Episode 126: Collaborative Referencing with Dr. Suma Devanga

 

Lyssa Rome is a speech-language pathologist in the San Francisco Bay Area. She is on staff at the Aphasia Center of California, where she facilitates groups for people with aphasia and their care partners. She owns an LPAA-focused private practice and specializes in working with people with aphasia, dysarthria, and other neurogenic conditions. She has worked in acute hospital, skilled nursing, and continuum of care settings. Prior to becoming an SLP, Lyssa was a public radio journalist, editor, and podcast producer.

In this episode, Lyssa Rome interviews Dr. Suma Devanga about collaborative referencing, gesture, and building rich communicative environments for people with aphasia.

 

Guest info

Dr. Suma Devanga is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Disorders and Sciences at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, where she also serves as the director of the Aphasia Research Lab. She completed her PhD in Speech and Hearing science from the University of Illinois. Urbana Champaign in 2017. Dr. Devanga is interested in studying aphasia interventions and their impacts on people's everyday communication. Her recent work includes investigating a novel treatment called the Collaborative Referencing Intervention for Individuals with aphasia, using discourse analysis methods and patient reported outcome measures, studying group-based treatments for aphasia, and studying the use of gestures in aphasia. Additionally, she is involved in teaching courses on aphasia and cognitive communication disorders to graduate SLP students at Rush. She also provides direct patient care and graduate clinical supervision at Rush outpatient clinics.

 

Listener Take-aways

In today’s episode you will:

• Understand the role of collaborative referencing in everyday communication.
• Learn about Collaborative Referencing Intervention.
• Describe how speech-language pathologists can create rich communicative environments.

 

Edited transcript

 

Lyssa Rome

Welcome to the Aphasia Access Aphasia Conversations Podcast. I'm Lyssa Rome. I'm a speech language pathologist on staff at the Aphasia Center of California, and I see clients with aphasia and other neurogenic communication disorders in my LPAA-focused private practice. I'm also a member of the Aphasia Access podcast Working Group. Aphasia Access strives to provide members with information, inspiration, and ideas that support their aphasia care through a variety of educational materials and resources.

 

I'm today's host for an episode that will feature Dr. Suma Devanga, who is selected as a 2024 Tavistock Trust for Aphasia Distinguished Scholar, USA and Canada. In this episode, we'll be discussing Dr. Devanga’s research on collaborative referencing, gesture, and building rich communicative environments for people with aphasia.

 

Suma Devanga is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Disorders and Sciences at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, where she also serves as the director of the Aphasia Research Lab. She completed her PhD in Speech and Hearing science from the University of Illinois. Urbana Champaign in 2017. Dr. Devanga is interested in studying aphasia interventions and their impacts on people's everyday communication. Her recent work includes investigating a novel treatment called the Collaborative Referencing Intervention for Individuals with aphasia, using discourse analysis methods and patient reported outcome measures, studying group-based treatments for aphasia, and studying the use of gestures in aphasia. Additionally, she is involved in teaching courses on aphasia and cognitive communication disorders to graduate SLP students at Rush. She also provides direct patient care and graduate clinical supervision at Rush outpatient clinics. Suma Devanga, thank you so much for joining us today. I'm really happy to be talking with you.

 

Suma Devanga

Thank you, Lyssa, thank you for having me. And I would also like to thank Aphasia Access for this wonderful opportunity, and the Tavistock Trust for Aphasia and the Duchess of Bedford for recognizing my research through the Distinguished Scholar Award.

 

Lyssa Rome

So I wanted to start by asking you how you became interested in aphasia treatment.

 

Suma Devanga

I became interested in aphasia during my undergraduate and graduate programs, which was in speech language pathology in Mysore in India. I was really drawn to this population because of how severe the consequences were for these individuals and their families after the onset of aphasia. So I met hundreds of patients and families with aphasia who were really devastated by this sudden condition, and they were typically left with no job and little means to communicate with family and friends. So as a student clinician, I was very, very motivated to help these individuals in therapy, but when I started implementing the treatment methods that I had learned, what I discovered was that my patients were showing improvements on the tasks that we worked on in therapy. Their scores on clinical tasks also were improving, but none of that really mattered to them. What they really wanted was to be able to easily communicate with family, but they continued to struggle on that, and none of the cutting-edge treatment methods that I learned from this highly reputable program in India were impacting my patients’ lives.

 

So I really felt lost, and that is when I knew that I wanted to do a PhD and study this topic more closely, and I was drawn to Dr. Julie Hengst’s work, which looked at the bigger picture in aphasia. She used novel theoretical frameworks and used discourse analysis methods for tracking patient performance, as opposed to clinical tests. So I applied to the University of Illinois PhD program, and I'm so glad that she took me on as her doctoral student. And so that is how I ended up moving from India to the US and started my work in aphasia.

 

Lyssa Rome

I think that a lot of us can probably relate to what you're describing—that just that feeling of frustration when a patient might improve on some sort of clinical tasks, but still says this is not helping me in my life, and I know that for me, and I think for others, that is what has drawn us to the LPAA.

 

I wanted to sort of dive into your research by asking you a little bit more about rich communicative environments, and what you mean by that, and what you mean when you talk about or write about distributed communication frameworks.

 

Suma Devanga

So since I started my PhD, I have been interested in understanding how we can positively impact everyday communication for our patients with aphasia. As a doctoral student, I delved more deeply into the aphasia literature and realized that what I observed clinically with my patients in India was consistent with what was documented in the literature, and that was called the clinical-functional gap. And this really refers to the fact that we have many evidence-based aphasia treatments that do show improvements on clinical tasks or standardized tests, but there is very limited evidence on these treatments improving the functional use of language or the everyday communication, and this remains to be true even today.

 

So I think it becomes pretty important to understand what we are dealing with, like what is everyday communication? And I think many aphasia treatments have been studying everyday communication or conversational interactions by decontextualizing them or reducing them into component parts, like single words or phrases, and then we work our way up to sentence structures. Right? So this approach has been criticized by some researchers like Clark, who is an experimental psychologist, and he called such tasks as in vacuo, meaning that they are not really capturing the complexity of conversational interactions. So basically, even though we are clinicians, our ultimate goal is improving everyday communication, which is rich and emergent and complex, we somehow seem to be using tasks that are simplified and that removes all of these complexities and focuses more on simple or specific linguistic structures. So to understand the complexities of everyday communication, we have shifted to the distributed communication framework, which really originates from the cultural historical activity theories and theories from linguistic anthropology.

 

Dr. Julie Hengst actually proposed the distributed communication theory in her article in the Journal of Communication Disorders in 2015, which highlights that communication is not just an individual skill or a discrete concept, but it is rather distributed. And it is distributed in three ways: One is that it is distributed across various resources. We communicate using multiple resources, not just language. We sign, we use gestures, or facial expressions. We also interpret messages using such resources like dialects and eye gaze and posture, the social context, cultural backgrounds, the emotional states that we are in, and all of that matters. And we all know this, right? This is not new, and yet, we often give credit to language alone for communication, when in reality, we constantly use multiple resources. And the other key concept of distributed communication theory is that communication is embedded in socio- cultural activities. So depending on the activity, which can be a routine family dinnertime conversation or managing relationships with your co workers, the communicative resources that you use, their motives, and the way you would organize it, all of that would vary. And finally, communication is distributed across time. And by that we mean that people interpret and understand present interactions through the histories that they have experienced over time. For example, if you're at work and your manager says you might want to double check your reports before submitting them based on prior interactions with the manager and the histories you've shared with them, you could interpret that message either as a simple suggestion or that there is a lack of trust in your work. So all in all, communication, I think, is a joint activity, and I think we should view it as a joint activity, and it depends on people's ability to build common ground with one another and draw from that common ground to interpret each other's messages.

 

Lyssa Rome

I feel like that framework is really helpful, and it makes a lot of sense, especially as a way of thinking about the complexity of language and the complexity of what we're trying to do when we are taking a more top-down approach. So that's the distributed communication theory. And it sounds like the other framework that has really guided your research is rich communicative environments. And I'm wondering if you could say a little bit more about that.

 

Suma Devanga

Absolutely. So this work originates from about 80 years of research in neuroscience, where rodents and other animals with acquired brain injuries showed greater neuroplastic changes and improved functions when they were housed in complex environments. In fact, complex environments are considered to be the most well replicated approach to improve function in animal models of acquired brain injury.

 

So Dr. Julie Hengst, Dr. Melissa Duff, and Dr. Theresa Jones translated these findings to support communication for humans with acquired brain injuries. And they called it the rich communicative environments. The main goal of this is to enrich the clinical environments. And how we achieve that is by ensuring that there is meaningful complexity in our clinical environments, and that you do that by ensuring that our patients, families, and clinicians use multimodal resources, and also to aim for having multiple communication partners within your sessions who can fluidly shift between various communicative roles, and to not just stay in that clinician role, for example.

 

Another way to think about enriching clinical environments is to think about ensuring that there is voluntary engagement from our patients, and you do that by essentially designing personally meaningful activities, rather than focusing on rehearsing fixed linguistic form or having some predetermined goals.

 

And the other piece of the enrichment is, how do we ensure there is a positive experiential quality for our patients within our sessions. And for this rather than using clinician-controlled activities with rigid interactional roles, providing opportunities for the patients to share stories and humor would really, you know, ensure that they are also engaging with the tasks with you and having some fun. So all of this put together would lead to a rich communicative environment.

 

Lyssa Rome

It sounds like what you're describing is the kind of speech therapy environment and relationship that is very much person-centered and focused on natural communication, or natural communicative contexts and the kinds of conversations that people have in their everyday lives, rather than more sort of strict speech therapy protocol that might have been more traditional. I also want to ask you to describe collaborative referencing and collaborative referencing intervention.

 

Suma Devanga

Yes, absolutely. So traditionally, our discipline has viewed word-finding or naming as a neurolinguistic process where you access semantic meanings from a lexicon, which you use to generate verbal references. And that theoretical account conceptualizes referencing as an isolated process, where one individual has the skill of retrieving target references from their stores of linguistic forms and meanings, right? So in contrast to that, the distributed communication perspective views referencing as a process where speakers’ meanings are constructed within each interaction, and that is based on the shared histories of experiences with specific communication partners and also depending on the social and physical contexts of the interaction as well.

 

Now this process of collaborative referencing is something that we all do every single day. It is not just a part of our everyday communication, but without collaborative referencing, you cannot really have a conversation with anyone. You need to have some alignment, some common ground for communicating with others. This is a fundamental feature of human communication, and this is not new. You know, there is lots of work being done on this, even in childhood language literature as well.

 

Collaborative referencing was formally studied by Clark, who is the experimental psychologist. And he studied this in healthy college students, and he used a barrier task experiment for it. So a pair of students sat across from each other with a full barrier that separated them so they could not see each other at all, and each student had a board that was numbered one through 12, and they were given matching sets of 12 pictures of abstract shapes called tangrams. One participant was assigned as the director, who arranged the cards on their playing board and described their locations to the other, who served as the matcher and matched the pictures to their locations on their own board. So the pair completed six trials with alternating turns, and they use the same cards with new locations for each trial. And what they found was that the pairs had to really collaborate with each other to get those descriptions correct so that they are placed correctly on the boards.

 

So in the initial trials, the pairs had multiple turns of back and forth trying to describe these abstract shapes. For example, one of the pictures was initially described as “This picture that looks like an angel or something with its arms wide open.” And there had to be several clarifying questions from the partner, and then eventually, after playing with this picture several times, the player just had to say “It's the angel,” and the partner would be able to know which picture that was so as the pairs built their common ground, the collaborative effort, or the time taken to complete each trial, and the number of words they used and the number of turns they took to communicate about those pictures declined over time, and the labels itself, or the descriptions of pictures, also became more streamlined as the as time went by.

 

So Hengst and colleagues wanted to study this experiment in aphasia, TBI, amnesia, and Alzheimer's disease as well. So they adapted this task to better serve this population and also to align with the distributed communication framework. And surprisingly, they found consistent results that despite aphasia or other neurological conditions, people were still able to successfully reference, decrease collaborative effort over time and even streamline their references. But more surprisingly, people were engaged with one another. They were having really rich conversations about these pictures. They were sharing jokes, and really seemed to be enjoying the task itself.

 

So Hengst and colleagues realized that this has a lot of potential, and they redesigned the barrier task experiment as a clinical treatment using the principles of the distributed communication framework and the rich communicative environment. So that redesign included replacing the full barrier with a partial barrier to allow multimodal communication, and using personal photos of the patients instead of the abstract shapes to make it more engaging for the patients, and also asking participants to treat this as a friendly game and to have fun. So that is the referencing itself and the research on collaborative referencing, and that is how it was adapted as a treatment as well.

 

And in order to help clinicians easily implement this treatment, I have used the RTSS framework, which is the rehabilitation treatment specification system, to explain how CRI works and how it can be implemented. And this is actually published, and it just came out in the most recent issue in the American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, which I'm happy to share.

 

Lyssa Rome

And we'll put that link into the show notes.

 

Suma Devanga

Perfect. So CRI is designed around meaningful activities like the game that authentically provides repeated opportunities for the client and the clinician to engage in the collaborative referencing process around targets that they really want to be talking about, things that are relevant to patients, everyday communication goals, it could be things, objects of interest, and not really specific words or referencing forms.

 

So the implementation of the CRI involves three key ingredients. One is jointly developing the referencing targets and compiling the images so clinicians would sit down with the patients and the families to identify at least 30 targets that are meaningful and important to be included in the treatment. And we need two perspectives, or two views, or two pictures related to the same target that needs to be included in the treatment. So we will have 60 pictures overall. An example is two pictures from their wedding might be an important target for patients to be able to talk about. Two pictures from a Christmas party, you know, things like that. So this process of compilation of photos is also a part of the treatment itself, because it gives the patients an opportunity to engage with the targets.

 

The second ingredient is engaging in the friendly gameplay itself. And the key really here is the gameplay and to treat it as a gameplay. And this includes 15 sessions with six trials in each session, where you, as the clinician and the client will both have matching sets of 12 pictures, and there is a low barrier in between, so you cannot see each other's boards, but you can still see the other person. So you will both take turns being the director and the matcher six times, and describe and match the pictures to their locations, and that is just the game. The only rule of the game is that you cannot look over the barrier. You are encouraged to talk as much as you like about the pictures. In fact, you are encouraged to talk a lot about the pictures and communicate in any way.

 

The third ingredient is discussing and reflecting on referencing. And this happens at the end of each session where patients are asked to think back and reflect and say what the agreed upon label was for each card. And this, again, gives one more opportunity for the patients to engage with the target.

 

The therapeutic mechanism, or the mechanism of action, as RTSS likes to call it, is the rich communicative environment itself, you know, and how complex the task is, and how meaningful and engaging the task has to be, as well as the repeated engagement in the gameplay, because we are doing this six times in each session, and we are repeatedly engaging with those targets when describing them and placing them.

 

So what we are really targeting with CRI is collaborative referencing and again, this does not refer to the patient's abilities to access or retrieve those words from their stores. Instead, we are targeting people's joint efforts in communicating about these targets, their efforts in building situated common ground. That's what we are targeting. We are targeting their alignment with one another, and so that is how we define referencing. And again, we are targeting this, because that is how you communicate every day.

 

Lyssa Rome

That sounds like a really fascinating and very rich intervention. And I'm wondering if you can tell us a little bit about the research that you've done on it so far.

 

Suma Devanga

Absolutely. So in terms of research on CRI thus far, we have completed phase one with small case studies that were all successful, and my PhD dissertation was the first phase two study, where we introduced an experimental control by using a multiple-probe, single-case experimental design on four people with aphasia, and we found significant results on naming. And since then, I have completed two replication studies in a total of nine participants with aphasia. And we have found consistent results on naming. In terms of impact on everyday interactions, we have found decreased trouble sources, or communicative breakdowns, you can call it, and also decreased repairs, both of which indicated improved communicative success within conversational interactions. So we are positive, and we plan to continue this research to study its efficacy within a clinical trial.

 

Lyssa Rome

That's very encouraging. So how can clinicians target collaborative referencing by creating a rich communicative environment?

 

Suma Devanga

Yeah, well, CRI is one approach that clinicians can use, and I'm happy to share the evidence we have this far, and there is more to come, hopefully soon, including some clinical implementation studies that clinicians can use. But there are many other ways of creating rich communicative environments and targeting referencing within clinical sessions. I think many skilled clinicians are already doing it in the form of relationship building, by listening closely to their patients, engaging with them in authentic conversations, and also during education and counseling sessions as well.

 

In addition to that, I think group treatment for aphasia is another great opportunity for targeting collaborative referencing within a rich communicative environment. When I was a faculty at Western Michigan University, I was involved in their outpatient aphasia program, where they have aphasia groups, and patients got to select which groups they want to participate in. They had a cooking group, a music group, a technology group, and so on. And I'm guessing you do this too at the Aphasia Center of California. So these groups definitely create rich communicative environments, and people collaborate with each other and do a lot of referencing as well. So I think there is a lot that can be done if you understand the rich communicative environment piece.

 

Lyssa Rome

Absolutely. That really rings true to me. So often in these podcast interviews, we ask people about aha moments, and I'm wondering if you have one that you wanted to share with us.

 

Suma Devanga

Sure. So you know how I said that getting the pictures for the CRI is a joint activity? Patients typically select things that they really want to talk about, like their kids' graduation pictures, or things that they are really passionate about, like pictures of their sports cars, or vegetable gardens, and so on. And they also come up with really unique names for them as well, while they are playing with those pictures during the treatment. And when we start playing the game, clinicians usually have little knowledge about these images, because they're all really personal to the patients, and they're taken from their personal lives, so they end up being the novices, while the patients become the experts. And my patients have taught me so much about constructing a house and all about engines of cars and things like that that I had no knowledge about. But in one incident, when I was the clinician paired with an individual with anomic aphasia, there was a picture of a building that she could not recognize, and hence she could not tell me much at all. And we went back and forth several times, and we finally ended up calling it the “unknown building.” Later, I checked my notes and realized that it was where she worked, and it was probably a different angle, perhaps, which is why she could not recognize it. But even with that new information, we continue to call it the “unknown building,” because it became sort of an internal joke for us. And later I kept thinking if I had made a mistake and if we should have accurately labeled it. That is when it clicked for me that CRI is not about producing accurate labels, it is about building a common ground with each other, which would help you successfully communicate with that person. So you're targeting the process of referencing and not the reference itself, because you want your patients to get better at the process of referencing in their everyday communication. And so that was my aha moment.

 

Lyssa Rome

Yeah, that's an amazing story, because I think that that gets to that question sort of of the why behind what we're doing, right? Is it to say the specific name? I mean, obviously for some people, yes, sometimes it is. But what is underlying that? It's to be able to communicate about the things that are important to people. I also wanted to ask you about another area that you've studied, which is the use of gesture within aphasia interventions. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?

 

Suma Devanga

Yes. So this work started with my collaboration with my friend and colleague, Dr. Mili Mathew, who is at Molloy University in New York, and our first work was on examining the role of hand gestures in collaborative referencing in a participant who had severe Wernicke’s aphasia, and he frequently used extensive gestures to communicate. So when he started with CRI his descriptions of the images were truly multimodal. For example, when he had to describe a picture of a family vacation in Cancun, he was, you know, he was verbose, and there was very little meaningful content that was relevant in his spoken language utterances. But he used a variety of iconic hand gestures that were very meaningful and helpful to identify what he was referring to. As the sessions went on with him, his gestural references also became streamlined, just like the verbal references do, and that we saw in other studies. And that was fascinating because it indicated that gestures do play a big role in the meaning-making process of referencing.

 

And in another study on the same participant, we explored the use of hand gestures as treatment outcome measures. This time, we specifically analyzed gestures used within conversations at baseline treatment, probe, and maintenance phases of the study. And we found that the frequency of referential gestures, which are gestures that add meaning, that have some kind of iconics associated with them, those frequencies of gestures decreased with the onset of treatment, whereas the correct information units, or CIUS, which indicate the informativeness in the spoken language itself, increased. So this pattern of decrease in hand gestures and increase in CIUS was also a great finding. Even though this was just an exploratory study, it indicates that gestures may be included as outcome measures, in addition to verbal measures, which we usually tend to rely more on. And we have a few more studies coming up that are looking at the synchrony of gestures with spoken language in aphasia, but I think we still have a lot more to learn about gestures in aphasia.

 

Lyssa Rome

It seems like there that studying gestures really ties in to CRI and the rich communicative environments that you were describing earlier, where the goal is not just to verbally name one thing, but rather to get your point across, where, obviously, gesture is also quite useful. So I look forward to reading more of your research on that as it comes out. Tell us about what you're currently working on, what's coming next.

 

Suma Devanga

Currently, I am wrapping up my clinical research grant from the ASH Foundation, which was a replication study of the phase two CRI so we collected data from six participants with chronic aphasia using a multiple-probe, single-case design, and that showed positive results on naming, and there was improved scores on patient reports of communication confidence, communicative participation, and quality of life as well. We are currently analyzing the conversation samples to study the treatment effects.

 

I also just submitted a grant proposal to extend the study on participants with different severities of aphasia as well. So we are getting all the preliminary data at this point that we need to be able to start a clinical trial, which will be my next step.

 

So apart from that, I was also able to redesign the CRI and adapt it as a group-based treatment with three participants with aphasia and one clinician in a group. I actually completed a feasibility study of it, which was successful, and I presented that at ASHA in 2023. And I'm currently writing it up for publication, and I also just secured an internal grant to launch a pilot study of the group CRI to investigate the effects of group CRI on communication and quality of life.

 

Lyssa Rome

Well, that's really exciting. And again, I'm really looking forward to reading additional work as it comes out. As we wrap up. What do you want clinicians to take away from your work and to take away from this conversation we've had today?

 

Suma Devanga

Well, I would want clinicians to reflect on how their sessions are going and think about how to incorporate the principles of rich communicative environments so that they can add more meaningful complexity to their treatment activities and also ensure that their patients are truly engaging with the tasks and also having some fun. And I would also tell the clinicians that we have strong findings so far on CRI with both fluent and non-fluent aphasia types. So please stay tuned and reach out to me if you have questions or want to share your experiences about implementing this with your own patients, because I would love to hear that.

 

Lyssa Rome

Dr. Suma Devanga, it has been great talking to you and hearing about your work. Thank you so much for sharing it with us.

 

Suma Devanga

It was fantastic talking about my work. Thank you for giving me this platform to share my work with you all. And thank you, Lyssa for being a great listener.

 

Lyssa Rome

Thanks also to our listeners for the references and resources mentioned in today's show. Please see our show notes. They're available on our website, www.aphasiaaccess.org. There, you can also become a member of our organization, browse our growing library of materials, and find out about the Aphasia Access Academy. If you have an idea for a future podcast episode, email us at [email protected]. Thanks again for your ongoing support of aphasia. Access. For Aphasia Access Conversations. I'm Lyssa Rome.

 

 

 

References

 

Devanga, S. R. (2025). Collaborative Referencing Intervention (CRI) in Aphasia: A replication and extension of the Phase II efficacy study. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-24-00226

 

Devanga, S. R., Sherrill, M., & Hengst, J. A. (2021). The efficacy of collaborative referencing intervention in chronic aphasia: A mixed methods study. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 30(1S), 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJSLP-19-00108 

 

Hengst, J. A., Duff, M. C., & Jones, T. A. (2019). Enriching communicative environments: Leveraging advances in neuroplasticity for improving outcomes in neurogenic communication disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 28(1S), 216–229. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0157

 

Hengst, J. A. (2015). Distributed communication: Implications of cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) for communication disorders. Journal of Communication Disorders, 57, 16–28. Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2015.09.001

 

Devanga, S. R., & Mathew, M. (2024). Exploring the use of co-speech hand gestures as treatment outcome measures for aphasia. Aphasiology. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2024.2356287

 

Devanga, S. R., Wilgenhof, R., & Mathew, M. (2022). Collaborative referencing using hand gestures in Wernicke’s aphasia: Discourse analysis of a case study. Aphasiology, 36(9), 1072-1095. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2021.1937919