The effect of theory of mind impairment on language: Referring after right-hemisphere damage

References

• Aichhorn, M., Perner, J., Weiss, B., Kronbichler, M., Staffen, W., & Ladurner, G. (2009). Temporo-parietal junction activity in theory-of-mind tasks: Falseness, beliefs, or attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 1179–1192. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21082
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ariel, M. (2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistics and psycholinguistics aspects (pp. 29–87). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Ariel, M. (2013). Centering, accessibility and the next mention. Theoretical Linguistics, 39(1–2), 39–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balaban, N., Belletti, A., Friedmann, N., & Rizzi, L. (2016). Disentangling principle C: A contribution from individuals with brain damage. Lingua, 169, 1–20. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2015.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balaban, N., Friedmann, N., & Ziv, M. (2016). Theory of mind impairment after right hemisphere damage. Aphasiology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/02687038.2015.1137275
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), 57, 289–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blake, M. L. (2006). Clinical relevance of discourse characteristics after right hemisphere brain damage. American Journal of Speech and Language Pathology, 15, 255–267. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2006/024)
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blake, M. L. (2007). Perspectives on treatment for communication deficits associated with right hemisphere brain damage. American Journal of Speech and Language Pathology, 16, 331–342. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2007/037)
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brady, M., Mackenzie, C., & Armstrong, L. (2003). Topic use following right hemisphere brain damage during three semi-structured conversational discourse samples. Aphasiology, 17, 881–904. doi:10.1080/02687030344000292
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breheny, R. (2001). Meaning, communication and theory of mind. In Proceedings of 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Brownell, H., & Stringfellow, A. (1999). Making requests: Illustrations of how right-hemisphere brain damage can affect discourse production. Brain and Language, 68, 442–465. doi:10.1006/brln.1999.2122
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunet, E., Sarfati, Y., Hardy-Baylé, M.-C., & Decety, J. (2000). A PET investigation of the attribution of intentions with a nonverbal task. Neuroimage, 11, 157–166. doi:10.1006/nimg.1999.0525
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrington, S. J., & Bailey, A. J. (2009). Are there theory of mind regions in the brain? A review of the neuroimaging literature. Human Brain Mapping, 30, 2313–2335. doi:10.1002/hbm.20671
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carston, R. (2002). Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind and Language, 17, 127–148. doi:10.1111/mila.2002.17.issue-1&2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Champagne, M., Virbel, J., Nespoulous, J., & Joanette, Y. (2003). Impact of right hemispheric damage on a hierarchy of complexity evidenced in young normal subjects. Brain and Cognition, 53, 152–157. doi:10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00099-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Champagne-Lavau, M., & Joanette, Y. (2009). Pragmatics, theory of mind and executive functions after a right-hemisphere lesion: Different patterns of deficits. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22, 413–426. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2009.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Channon, S., Rule, A., Maudgil, D., Martinos, M., Pellijeff, A., Frankl, J., … Shieff, C. (2007). Interpretation of mentalistic actions and sarcastic remarks: Effects of frontal and posterior lesions on mentalising. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1725–1734. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.12.021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheang, H. S., & Pell, M. D. (2006). A study of humour and communicative intention following right hemisphere stroke. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 20, 447–462. doi:10.1080/02699200500135684
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
   Google Scholar
• Cliff, N. (1993). Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 494–509. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.494
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulson, S., & Williams, R. F. (2005). Hemispheric asymmetries and joke comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 43, 128–141. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.03.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford, J. R., & Howell, D. C. (1998). Regression equations in clinical neuropsychology: An evaluation of statistical methods for comparing predicted and obtained scores. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 20, 755–762. doi:10.1076/jcen.20.5.755.1132
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, G. A., O’Neil-Pirozzi, T. M., & Coon, M. (1997). Referential cohesion and logical coherence of narration after right hemisphere stroke. Brain and Language, 56, 183–210. doi:10.1006/brln.1997.1741
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Villiers, J. G. (2004). Getting complements on your mental state (verbs). In J. Van Kampen & S. Baauw (Eds.), Proceedings of 2003 GALA Conference (LOT Occasional Series 3) (pp. 13–26). Utrecht: LOT.
   Google Scholar
• De Villiers, J. G. (2007). The interface of language and theory of mind. Lingua, 117, 1858–1878. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2006.11.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Villiers, J. G., & Pyers, J. (2002). Complements to cognition: A longitudinal study of the relationship between complex syntax and false belief understanding. Cognitive Development, 17, 1037–1060. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(02)00073-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann, N. (1998). Functional categories in agrammatic production: A cross linguistic study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann, N. (2001). Agrammatism and the psychological reality of the syntactic tree. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 71–90. doi:10.1023/A:1005256224207
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann, N. (2002). Syntactic tree pruning and question production in agrammatism. Brain and Language, 83, 117–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann, N. (2006). Speech production in Broca’s agrammatic aphasia: Syntactic tree pruning. In Y. Grodzinsky & K. Amunts (Eds.), Broca’s region. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann, N., Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua, 119, 67–88. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann, N., & Gvion, A. (2003). Sentence comprehension and working memory limitation in aphasia: A dissociation between semantic-syntactic and phonological reactivation. Brain and Language, 86, 23–39. doi:10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00530-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann, N., & Novogrodsky, R. (2004). The acquisition of relative clause comprehension in Hebrew: A study of SLI and normal development. Journal of Child Language, 31, 661–681. doi:10.1017/S0305000904006269
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann, N., & Novogrodsky, R. (2007). Is the movement deficit in syntactic SLI related to traces or to thematic role transfer? Brain and Language, 101, 50–63. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2006.09.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann, N., & Novogrodsky, R. (2011). Which questions are most difficult to understand? The comprehension of Wh questions in three subtypes of SLI. Lingua, 121, 367–382. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann, N., Novogrodsky, R., & Balaban, N. (2010). The effect of crossing dependencies on the acquisition of pronoun comprehension. In A. Castro, J. Costa, M. Lobo, & F. Pratas (Eds.), Language acquisition and development: Generative approaches to language acquisition (pp. 146–156). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann, N., & Shapiro, L. P. (2003). Agrammatic comprehension of simple active sentences with moved constituents: Hebrew OSV and OVS structures. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 46, 288–297. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2003/023)
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann, N., & Szterman, R. (2006). Syntactic movement in orally trained children hearing impairment. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11, 56–75. doi:10.1093/deafed/enj002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann, N., & Szterman, R. (2011). The comprehension and production of Wh-questions in deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16, 212–235. doi:10.1093/deafed/enq052
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann, N., Szterman, R., & Haddad-Hanna, M. (2010). The comprehension of relative clauses and Wh questions in Hebrew and Palestinian Arabic hearing impairment. In A. Castro, J. Costa, M. Lobo, & F. Pratas (Eds.), Language acquisition and development: Generative approaches to language acquisition (pp. 157–169). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press/CSP.
   Google Scholar
• Frith, U., & Frith, C. D. (2003). Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 358, 459–473. doi:10.1098/rstb.2002.1218
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher, H. L., Happé, F., Brunswick, N., Fletcher, P. C., Frith, U., & Frith, C. D. (2000). Reading the mind in cartoons and stories: An fMRI study of ‘theory of mind’ in verbal and nonverbal tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38, 11–21. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00053-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, P., Grosz, B., & Gilliom, L. (1993). Pronouns, names and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311–347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics III: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Griffin, R., Friedman, O., Ween, J., Winner, E., Happé, F., & Brownell, H. (2006). Theory of mind and the right cerebral hemisphere: Refining the scope of impairment. Laterality, 11, 195–225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grissom, R. J., & Kim, J. J. (2012). Effect sizes for research: Univariate and multivariate applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Grodzinsky, Y., Piñango, M. M., Zurif, E., & Drai, D. (1999). The critical role of group studies in neuropsychology: Comprehension regularities in Broca’s aphasia. Brain and Language, 67, 134–147. doi:10.1006/brln.1999.2050
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gundel, J., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274–307. doi:10.2307/416535
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gvion, A., & Friedmann, N. (2008). FriGvi: Friedmann Gvion battery for assessment of phonological working memory. Language and Brain, 7, 161–180. (in Hebrew)
   Google Scholar
• Gvion, A., & Friedmann, N. (2012). Phonological short term memory in conduction aphasia. Aphasiology, 26, 579‎–‎614. doi:10.1080/02687038.2011.643759
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Happé, F., Brownell, H., & Winner, E. (1999). Acquired `theory of mind’ impairments following stroke. Cognition, 70, 211–240. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00005-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollebrandse, B., Hobbs, K., De Villiers, J. G., & Roeper, T. (2008). Second order embedding and second order false belief. In A. Gavarro & M. J. Freitas (Eds.), Language acquisition and development, proceedings of GALA 2007 (pp. 270–280). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hollebrandse, B., Van Hout, A., & Hendriks, P. (2011). First and second-order false-belief reasoning: Does language support reasoning about the beliefs of others? In Proceedings of the Workshop on Reasoning About Other Minds: Logical and Cognitive Perspectives (pp. 93–107).
   Google Scholar
• Johns, C. L., Tooley, K. M., & Traxler, M. J. (2008). Discourse impairments following right hemisphere brain damage: A critical review. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 1038–1062. doi:10.1111/lnco.2008.2.issue-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2002). A call for greater use of nonparametric statistics. Paper presented at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Chattanooga, TN. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED471346.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lohmann, H., & Tomasello, M. (2003). The role of language in the development of false belief understanding: A training study. Child Development, 74, 1130–1144. doi:10.1111/cdev.2003.74.issue-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundgren, K., Brownell, H., Cayer-Meade, C., Milione, J., & Kearns, K. (2011). Treating metaphor interpretation deficits subsequent to right hemisphere brain damage: Preliminary results. Aphasiology, 25, 456–474. doi:10.1080/02687038.2010.500809
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mar, R. A. (2004). The neuropsychology of narrative: Story comprehension, story production and their interrelation. Neuropsychologia, 42, 1414–1434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mar, R. A. (2011). The neural bases of social cognition and story comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 103–134. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145406
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marini, A., Carlomagno, S., Caltagirone, C., & Nocentini, U. (2005). The role played by the right hemisphere in the organization of complex textual structures. Brain and Language, 93, 46–54. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2004.08.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, I., & McDonald, S. (2006). That can’t be right! What causes pragmatic language impairment following right hemisphere damage? Brain Impairment, 7, 202–211. doi:10.1375/brim.7.3.202
   Google Scholar
• Martín-Rodríguez, J. F., & León-Carrión, J. (2010). Theory of mind deficits in patients with acquired brain injury: A quantitative review. Neuropsychologia, 48, 1181–1191. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.02.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, P. S. (2001). Toward a definition of RHD syndrome. Aphasiology, 15, 913–918. doi:10.1080/02687040143000285
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, P. S. (2005). Profiles of communication deficits in patients with right cerebral hemisphere damage: Implications for diagnosis and treatment. Aphasiology. 19, 1147–1160. (Original work published in 1979, in Clinical Aphasiology Conference (9th: Phoenix, AZ: May 28-31, 1979): BRK Publishers, pages 38–46.). doi:10.1080/02687030500331585
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novogrodsky, R., & Friedmann, N. (2006). The production of relative clauses in syntactic SLI: A window to the nature of the impairment. International Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 8, 364–375. doi:10.1080/14417040600919496
   Google Scholar
• Peng, C. Y. J., & Chen, L. T. (2014). Beyond Cohen’s d: Alternative effect size measures for between-subject designs. The Journal of Experimental Education, 82, 22–50. doi:10.1080/00220973.2012.745471
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perner, J., Aichhorn, M., Kronbichler, M., Staffen, W., & Ladurner, G. (2006). Thinking of mental and other representations: The roles of left and right temporo-parietal junction. Social Neuroscience, 1, 245–258. doi:10.1080/17470910600989896
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169–226. doi:10.1017/S0140525X04000056
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pimkel, M. (2006). Philosophical tales for children. Tel Aviv: Ahuzat Bait (In Hebrew).
   Google Scholar
• Prince, E. F. (1981). Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–256). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prince, E. F. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information status. In W. C. Mann & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text (pp. 295–326). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Rehak, A., Kaplan, J. A., & Gardner, H. (1992). Sensitivity to conversational deviance in right hemisphere damaged patients. Brain and Language, 42, 203–217. doi:10.1016/0093-934X(92)90125-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruigendijk, E., Friedmann, N., Novogrodsky, R., & Balaban, N. (2010). Symmetry in comprehension and production of pronouns: A comparison of German and Hebrew. Lingua, 120, 1991–2005. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruigendijk, E., Vasić, N., & Avrutin, S. (2006). Reference assignment: Using language breakdown to choose between theoretical approaches. Brain and Language, 96, 302–317. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2005.06.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saxe, R., & Kanwisher, N. (2003). People thinking about thinking people. The role of the temporo-parietal junction in “theory of mind”. Neuroimage, 19, 1835–1842. doi:10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00230-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schurz, M., Radua, J., Aichhorn, M., Richlan, F., & Perner, J. (2014). Fractionating theory of mind: A meta-analysis of functional brain imaging studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 42, 9–34. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.01.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Tomer, R., & Aharon-Peretz, J. (2005). The neuro-anatomical basis of understanding sarcasm and its relationship to social cognition. Neuropsychology, 19, 288–300. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.19.3.288
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherratt, S., & Bryan, K. (2012). Discourse production after right brain damage: Gaining a comprehensive picture using a multi-level processing model. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 25, 213–239. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2012.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommer, M., Döhnel, K., Sodian, B., Meinhardt, J., Thoermer, C., & Hajak, G. (2007). Neural correlates of true and false belief reasoning. Neuroimage, 35, 1378–1384. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.01.042
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Blackwell: Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind and Language, 17, 3–23. doi:10.1111/mila.2002.17.issue-1&2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uryase, D., Duffy, R. J., & Liles, B. Z. (1991). Analysis and description of narrative discourse in right-hemisphere-damaged adults: A comparison to neurologically normal and left hemisphere-damaged aphasic adults. In Clinical Aphasiology Conference (1989: 19th: Lake Tahoe, NV: June 1989): Pro-Ed(1991), 125–137.
   Google Scholar
• Vasić, N. (2006). Pronoun comprehension in agrammatic aphasia: The structure and use of linguistic knowledge. LOT: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Weylman, S. T., Brownell, H., Roman, M., & Gardner, H. (1989). Appreciation of indirect requests by left and right brain damaged patients: The effects of verbal context and conventionality of wording. Brain and Language, 36, 580–591. doi:10.1016/0093-934X(89)90087-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, D. (2005). New directions for research on pragmatics and modularity. Lingua, 115, 1129–1146. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2004.02.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winner, E., Brownell, H., Happé, F., & Blum, A. (1998). Distinguishing lies from jokes: Theory of mind deficits and discourse interpretation in right hemisphere brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 62, 89–106. doi:10.1006/brln.1997.1889
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar