2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2005.04.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cognition and discourse production in right hemisphere disorder

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
31
2
4

Year Published

2006
2006
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
2
31
2
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Secondly, some studies (Bloom, Carozza, Berg, & Curran-Curry, 1997;Hill & Marquardt, 2005;Purdy, 2002;Sherratt & Penn, 1990) have reported impairments in their ability to formulate appropriately structured narratives and procedures in that they tend to produce fewer complete and more missing or inappropriate episodes/components/steps. In contrast, they have performed better than, or similar to, non-brain damaged (NBD) speakers in narrative structure, conversational organisation and procedures (Bartels-Tobin & Hinckley, 2005;Brady, Armstrong, & Mackenzie, 2005;Brady, Mackenzie, & Armstrong, 2003;Marini et al, 2005;McDonald, 2000). Familiarity processing or personal relevance (associated with right brain damage by Van Lancker, 1997) may play a part in participants with RBD performing better in producing superstructure components in familiar narratives (Solberg, 1990).…”
Section: Discourse Impairments Following Rbdmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Secondly, some studies (Bloom, Carozza, Berg, & Curran-Curry, 1997;Hill & Marquardt, 2005;Purdy, 2002;Sherratt & Penn, 1990) have reported impairments in their ability to formulate appropriately structured narratives and procedures in that they tend to produce fewer complete and more missing or inappropriate episodes/components/steps. In contrast, they have performed better than, or similar to, non-brain damaged (NBD) speakers in narrative structure, conversational organisation and procedures (Bartels-Tobin & Hinckley, 2005;Brady, Armstrong, & Mackenzie, 2005;Brady, Mackenzie, & Armstrong, 2003;Marini et al, 2005;McDonald, 2000). Familiarity processing or personal relevance (associated with right brain damage by Van Lancker, 1997) may play a part in participants with RBD performing better in producing superstructure components in familiar narratives (Solberg, 1990).…”
Section: Discourse Impairments Following Rbdmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The communication deficit after RBD is believed to result from an underlying deficit in attention or facets of attention (Bartels-Tobin & Hinckley, 2005;Tompkins, 1995;Tompkins & Lehman, 1998). Attention impairments have been implicated in deficits in word retrieval, lexical associations, figurative language and indirect requests following RBD (Murray, 2000;Myers, 1997).…”
Section: The Role Of Attention In Rbd Discourse Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In these individuals, difficulties in discourse processing are generally observed, with impairments in interchange, in the maintenance of the subject, and in retaining the intent of the speaker and guiding the discourse based on this 30 .In the narration, impairments in the construction of stories based on disordered visual stimuli are also described 31 , as well as deficits in retelling stories, and omissions of important information from the text 32 .…”
Section: Figure 1 -Communicative Behavior Of Individuals With a Diagnmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…No discurso narrativo, também são mencionados défi cits: os LHD apresentam maior difi culdade em construir histórias a partir de estímulos visuais desordenados (Marini, Carlomagno, Caltagirone, & Nocentini, 2005), além de défi cit no reconto de histórias, com omissão de informações importantes para a compreensão do texto (Bartels-Tobin & Hinckley, 2005).…”
Section: Alterações Comunicativasunclassified