discusses the role of cognition in some aspects of stuttering, with particular emphasis on the experience of stuttering. Lescht et al. (2022) further explore aspects of linguistics and stuttering within their article about novel word learning. Then, Tichenor et al. (2022) highlight the importance of understanding the experience of people who stutter. Finally, Byrd et al. (2022) share preliminary results from their communication effectiveness intervention for adults who stutter. In summary, Hampton Wray (2022) and the authors of this issue provide an excellent overview of critical aspects of stuttering, calling for clinicians and researchers to focus their attention beyond disfluencies. —Sarah E. Wallace, PhD, CCC-SLP —Gary A. Troia, PhD, CCC-SLP Co-Editors

Preface for the Issue of Topics in Catalysis Memorial Issue Dedicated to Professor Michael S. Spencer

Preface for the Issue of Topics in Catalysis Memorial Issue Dedicated to Professor Michael S. Spencer

Directions in Addressing the Language and Literacy Needs of Children Across the Bilingual Continuum

One of the most widespread and harmful myths in our society is that very young children will learn a second language automatically, quickly, and easily—with no special attention to their needs for an optimal learning environment. —Catherine Snow There are many myths or misconceptions about bilingual children. One myth that we have come across frequently is that bilingual children experience the phenomenon of language confusion, an imagined condition in which children cannot separate their first language (L1) from their second language (L2) (Espinosa, 2013; Guiberson, 2013). In such instances, educators may erroneously view code-switching, a normal bilingual behavior in which children draw upon both languages within a given utterance, as evidence for language confusion or a general deficit in the ability to separate languages. The myth of language confusion is frequently used to justify an English-only approach to educational programming and discussions with families about choosing a language. Unfortunately, this line of flawed reasoning is applied to both typically developing children and those with language disorders. Language confusion does occur when educators become confused about bilingual children and their development. Bilingual children can be perplexing because there is a tremendous amount of variability in bilingualism, with L1 and L2 proficiencies that are dynamic across time and settings. That is, bilingualism operates on a continuum and the quantity, quality, and context of L1 and L2 exposure and usage are major sources of variability and influence on a child's bilingual profile. In this issue of Topics of Language Disorders, we hope to advance the understanding of the bilingual continuum across ages and educational settings. We have assembled original research and clinical tutorials with the goal of highlighting the unique language and literacy needs of children with diverse proficiencies in L1 and L2. In two of the articles, vocabulary teaching and learning for bilingual children is the focus. Ehren, Rosa-Lugo, and Hagan present an adapted version of the promising Vocabulary Scenario Technique that taps into L1 strengths while teaching L2. Roseberry-Mckibbin presents a clinical tutorial on ways to differentiate academic vocabulary instruction for bilingual children with developmental language disorders. This article also presents the use of L1 as a cross-linguistic tool to teach L2 vocabulary, as well as several other innovations to enrich vocabulary instruction. Two of the articles focus on addressing both language and literacy development in bilingual children. Guiberson reviews extant research and presents a descriptive study of early literacy behaviors of Spanish-speaking caregivers of 2- and 3-year-old children. Findings from the review and the descriptive study are combined, and 26 early literacy and language strategies are described. Fiestas and colleagues describe a packaged literacy and language intervention for primary- grade bilingual children. Incidentally, this intervention also targets vocabulary and the use of L1 to support new L2 development through both oral and print activities. It also includes narrative comprehension and production instruction and goals. The final study describes the use of English learner case simulations with graduate students in speech–language pathology to practice a strategy used with bilingual children that considers their language proficiency. Findings from this work show general benefits in graduate students' overall engagement and preparedness to consider English learners and their specific needs. Although we recognize there is a need for more research, particularly treatment research with bilingual children, it is our hope that this issue of Topics in Language Disorders will demonstrate that meeting the language and literacy needs of bilingual learners requires careful consideration and specialized instruction. We also hope this issue provides educators and researchers direction in addressing the complex and varied language and literacy profiles of bilingual children across the bilingual continuum. —Mark Guiberson, PhD —Linda I. Rosa-Lugo, EdD Issue Co-Editors

Introduction to topiCS Volume 13, Issue 3.

With the current issue of Topics in Cognitive Science, we are proud to present award-winning research again, starting off with a scholar's lifetime achievements distinguished by the Rumelhart Prize, then introducing the Best Papers from the 18th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling. The first topic honors Michelene (“Micki”) T. H. Chi (Arizona State University), the 19th recipient of the David E. Rumelhart Prize. With a background in mathematics and a strong interest in the science of education, Chi has conducted pioneering, widely cited, and highly influential work on the active role of learners in the learning process, from self-explanations to the development of expertise. Having been active in the society for almost her entire academic life, and elected one of its inaugural fellows in 2003, she received the award also referred to as “the Nobel Prize in Cognitive Science” in 2019, for having “challenged basic assumptions about the mind” more than once and for having “defined new approaches that have shaped a generation of cognitive and learning scientists.” Following a pithy introduction by former topiCS editor Wayne Gray, we are happy to present the paper based on her Rumelhart Lecture, on “Translating a theory of active learning,” in which she attempts to close the gap between research and practice by outlining a multistep translation research framework. The second part of this issue comprises revised and expanded versions of the four best papers presented at the 18th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, which took place last year fully virtually as was the case for so many other conferences. This batch has been curated by Topic Editors Terrence C. Stewart (National Research Council Canada) and Christopher Myers (Air Force Research Laboratory), who also introduce this selection of papers in more detail. Congratulations to all our authors for their awards––we hope you continue the outstanding work you are doing! topiCS encourages letters and commentaries on all topics, as well as proposals for new topics. Letters are not longer than two published pages (ca. 400–1000 words). Commentaries (between 1000 and 2000 words) are often solicited by Topic Editors prior to the publication of their topic, but they may also be considered after publication. Letters and commentaries typically come without abstract and with few references, if any. The Executive Editor and the Senior Editorial Board (SEB) are constantly searching for new and exciting topics for topiCS. Feel free to open communications with a short note to the Executive Editor ([email protected]) or a member of the SEB (for a list, see the publisher's homepage for topiCS: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1756-8765/homepage/EditorialBoard.html).

Enhancing Language Services to Native American Children: A Look From the Inside

Enhancing Language Services to Native American Children: A Look From the Inside

Reducing bias and increasing surgical knowledge: multicentre prospective breast cancer studies.

In the March issue of BJS several hot topics within the breast surgery field are highlighted in beautifully planned and executed prospective multicentre trials. BJS encourages the surgical communities in most fields to move towards prospective collaborative and multicentre studies, thereby increasing both power and generalizability as well as reducing the risk of bias.

From the Editors

Discourse analysis, thus, is essentially a contribution to the study of language “in use.” —Teun A. van Dijk (1985) In this issue of Topics in Language Disorders, Issue Editor Dr. Davida Fromm has invited authors to provide information about advances in discourse analysis related to neurogenic communication disorders. The study of discourse is critical because as van Dijk (1985) states, examining various facets of discourse allows researchers and clinicians to best capture functional production of spoken (and written) language. First, DeDe and Hoover (2021) use case studies of individuals with aphasia to illustrate the importance of selecting appropriate discourse measures using a person-centered approach. Next, Hengst and Sherrill (2021) discuss discourse analysis for people with complex communication needs who use augmentative and alternative communication within a theory of situated discourse analysis. Then, Steel et al. (2021) summarize the literature related to narrative discourse interventions for people with posttraumatic brain injury. Roberts et al. (2021) share findings from their large database of people with cerebrovascular disease related to a sequenced picture description task. Finally, to complete this well-rounded issue, Minga et al. (2021) provide an introduction to the RHDBank, which is a shared database that includes discourse samples of individuals with communication impairments following right hemisphere damage. In summary, Davida Fromm and the authors of this issue provide guidance to researchers and clinicians wishing to expand their knowledge and use of a wide variety of discourse analysis approaches. These contributions will move the field toward an improved understanding of language in use. —Sarah E. Wallace, PhD, CCC-SLP —Gary A. Troia, PhD, CCC-SLP Co-Editors

Introduction to Volume 12, Issue 4 of topiCS

Introduction to Volume 12, Issue 4 of <i>topiCS</i>

For the Sciences They Are A-Changin': A Response to Commentaries on Núñez et al.'s (2019) "What Happened to Cognitive Science?"

A recent issue of Topics in Cognitive Science featured 11 thoughtful commentaries responding to our article "What happened to cognitive science?" (Núñez et al., 2019). Here, we identify several themes that arose in those commentaries and respond to each. Crucial to understanding our original article is the fundamental distinction between multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary endeavors: Cognitive science began (and has stayed) as multidisciplinary but has failed to move on to form a cohesive interdisciplinary field. We clarify and elaborate our original argument and reiterate the importance of a data-driven evaluation of the current status of the field, which exhibits a marked disciplinary imbalance, a lack of a coherent conceptual core, and a striking absence of a consistent curriculum in the institutions that grant degrees in this domain. Half a century after the creation of cognitive science, it may now be a good time to revisit goals and visions for how to best approach the ever-fascinating scientific study of the mind(s).

Editors' Review and Introduction: Levels of Explanation in Cognitive Science: From Molecules to Culture.

Cognitive science began as a multidisciplinary endeavor to understand how the mind works. Since the beginning, cognitive scientists have been asking questions about the right methodologies and levels of explanation to pursue this goal, and make cognitive science a coherent science of the mind. Key questions include: Is there a privileged level of explanation in cognitive science? How do different levels of explanation fit together, or relate to one another? How should explanations at one level inform or constrain explanations at some other level? Can the different approaches to the mind, brain, and culture be unified? The aim of this issue of topiCS is to provide a platform for discussing different answers to such questions and to facilitate a better understanding between the different strands of thinking about the right levels of explanation in cognitive science.

Introduction to Volume 12, Issue 2 of topiCS

Two topics grace our second issue of Topics in Cognitive Science (topiCS) for 2020; (a) Lying in Logic, Language, and Cognition organized and edited by Hans van Ditmarsch (CNRS), Petra Hendriks (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen), and Rineke Verbrugge (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen), and (b) the Cultural Evolution of Cognition organized and edited by Sieghard Beller (formerly of the University of Bergen, Norway), Andrea Bender (University of Bergen), and Fiona Jordan (University of Bristol, UK). Ditmarsch, Hendriks, and Verbrugge bring us seven stimulating papers, each of which looks at various aspects of the human trait of lying. Puns and various other bad jokes aside, I can honestly say that this is a very interesting and wide-ranging topic, and I sincerely recommend it to our community. I also remind our community that, thanks to our publisher, the introductions written by our Topic Editors are available as free downloads to all. Our second topic is equally great and stimulating if dogged by a certain misfortune. It is quite clear that the influence of culture on cognition and the changes in that influence as culture evolves do not receive much attention in our research and theories. Hence, the papers in this topic are doubly welcomed: once for their excellence in scholarship and once for bringing a wide-range of methodologies and topics to their study of human culture. Left to the afterword is Keith Sterelny's interesting commentary on “Tough Questions, Hard Problems, Incremental Progress.” As a sad endnote to this introduction, as many but not all readers will know, Sieghard Beller died while the Cultural Evolution of Cognition topic was being written and edited. This work clearly shows his mark as does the journal, topiCS. Indeed, with the publication of this issue, topiCS is now honored to have been the recipient of three of Professor Beller's organizing efforts. The first, “Should Anthropology Be Part of Cognitive Science?” was published in volume 4, issue 3 (2012). The second, “Exploring Cognitive Diversity: Anthropological Perspectives on Cognition” appeared in volume 7, issue 4 (2015). Of course, the volume 12, issue 2 (2020) is the one before you. Sieghard's work for topiCS has always been a team effort with his wife and colleague Andrea Bender and these two have been joined by Douglas Medin in their first topic (2012) and Fiona Jordan for this one. To change topics, we remind our readers that, as always, our publisher, Wiley-Blackwell, allows us to offer the Topic Editors' introduction to their topics to all of our readers as a free download. To our readers, keep searching and reading topiCS for our high-quality, curated collections of papers on timely topics of interest to the broad cognitive science community. topiCS encourages letters and commentaries on all topics and proposals for new topics. Letters are typically 400–1,000 words (maximum of two published pages) and will be published without abstract or references (possibly 1–2 but usually none). Commentaries are often solicited by Topic Editors prior to the publication of their topic. However, commentaries after publication are also considered and should range between 1,000 to 2,000 words. Most commentaries would not have an abstract and would not include many references. The Executive Editor and the Senior Editorial Board (SEB) members are constantly searching for new and exciting topics for topiCS. Feel free to open communications with a short note to the Executive Editor (email: [email protected]) or an SEB member (SEB members are listed under the Editorial Board heading on the publisher's homepage for topiCS (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1756-8765/homepage/EditorialBoard.html).

From the Editors

In a recent survey study by Finestack and Sutterland (2018), formal language sample analysis (LSA) was reportedly used frequently to evaluate child language outcomes by less than a third of speech-language pathologists who provided early intervention services or who worked with elementary-aged children. The respondents indicated they most often employed mean length of utterance and type-token ratio as outcome measures when using language sampling as an evaluation tool for their clients. These survey results, along with results from other such surveys (e.g., Pavelko, Owens, Ireland, & Hahs-Vaughn, 2016; Westerveld & Claessen, 2014), were the impetus for this issue of Topics in Language Disorders, edited by Dr. Cheryl Scott. The group of articles in this issue addresses the potential for LSA to help identify spoken and written language difficulties, determine important therapeutic goals, and effectively monitor treatment progress when working with individuals who are at risk for or have been identified with a language disorder. These articles also shed light on many shortcomings of conventional LSA and associated measures (such as those mentioned earlier), while offering suggestions for overcoming at least some of these shortcomings using novel approaches and measures. We hope that these articles will inspire more practitioners and researchers to use formal LSA in their work on behalf of children and adults with language impairments and to think “outside the box” about the possibilities of LSA as a vital diagnostic and outcomes assessment tool. We suspect in the next decade or so, as efforts to deploy automation (e.g., the LENA [Language Environment Analysis] system) and artificial intelligence in linguistic applications (e.g., machine learning and natural language processing) continue to accelerate and improve, that the collection, transcription, and extraction of data from contextual language samples will be afforded without great effort or much time on the part of the clinician or researcher. The coupling of new and neglected clinical applications and measures discussed in this collection of articles with advances in technology and computing pose exciting future prospects for LSA, but as we see in this issue, LSA has much to offer even now. —Gary A. Troia, PhD, CCC-SLP Co-Editor —Sarah E. Wallace, PhD, CCC-SLP Co-Editor

Exploring the Prospective of Pre-Service Physics Teacher’s Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Case Study

Indonesia global assessment in 2017 and preliminary survey results illustrated the achievements of teachers’ cognitive abilities that were still low in terms of professional knowledge and pedagogic. This study were aimed to describe the existing conditions of the pedagogical content knowledge of physics teachers at the undergraduate level and predict future prospects about what pedagogical content knowledge the pre-service physics teacher (PPTs) will have by considering the futuristic aspects. This study used case-study qualitative research within a group of 52 mostly passive pre-service physics teachers during the fourth semester of their four-year graduate program. It focuses on the central issue of essential topics in school physics learning. The results of the document analysis indicated that they have not been able to design a learning scenario for each Physics essential material with reference to the development of science and technology. Then, they have not showed a good subject matter mastery for each Physics topic. This paper ultimately also explore a hypothetical model of learning strategies that has the potential to develop PPTs’ PCK through School Physics learning in college. This strategy is based on the future needs that must be mastered by students from an early age.

Editor's Introduction: 2017 Rumelhart Prize Issue Honoring Lila R. Gleitman.

This is the Editor's introduction to the Special Issue of TopiCS in honor of Lila R. Gleitman's receipt of the 2017 David E. Rumelhart Prize. The introduction gives an overview of Gleitman's intellectual history and scientific contributions, and it briefly reviews each of the contributions to the issue.

Preface for the Issue of Topics in Catalysis Dedicated to the Memory of Professor Frank S. Stone

Preface for the Issue of Topics in Catalysis Dedicated to the Memory of Professor Frank S. Stone

Introduction to Volume 11, Issue 4 of topiCS.

The October 2019 issue of topiCS encompasses two topics. We lead with Biette and Stone's topic, Remembering with Others and follow with a very different topic for topiCS that was sparked by a paper published in another journal titled, What Happened to Cognitive Science?. Lucas M. Bietti (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Télécom ParisTech, Interdisciplinary Institute for Innovation (i3), Paris, France) and Charles B. Stone (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and The City University of New York, both in NY, USA) have organized a topic based around the idea that “remembering the past through conversations with others is a uniquely human endeavor”. To this end, they have recruited researchers to write 10 research papers and five commentaries. In addition, their introduction to this topic is written to communicate their excitement and passion to a broad range of Cognitive Scientists – not simply to others working in this specialty area. As always, the Editors' introduction to their topic can be freely downloaded from our Publisher's website by anyone interested in this topic. Our second topic, Commentaries on Rafael Núñez's article, “What happened to cognitive science?” was inspired by a paper published by Núñez and colleagues1 this past June in Nature Human Behavior. In that paper, Núñez et al., provide bibliotechnic analyses in support of their hypothesis that, as a discipline, Cognitive Science has not fulfilled its early promise. Exactly what that “early promise” was as well as the nature of the evidence that Núñez and colleagues cite is discussed by 10 Commentaries written by one or a team of Cognitive Scientists – including one paper written by an entire Department of Cognitive Science. These 10 short papers provide an interesting snapshot of the angst and optimism in our research community in 2019. topiCS encourages letters and commentaries on all topics, and proposals for new topics. Letters are typically 400–1,000 words (max two published pages) and will be published without an abstract or references (possibly 1–2 but usually none). Commentaries are often solicited by Topic Editors prior to the publication of their topic. However, commentaries after publication are also considered and should range between 1,000 to 2,000 words. Most commentaries would not have an abstract and would not include many references. The Executive Editor and the Senior Editorial Board (SEB) members are constantly searching for new and exciting topics for topiCS. Feel free to open communications with a short note to the Executive Editor ([email protected]) or an SEB member (SEB members are listed under the Editorial Board heading on the publisher's homepage for topiCS http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1756-8765/homepage/EditorialBoard.html).

Issue Editor Foreword

A shift to patient-centered care and implementation of the World Health Organization's (WHO's) International Classification of Functioning and Disability (WHO, 2001) necessarily expands the envelope of care beyond the patients and their respective impairment(s). Health care professionals are increasingly assessing and treating activity and participation-level restrictions, as well as considering the environment and context within which the individual with the acquired neurological communication disorder lives. Although these health care changes are positive and important, an essential but often neglected element of the patient's environment is the family caregiver. The network of family caregivers (i.e., unpaid caregivers) who supports the lives of individuals with acquired neurological communication disorders is often invisible. As the aging population continues to grow, the use of family caregivers to assist in daily health care needs will also continue to grow. In some cases, family caregivers will experience negative effects of this new caregiving role. Third-party disability, defined as the disability experienced by others as a consequence of their family members' health condition (WHO, 2001), can lead to higher instances of depression, family strife, social isolation, as well as reduced physical and emotional well-being (Vedhara, Shanks, Anderson, & Lightman, 2000; Vitaliano, Young, & Zhang, 2004). Recognizing this impending caregiving crisis at the federal level, the Recognition, Assist, Include, Support, and Engage (RAISE) Family Caregivers Act (RAISE Family Caregivers Act, 2017) was recently passed as “...a strategy to acknowledge and aid unpaid family caregivers on a national level” (Kelly, 2018). With this federal bill in place, widespread change in service delivery systems becomes a possibility. This issue of Topics in Language Disorders offers a preliminary conversation about some of the issues related to caregiving for individuals with a variety of acquired neurological communication disorders. The first three articles (Grawburg, Howe, Worrall, & Scarinci, 2019; Off, Griffin, Murray, & Milman, 2019; Stead & White, 2019) focus on issues pertinent to family caregivers of individuals with aphasia. Off et al. (2019) review the impact of aphasia on family caregivers and describe an interprofessional caregiver intervention in the context of an intensive comprehensive aphasia program. Grawburg et al. (2019) review the impact of third-party disability in family members of people with aphasia, describe a tool for measuring the impact of aphasia on the family caregiver, and discuss the implications of integrating a family-centered approach into practice and policy. Stead and White (2019) discuss the loss of intimacy between partners that may accompany living with aphasia and describe an intervention that is designed to help couples focus on their relationship while living with aphasia. The next three articles focus on issues pertinent to family caregivers of individuals with other acquired neurological disorders (Bourgeois, 2019; Mach, Baylor, Hunting Pompon, & Yorkston, 2019; Thiessen & Beukelman, 2019). Mach et al. (2019) discuss the impact of third-party disability relating to family caregivers of people with communication disorders associated with Parkinson's disease. Bourgeois (2019) reviews evidence-based interventions for caregivers of persons with dementia. Finally, Thiessen and Beukelman (2019) examine the learning styles and motivations of individuals without training in augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) for the purpose of understanding how best to provide instruction to new caregivers of individuals who use AAC. With the reality of a changing health care landscape, it is essential that speech–language pathologists and related health care professionals begin to expand the envelope of care to include family caregivers and to redefine the “patient” to include both the patient and the family caregiver(s). As clinicians and clinical researchers move forward in their care of family caregivers, it will be important to document and investigate the impact that caregiver intervention and wellness may have on communicative participation for individuals with acquired neurological communication disorders. Furthermore, clinical researchers will need to explore how treating the patient and the family caregiver as a unit impacts outcomes for the patient, for the family caregiver, and for the patient–family caregiver unit as a whole. —Catherine Off, PhD, CCC-SLP Issue Editor —Kathryn Yorkston, PhD, CCC-SLP Issue Editor