Mechanisms of Discourse Comprehension Impairment after Right Hemisphere Brain Damage: Suppression in Lexical Ambiguity Resolution

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 62-78

  Tompkins, Connie A ^a   Baumgaertner, Annette ^a   Lehman, Margaret T ^a   Fassbinder, Wiltrud ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Comprehension; Discourse; Language; Right hemisphere; Suppression

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; APHASIA; ARTICLE; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; COGNITIVE DEFECT; FEMALE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); LINGUISTICS; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; SPEECH THERAPY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; APHASIA; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; COGNITION DISORDERS; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; SPEECH THERAPY; VOCABULARY;

EID: 0034131962     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/jslhr.4301.62     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Atchley, R. A., Burgess, C., Audet, C., & Arambel, S. (1996). Timecourse, context effects, and the processing of lexical ambiguity in the cerebral hemispheres. Brain and Cognition, 30, 277-280.
2. Banich, M. T., & Nicholas, C. D. (1998). Integration of processing between the hemispheres in word recognition. In M. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.), Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 51-77). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Beeman, M. (1993). Semantic processing in the right hemisphere may contribute to drawing inferences during comprehension. Brain and Language, 44, 80-120.
4. Beeman, M. (1998). Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension. In M. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.), Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 255-284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Beeman, M., Friedman, R., Grafman, J., Perez, E., Diamond, S., & Lindsay, M. B. (1994). Summation priming and coarse semantic coding in the right hemisphere. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 26-45.
6. Benton, A., Hamsher, K. deS., Varney, N., & Spreen, O. (1983). Judgment of line orientation. Contributions to neuropsychological assessment (pp. 44-54). New York: Oxford University Press.
7. Brookshire, R. H., & Nicholas, L. E. (1993). Discourse Comprehension Test. Tucson, AZ: Communication Skill Builders.
8. Brownell, H. H., Carroll, J. J., Rehak, A., & Wingfield, A. (1992). The use of pronoun anaphora and speaker mood in the interpretation of conversational utterances by right hemisphere brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 43, 121-147.
9. Brownell, H., & Martino, G. (1998). Deficits in inference and social cognition: The effects of right hemisphere brain damage on discourse. In M. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.), Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 309-328). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Brownell, H. H., Potter, H. H., Bihrle, A. M., & Gardner, H. (1986). Inference deficits in right brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 27, 310-321.
11. Burgess, C., & Lund, K. (1998). Modeling cerebral asymmetries in high-dimensional space. In M. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.), Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 215-244). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Chiarello, C. (1988). Lateralization of lexical processes in the normal brain: A review of visual half-field research. In H. Whitaker (Ed.), Contemporary reviews in neuropsychology (pp. 36-76). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
13. Chiarello, C. (1998). On codes of meaning and the meaning of codes: Semantic access and retrieval within and between hemispheres. In M. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.), Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 141-160). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression / correlational analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Dixon, W. J., Brown, M. B., Engelman, L., & Jennrich, R. I. (1990). BMDP statistical software manual. Berkeley: University of California Press.
16. Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
17. Faust, M. E., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1996). Cerebral mechanisms for suppression of inappropriate information during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 53, 234-259.
18. Faust, M., Balota, D., Duchek, J., Gernsbacher, M., & Smith, S. (1997). Inhibitory control during sentence comprehension in individuals with dementia of the Alzheimer type. Brain and Language, 57, 225-253.
19. Folstein, M. R., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini-Mental State: A practical guide for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189-198.
20. Frederiksen, C. H., & Stemmer, B. (1993). Conceptual processing of discourse by a right hemisphere brain-damaged patient. In H. H. Brownell & Y. Joanette (Eds.), Narrative discourse in neurologically impaired and normal aging adults (pp. 239-278). San Diego, CA: Singular.
21. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Faust, M. E. (1991). The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 245-262.
23. Gernsbacher, M. A., Varner, K. R., & Faust, M. E. (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 430-445.
24. Grossman, M. (1981). A bird is a bird is a bird: Making reference within and without superordinate categories. Brain and Language, 12, 313-331.
25. Hirst, W., LeDoux, J., & Stein, S. (1984). Constraints on the processing of indirect speech acts: Evidence from aphasiology. Brain and Language, 23, 26-33.
26. Joanette, Y., & Goulet, P. (1987). Inferencing deficit in right brain-damage: Absence of evidence. Paper presented at the 10th European conference of the International Neuropsychological Society, Barcelona.
27. Joanette, Y., Goulet, P., & Hannequin, D. (1990). Right hemisphere and verbal communication. New York: Springer-Verlag.
28. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122-149.
29. Kane, M. J., Hasher, L., Stoltzfus, E. R., Zacks, R. T., & Connelly, S. L. (1994). Inhibitory attentional mechanisms and aging. Psychology and Aging, 9, 103-112.
30. Leblanc, B., & Joanette, Y. (1996). Unconstrained oral naming in left- and right-hemisphere-damaged patients: An analysis of naturalistic semantic strategies. Brain and Language, 55, 42-45.
31. Lehman, M. T., & Tompkins, C. T. (1998). Reliability and validity of an auditory working memory measure: Data from elderly and right-hemisphere damaged adults. Aphasiology, 12, 771-785.
32. Molloy, R., Brownell, H. H., & Gardner, H. (1990). Discourse comprehension by right-hemisphere stroke patients: Deficits of prediction and revision. In Y. Joanette & H. H. Brownell (Eds.), Discourse ability and brain damage (pp. 113-130). New York: Springer-Verlag.
33. Myers, P. S. (1991). Inference failure: The underlying impairment in right-hemisphere communication disorders. Clinical Aphasiology, 20, 167-180.
34. Nakagawa, A. (1991). Role of the anterior and posterior attention networks in hemisphere asymmetries during lexical decision. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 313-321.
35. Neill, W. T., & Westberry, R. L. (1987). Selective attention and the suppression of cognitive noise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 327-334.
36. Neill, W. T., Valdes, L., & Terry, K. (1995). Selective attention and the inhibitory control of cognition. In F. N. Dempster & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), Interference and inhibition in cognition. San Diego: Academic Press.
37. Norusis, M. J. (1985). SPSSX advanced statistics guide. New York: McGraw-Hill.
38. Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory and Cognition, 9, 225-236.
39. Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition (pp. 55-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. Rabbitt, P. (1997). Introduction: Methodologies and models in the study of executive function. In P. Rabbitt (Ed.), Methodology af frontal and executive function (pp. 1-38). East Sussex, U.K.: Psychology Press.
41. Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 779-790.
42. Rehak, A., Kaplan, J. A., Weylman, S. A., Kelly, B., Brownell, H. H., & Gardner, H. (1992). Story processing in right-hemisphere-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 42, 320-336.
43. Roman, M., Brownell, H. H., Potter, H. H., Seibold, M. S., & Gardner, H. (1987). Script knowledge in right hemisphere-damaged and in normal elderly adults. Brain and Language, 31, 151-170.
44. Schneiderman, E. I., Murasugi, K. G., & Saddy, J. D. (1992). Story arrangement ability in right brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 43, 107-120.
45. Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Bienkowski, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 489-537.
46. Shapiro, L., Swinney, D., & Borsky, S. (1998). Online examination of language performance in normal and neurologically impaired adults. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7, 49-60.
47. Simpson, G. B., & Burgess, C. (1988). Implications of lexical ambiguity resolution for word recognition and comprehension. In S. Small, G. Cottrell, & M. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolutions: Perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology, and artificial intelligence (pp. 271-288). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
48. Stemmer, B., & Joanette, Y. (1998). The interpretation of narrative discourse of brain-damaged individuals within the framework of a multilevel discourse model. In M. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.), Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 329-348). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
49. Stemmer, B., Giroux, F., & Joanette, Y. (1994). Production and evaluation of requests by right-hemisphere brain-damaged individuals. Brain and Language, 47, 1-31.
50. Till, R. E., Mross, E. F., & Kintsch, W. (1988). Time course of priming for associate and inference words in a discourse context. Memory and Cognition, 16, 283-298.
51. Tompkins, C. A. (1990). Knowledge and strategies for processing lexical metaphor after right or left hemisphere brain damage. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33, 307-316.
52. Tompkins, C. A. (1991a). Automatic and effortful processing of emotional intonation after right or left hemisphere brain damage. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 820-830.
53. Tompkins, C. A. (1991b). Redundancy enhances emotional inferencing by right- and left-hemisphere-damaged adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 1142-1149.
54. Tompkins, C. A. (1995). Right hemisphere communication disorders: Theory and management. San Diego: Singular Publishing.
55. Tompkins, C. A., & Baumgaertner, A. (1998). Clinical value of online measures for adults with right hemisphere brain damage. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7(1), 68-74.
56. Tompkins, C. A., Baumgaertner, A., Lehman, M. T., & Fossett, T. R. D. (1997). Suppression and discourse comprehension in right brain-damaged adults: A preliminary report. Aphasiology, 11, 505-519.
57. Tompkins, C. A., Bloise, C., Timko, M., & Baumgaertner, A. (1994). Working memory and inference revision in brain damaged and normally aging adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 896-912.
58. Tompkins, C. A., Boada, R., & McGarry, K. (1992). The access and processing of familiar idioms by brain-damaged and normally aging adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 626-637.
59. Tompkins, C. A., & Lehman, M. T. (1998). Interpreting intended meanings after right hemisphere brain damage: An analysis of evidence, potential accounts, and clinical implications. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 5, 29-47.
60. Tompkins, C. A., Lehman, M. T., & Baumgaertner, A. (in press). Suppression and inference revision in right brain-damaged and non-brain-damaged adults. Aphasiology.
61. Tompkins, C. A., & Mateer, C. A. (1985). Right hemisphere appreciation of prosodic and linguistic indications of implicit attitude. Brain and Language, 24, 185-203.
62. Tompkins, C. A., Spencer, K., & Boada, R. (1994). Contextual influences on judgments of emotionally ambiguous stimuli by brain-damaged and normally aging adults. Clinical Aphasiology, 22, 325-333.
63. Tucker, D. M. (1981). Lateral brain function, emotion, and conceptualization. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 19-46.
64. Tucker, D. M., & Williamson, P. A. (1984). Asymmetric neural control systems in human self-regulation. Psychological Review, 91, 185-215.
65. Tyler, L. K. (1992). Spoken language comprehension: An experimental approach to disordered and normal processing. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.
66. Walley, R. E., & Weiden, T. D. (1973). Lateral inhibition and cognitive masking: A neuropsychological theory of attention. Psychological Review, 80, 284-302.
67. Wapner, W., Hamby, S., & Gardner, H. (1981). The role of right hemisphere in the apprehension of complex linguistic materials. Brain and Language, 14, 15-32.
68. Weylman, S., Brownell, H. H., Roman, M., & Gardner, H. (1989). Appreciation of indirect requests by left- and right-brain-damaged patients: The effects of verbal context and conventionality of wording. Brain and Language, 36, 580-591.
69. Wilson, R. S., Rosenbaum, G., & Brown, G. (1979). The problem of premorbid intelligence in neuropsychological assessment. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 1, 49-53.
70. Wilson, B., Cockburn, J., & Halligan, P. (1987). Behavioural inattention test. Titchfield, U.K.: Thames Valley Test Co.