Characteristics of Narrative Discourse Processing after Damage to the Right Hemisphere

Andrea Marini

doi:10.1055/s-0031-1301164

Seminars in Speech and Language, Table of Contents

Semin Speech Lang 2012; 33(01): 68-78
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1301164

Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Characteristics of Narrative Discourse Processing after Damage to the Right Hemisphere

Andrea Marini

¹Dipartimento di Scienze Umane, University of Udine, Udine, Italy

²IRCCS “E. Medea: La Nostra Famiglia,” San Vito al Tagliamento (Pn), Italy

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

The narrative skills of nonaphasic individuals with right hemisphere damage (RHD) were compared with those of a group of healthy participants. All participants scored within the normal range on tests assessing their level of global cognitive impairment, logical visuospatial reasoning, general linguistic skills, and the potential presence of hemineglect. They were asked to describe the stories portrayed in a set of picture sequences. The individuals with RHD produced descriptions with normal levels of microlinguistic processing but with more tangential errors and conceptually incongruent utterances that lowered their levels of informativeness. A further analysis revealed that these deficits were most evident in persons with anterior lesions to the right hemisphere. These findings lend indirect support to the hypothesis of a major involvement of frontal right hemispheric areas to the process of organization of information in a narrative discourse.

Keywords

Right hemisphere damage - narrative analysis - neurolinguistics - neuropsychology

Full Text

References

References
1 Mar RA. The neuropsychology of narrative: story comprehension, story production and their interrelation. Neuropsychologia 2004; 42: 1414-1434
2 Myers PS. Narrative expressive deficits associated with right-hemisphere damage. In: Brownell H, Joanette Y, eds. Narrative Discourse in Neurologically Impaired and Normal Aging Adults. San Diego, CA: Singular; 1993: 279-296
3 Joanette Y, Goulet P, Hannequin D. Right hemisphere and verbal communication. New York: Springer Verlag; 1990
4 Ferré P, Ska B, Lajoie C et al. Clinical focus on prosodic, discursive and pragmatic treatment for right hemisphere damaged adults: what’s right?. Rehab Res Pract 2011; 2011: 10p-
5 Pell MD. Cerebral mechanisms for understanding emotional prosody in speech. Brain Lang 2006; 96: 221-234
6 Blonder LX, Pickering JE, Heath RL, Smith CD, Butler SM. Prosodic characteristics of speech pre- and post-right hemisphere stroke. Brain Lang 1995; 51: 318-335
7 Kahlaoui K, Joanette Y. Normal and pathological semantic processing of words. In: Ball MJ, Perkins MR, Muller N, Howard S, eds. The Handbook of Clinical Linguistics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell; 2008: 228-244
8 Winner E, Gardner H. The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients. Brain 1977; 100: 717-729
9 Shammi P, Stuss DT. Humour appreciation: a role of the right frontal lobe. Brain 1999; 122 (Pt 4) 657-666
10 Van Lancker DR, Kempler D. Comprehension of familiar phrases by left- but not by right-hemisphere damaged patients. Brain Lang 1987; 32: 265-277
11 Lehman Blake M. Clinical relevance of discourse characteristics after right hemisphere brain damage. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2006; 15: 255-267
12 Uryase S, Duffy R, Liles B. Analysis and description of narrative discourse in right-hemisphere-damaged adults: a comparison to neurologically normal and left-hemisphere-damaged aphasic adults. In: Prescott TE, ed. Clinical Aphasiology. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 1991: 125-138
13 Brownell H, Gardner H, Prather P, Martino G. Language, communication and the right hemisphere. In: Kirschner H, ed. Handbook of Neurological Speech and Language Disorders. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; 1995: 325-349
14 Marini A, Carlomagno S, Caltagirone C, Nocentini U. The role played by the right hemisphere in the organization of complex textual structures. Brain Lang 2005; 93: 46-54
15 Stemmer B, Joanette Y. The interpretation of narrative discourse of brain damaged individuals within the framework of a multilevel discourse model. In: Beeman M, Chiarello C, eds. Right Hemisphere Language Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Neuroscience. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1998: 329-348
16 Leonard CL, Baum SR, Pell MD. The effect of compressed speech on the ability of right-hemisphere-damaged patients to use context. Cortex 2001; 37: 327-344
17 Beeman MJ, Bowden EM, Gernsbacher MA. Right and left hemisphere cooperation for drawing predictive and coherence inferences during normal story comprehension. Brain Lang 2000; 71: 310-336
18 Luzzatti C, Willems K, De Bleser R. Aachener Aphasie Test (Italian version). Firenze, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali; 1991
19 Marini A, Andreetta S, del Tin S, Carlomagno S. A multi-level approach to the analysis of narrative language in aphasia. Aphasiology 2011; 25: 1372-1392
20 Kaczmarek BL. Neurolinguistic analysis of verbal utterances in patients with focal lesions of frontal lobes. Brain Lang 1984; 21: 52-58
21 Beeman M. Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension. In: Beeman M, Chiarello C, eds. Right Hemisphere Language Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Neuroscience. Mahwah, NJ: LEA; 1998: 255-284
22 Marini A, Spoletini I, Rubino IA et al. The language of schizophrenia: an analysis of micro and macrolinguistic abilities and their neuropsychological correlates. Schizophr Res 2008; 105: 144-155
23 Spalletta GF, Spoletini I, Cherubini A et al. Cortico-subcortical underpinnings of narrative processing impairment in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res 2010; 182: 77-80
24 Marini A, Galetto V, Zampieri E, Vorano L, Zettin M, Carlomagno S. Narrative language in traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychologia 2011; 49: 2904-2910
25 Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189-198
26 Raven JC. Progressive Matrices: A Perceptual Test of Intelligence. London, UK: H.K. Lewis; 1938
27 Kertesz A. Western Aphasia Battery. New York, NY: Grune and Stratton; 1982
28 Goodglass H, Kaplan E. The Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger; 1972
29 Huber W, Gleber J. Linguistic and nonlinguistic processing of narratives in aphasia. Brain Lang 1982; 16: 1-18
30 Nicholas LE, Brookshire RH. A system for quantifying the informativeness and efficiency of the connected speech of adults with aphasia. J Speech Hear Res 1993; 36: 338-350
31 Davis GA, O’Neil-Pirozzi TM, Coon M. Referential cohesion and logical coherence of narration after right hemisphere stroke. Brain Lang 1997; 56: 183-210
32 Bartels-Tobin LR, Hinckley JJ. Cognition and discourse production in right hemisphere disorder. J Neurolinguist 2005; 18: 461-477
33 Cherney LR, Canter GJ. Informational content in the discourse of patients with probable Alzheimer’s disease and patients with right brain damage. In: Lemme M, ed. Clinical Aphasiology. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 1993: 123-134
34 Cherney LR, Halper AS. A conceptual framework for the evaluation and treatment of communication problems associated with right hemisphere damage. In: Halper A, Cherney L, Burns M, eds. Clinical Management of Right Hemisphere Dysfunction. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen; 1996: 21-29
35 Tompkins CA. Right Hemisphere Communication Disorders: Theory and Management. San Diego, CA: Singular; 1995