Impact of right hemispheric damage on a hierarchy of complexity evidenced in young normal subjects

Brain and Cognition

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 152-157

  Champagne, Maud ^a,b   Virbel, Jacques ^c   Nespoulous, Jean Luc ^a   Joanette, Yves ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE TOULOUSE   (France)

^b CENTRE DE RECHERCHE   (Canada)

^c IRIT   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; BRAIN DEPTH STIMULATION; BRAIN INJURY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RIGHT HEMISPHERE; SPEECH; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 0242410821     PISSN: 02782626     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00099-X     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Austin J.L. How to do things with words. 1962;Oxford University Press, Oxford.
2. Beeman M.J. Coarse semantic encoding and discourse comprehension. Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience. Beeman M., Chiarello C. Right hemisphere language comprehension. 1998;255-284 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah.
3. Bihrle A.M., Brownell H.H., Powelson J.A. Comprehension of humorous and nonhumorous materials by left and right brain-damaged patients. Brain and Cognition. 5:1986;399-411.
4. Brownell H.H., Michelow D., Powelson J., Gardner H. Surprise but not coherence: Sensitivity to verbal humor in right-hemisphere patients. Brain and Language. 18:1983;20-27.
5. Brownell H.H., Potter H.H., Bihrle A.M. Inference deficits in right brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language. 27:1986;310-324.
6. Brownell H.H., Stringfellow A. Making requests: Illustrations of how right-hemisphere brain damage can affect discourse production. Brain and Language. 68:1999;442-465.
7. Champagne M., Virbel J., Nespoulous J.L. The differential (?) processing of literal and nonliteral speech acts: A psycholinguistic approach. Bouquet P., Serafini L., Brézillon P., Benerecetti M., Castellani F. Second international and interdisciplinary conference CONTEXT '99, modelling and using context. 1999;451-454 Springer Verlag, Trento.
8. Cicone M., Wapner W., Gardner H. Sensitivity to emotional expressions and situations in organic patients. Cortex. 16:1980;145-158.
9. Clark H.H. Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology. 11:1979;430-477.
10. Clark H.H., Lucy P. Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 14:1975;56-72.
11. Clark H.H., Schunk D.H. Polite responses to polite requests. Cognition. 8:1980;111-143.
12. Code C. Language aphasia and the right hemisphere. 1987;Wiley, Chichester.
13. Foldi N.S. Appreciation of pragmatic interpretations of indirect commands: Comparison of right and left hemisphere brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language. 31:1987;88-108.
14. Gardner H., Brownell H.H., Wapner W., Michelow D. Missing the point: The role of the right hemisphere in the processing of complex linguistic materials. Perecman E. Cognitive processing in the right hemisphere. 1983;Academic Press, New York.
15. Gibbs R.W. A critical examination of the contribution of literal meaning to understanding nonliteral discourse. Text. 2:1982;9-27.
16. Gibbs R.W. The poetics of mind. 1994;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
17. Grice H.P. Logic and conversation. Cole P., Morgan J.L. Syntax and semantics. Speech acts. Vol. 3:1975;374-395 Academic Press, New York.
18. Hirst W., Ledoux J., Stein S. Constraints on the processing of indirect speech acts: Evidence from aphasiology. Brain and Language. 23:1984;26-33.
19. Joanette, Y., & Goulet, P. (1987). Inferencing deficit in right brain-damaged right-handers: Absence of evidence. Paper presented at the Tenth European Conference of the International Neuropsychological Society. Barcelona, Spain, July 1987.
20. Joanette Y., Goulet P., Hannequin D. Right hemisphere and verbal communication. 1990;Springer, New York.
21. Kaplan J.A., Brownell H.H., Jacobs J.R., Gardner H. The effects of right hemisphere damage on the pragmatic interpretation of conversational remarks. Brain and Language. 38:1990;315-333.
22. McDonald S., Wales R. An investigation of the ability to process inferences in language following right hemisphere brain damage. Brain and Language. 29:1986;68-80.
23. Oldfield O.D. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia. 9:1971;97-113.
24. Roman M., Brownell H.H., Potter H.H., Seibold M.S. Script knowledge in right hemisphere-damaged and in normal elderly adults. Brain and Language. 31:1987;151-170.
25. Searle J.R. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. 1969;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
26. Stemmer B., Giroux F., Joanette Y. Production and evaluation of requests by right hemisphere brain-damaged individuals. Brain and Language. 47:1994;1-31.
27. Stemmer B., Joanette Y. The interpretation of narrative discourse of brain-damaged individuals within the framework of a multilevel discourse model. Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience. Beeman M., Chiarello C. Right hemisphere language comprehension. 1998;329-348 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah.
28. Tompkins C.A. Right hemisphere communication disorders: Theory and management. 1995;Singular Publishing Group, San Diego.
29. Vanhalle C., Lemieux S., Joubert S., Goulet P., Ska B., Joanette Y. Processing of speech acts by right hemisphere brain-damaged patients: An ecological approach. Aphasiology. 14(11):2000;1127-1142.
30. Wapner W., Hamby S., Gardner H. The role of the right hemisphere in the apprehension of complex linguistic materials. Brain and Language. 14:1981;15-33.
31. Weylman S.T., Brownell H.H., Gardner H. Appreciation of indirect requests by left and right brain-damaged patients: The effects of verbal context and conventionality of wording. Brain and Language. 36:1989;580-591.
32. Winner E., Brownell H.H., Happe F., Blum A., Pincus D. Distinguishing lies from jokes: Theory of mind deficits and discourse interpretation in right hemisphere brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language. 62:1998;89-106.
33. Winner E., Gardner H. The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients. Brain. 100:1977;717-723.