Inferencing in adults with right hemisphere brain damage: An analysis of conflicting results

Abstract

Recent proposals have suggested that inferencing deficits may underlie many cognitive-communicative disorders following right hemisphere brain damage (RHD). However, there is conflicting evidence for these claims. The current review details two major factors that may contribute to the inconsistent findings. First, RHD inferencing studies do not take into consideration models of normal inferencing processes. Such frameworks suggest that inference generation may be modulated by inference type, stimulus characteristics, and the task used to measure inferencing. Few of these factors have been considered in the RHD literature. As a result, conclusions and interpretations may not accurately reflect the state of inferencing abilities after RHD. Predicting and evaluating results also are problematic without a guiding framework. The difficulties encountered in dealing with a heterogeneous population create a second source of inconsistent results. Common sampling biases contribute to inaccurate interpretations of RHD inferencing. Suggestions are provided for dealing with group heterogeneity and issues of generalizability.