A study of humour and communicative intention following right hemisphere stroke

Reference

• Birhle A., Brownell H. H., Powelson J. A., Gardner H. Comprehension of humorous and non‐humorous materials by left and right brain‐damaged patients. Brain and Cognition 1986; 5: 399–411
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brownell H. H., Michel D., Powelson J., Gardner H. Surprise but not coherence: Sensitivity to verbal humor in right‐hemisphere patients. Brain and Language 1983; 18: 20–27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brownell H., Pincus D., Blum A., Rehak A., Winner E. The effects of right‐hemisphere brain damage on patients' use of terms of personal reference. Brain and Language 1997; 57: 60–79
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dagge M., Hartje W. Influence of contextual complexity on the processing cartoons by patients with unilateral lesions. Cortex 1985; 21: 607–616
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dews S., Winner E. Obligatory processing of literal and nonliteral meanings in verbal irony. Journal of Pragmatics 1999; 31: 1579–1599
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giora R., Zaidel E., Soroker N., Batori G., Kasher A. Differential effects of right‐ and left‐hemisphere damage on understanding sarcasm and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 2000; 15: 63–83
   Google Scholar
• Grice H. P. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts., P Cole, J. L Morgan, (Eds.). Academic Press, New York 1975; pp. 41–58, In
   Google Scholar
• Happe F., Brownell H., Winner E. Acquired ‘theory of mind’ impairments following stroke. Cognition 1999; 70: 211–240
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hough M. S., Pierce R. S. Pragmatics and treatment. Language intervention strategies in adult aphasia, R Chapey, (Ed.). Williams & Wilkins, New York 1994; pp. 246–268, third edition
   Google Scholar
• Joanette Y., Ansaldo A. I. Clinical note: Acquired pragmatic impairments and aphasia. Brain and Language 1999; 68: 529–534
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 1990; 38: 315–333
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreuz R. J., Roberts R. M., Johnson B. K., Bertus E. L. Figurative language occurrence and co‐occurrence in contemporary literature. Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics., R. J Kreuz, M. S MacNealy, (Eds.). Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ 1996, In
   Google Scholar
• Martin I., McDonald S. Weak coherence, no theory of mind, or executive dysfunction? Solving the puzzle of pragmatic language disorders. Brain and Language 2003; 85: 451–466
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald S. Exploring the cognitive basis of right hemisphere pragmatic language disorders. Brain and Language 2000; 75: 82–107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers P. S. Right hemisphere damage. Singular Publishing Group, San Diego, CA 1999
   Google Scholar
• Myers P. S. Toward a definition of RHD syndrome. Aphasiology 2001; 15: 913–918
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paradis M. The other side of language: Pragmatic competence. Journal of Neurolinguistics 1998; 11: 1–10
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rehak A., Kaplan J. A., Gardner H. Sensitivity to conversational deviance in right‐hemisphere‐damaged patients. Brain and Language 1992; 42: 203–217
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rinaldi M. C., Marangolo P., Baldassarri F. Metaphor comprehension in right brain‐damaged participants with visuo‐verbal and verbal material: A dissociation (re)considered. Cortex 2002; 38: 903–907
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabbagh M. A. Communicative Intentions and Language: Evidence from right hemisphere damage and autism. Brain and Language 1999; 70: 29–69
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shammi P., Stuss D. T. Humour appreciation: A role of the right frontal lobe. Brain 1999; 122: 657–666
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegal M., Carrington J., Radel M. Theory of mind and pragmatic understanding following right hemisphere damage. Brain and Language 1996; 53: 40–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuss D. T., Gallup G. G., Alexander M. P. The frontal lobes are necessary for ‘theory of mind’. Brain 2001; 124: 279–286
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Surian L., Siegal M. Sources of performance on theory of mind tasks in right hemisphere‐damaged patients. Brain and Language 2001; 78: 224–232
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tompkins C. A., Mateer C. A. Right hemisphere appreciation of prosodic and linguistic indications of implicit attitude. Brain and Language 1985; 24: 185–203
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tompkins C. A., Bloise C. G. R., Timko M. L., Baumgaertner A. Working memory and inference revision in brain‐damaged and normally aging adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1994; 37: 896–912
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wapner W., Hamby S., Gardner H. The role of the right hemisphere in the apprehension of complex linguistic materials. Brain and Language 1981; 14: 15–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson B., Cockburn J., Halligan P. Behavioural Inattention Test. Thames Valley Test Company, Suffolk 1987
   Google Scholar
• Winner E., Gardner H. The comprehension of metaphor in brain‐damaged patients. Brain 1977; 100: 717–729
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winner E., Brownell 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 1998; 62: 89–106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar