Theory of Mind and referring expressions after Traumatic Brain Injury

References

• Apperly, I. A. (2010). Mindreaders: The cognitive basis of “Theory of mind”. London: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Apperly, I. A., & Butterfill, S. (2009). Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states? Psychological Review, 116, 953–970. doi:10.1037/a0016923
   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
• Balaban, N., Belletti, A., Friedmann, N., & Rizzi, L. (2016, January). 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., & Ariel, M. (2016a). The effect of theory of mind impairment on language: Referring after right-hemisphere damage. Aphasiology, 30, 1424–1460. doi:10.1080/02687038.2015.1137274
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balaban, N., Friedmann, N., & Ziv, M. (2016b). Theory of mind impairment after right-hemisphere damage. Aphasiology, 30, 1399–1423. doi:10.1080/02687038.2015.1137275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barker, M., & Gvión, T. (2005). Representations of the interlocutor’s mind during conversation. In B. F. Malle & S. D. Hodges (Eds.), Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and others (pp. 223–238). The Guilford Press: NY and London.
   Google Scholar
• Baron-Cohen, S., O'riordan, M., Stone, V., Jones, R., & Plaisted, K. (1999). Recognition of faux pas by normally developing children and children with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29(5), 407–418. doi:10.1023/A:1023035012436
   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, 57, 289–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biran, M., & Friedmann, N. (2004). SHEMESH: Naming a hundred objects. Tel Aviv University. (In Hebrew).
   Google Scholar
• Biran, M., & Friedmann, N. (2005). From phonological paraphasias to the structure of the phonological output lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 589–616. doi:10.1080/01690960400005813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biran, M., & Friedmann, N. (2007). MA KASHUR: Word associations test. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. (In Hebrew).
   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
• Body, R., & Parker, M. (2005). Topic repetitiveness after traumatic brain injury: An emergent, jointly managed behaviour. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 19, 379–392. doi:10.1080/02699200400027189
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byom, L. J., & Turkstra, L. (2012). Effects of social cognitive demand on Theory of Mind in conversations of adults with traumatic brain injury. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 47, 310–321. doi:10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00102.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Champagne-Lavau, M., Fossard, M., Martel, G., Chapdelaine, C., Blouin, G., Rodriguez, J. P., & Stip, E. (2009). Do patients with schizophrenia attribute mental states in a referential communication task? Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 14, 217–239. doi:10.1080/13546800903004114
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Channon, S., Pellijeff, A., & Rule, A. (2005). Social cognition after head injury: Sarcasm and theory of mind. Brain and Language, 93, 123–134. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2004.09.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coelho, C. A. (2007). Management of discourse deficits following traumatic brain injury: Progress, caveats, and needs. Seminars in Speech and Language, 28, 122–135. doi:10.1055/s-2007-970570
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coelho, C. A., Grela, B., Corso, M., Gamble, A., & Feinn, R. (2005). Microlinguistic deficits in the narrative discourse of adults with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 19, 1139–1145. doi:10.1080/02699050500110678
   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 observed scores. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 20, 755–762. doi:10.1076/jcen.20.5.755.1132
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, C., Hawley, L., Morey, C., Newman, J., Cusick, C. P., & Harrison-Felix, C. (2006). Social communication skills in persons with post-acute traumatic brain injury: Three perspectives. Brain Injury: [BI], 20, 425–435. doi:10.1080/02699050600664574
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, G. A., & Coelho, C. A. (2004). Referential cohesion and logical coherence of narration after closed head injury. Brain and Language, 89, 508–523. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2004.01.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Cat, C. (2013). Egocentric definiteness errors and perspective evaluation in preschool children. Journal of Pragmatics, 56, 58–69. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Sousa, A., McDonald, S., & Rushby, J. (2012). Changes in emotional empathy, affective responsivity, and behavior following severe traumatic brain injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 34, 606–623. doi:10.1080/13803395.2012.667067
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas, J. M. (2010). Relation of executive functioning to pragmatic outcome following severe traumatic brain injury. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 365–382. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedmann, N. (1998). BAFLA – Friedmann’s battery for agrammatism. Tel Aviv University. (In Hebrew).
   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. (2005). Degrees of severity and recovery in agrammatism: Climbing up the syntactic tree. Aphasiology, 19, 1037–1051. doi:10.1080/02687030544000236
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E. (2010). Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 35–51. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granger, C. V. (1993). Guide for the uniform data set for medical rehabilitation (Adult FIM). Version 4.0. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo.
   Google Scholar
• Grosz, B. J., Weinstein, S., & Joshi, A. K. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21, 203–225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gundel, J. K., 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
• Gundel, J. K., & Johnson, K. (2013). Children’s use of referring expressions in spontaneous discourse: Implications for theory of mind development. Journal of Pragmatics, 56, 43–57. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2013.04.003
   Web of Science ®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
• Hanna, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (2003). The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 43–61. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00022-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Happé, F. (1994). An advanced theory of mind: Understanding of story characters’ thoughts and feelings by able autistic, mentally handicapped, and normal children and adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 129–154. doi:10.1002/aur.1744
   PubMed 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
• Havet-Thomassin, V., Allain, P., Etcharry-Bouyx, F., & Le Gall, D. (2006). What about theory of mind after severe brain injury? Brain Injury, 20, 83–91. doi:10.1080/02699050500340655
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickmann, M., Kail, M., & Roland, F. (1995). Cohesive anaphoric relations in French children’s narratives as a function of mutual knowledge. First Language, 15, 277–300. doi:10.1177/014272379501504502
   Google Scholar
• Hough, M. S., & Barrow, I. (2003). Descriptive discourse abilities of traumatic brain-injured adults. Aphasiology, 17, 183–191. doi:10.1080/02687030244000608
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Itzkovich, M., Averbuch, S., Elazar, B., & Katz, N. (1990). Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment (LOTCA) battery (lst ed.). Pequannock, NJ: Maddak Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Keysar, B., Lin, S., & Barr, D. J. (2003). Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition, 89, 25–41. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00064-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilov, A. M., Togher, L., & Grant, S. (2009). Problem solving with friends: Discourse participation and performance of individuals with and without traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology, 23, 584–605. doi:10.1080/02687030701855382
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knutsen, D., & Le Bigot, L. (2012). Managing dialogue: How information availability affects collaborative reference production. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 326–341. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konrad, C., Geburek, A., Rist, F., Blumenroth, H., Fischer, B., Husstedt, I., … Lohmann, H. (2011). Long-term cognitive and emotional consequences of mild traumatic brain injury. Psychological Medicine, 41, 1197–1211. doi:10.1017/S0033291710001728
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lê, K., Coelho, C., Mozeiko, J., Krueger, F., & Grafman, J. (2011). Measuring goodness of story narratives: Implications for traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology, 25, 748–760. doi:10.1080/02687038.2010.539696
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mar, R. A. (2004). The neuropsychology of narrative: Story comprehension, story production and their interrelation. Neuropsychologia, 42, 1414–1434. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.12.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• McDonald, S., Togher, L., & Code, C. (1999). The nature of traumatic brain injury: Basic features and neuropsychological consequences. In S. McDonald, L. Togher, & C. Code (Eds.), Communication disorders following traumatic brain injury (ch. 2, pp. 19–54). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, S. (2000). Exploring the cognitive basis of right-hemisphere pragmatic language disorders. Brain and Language, 75, 82–107. doi:10.1006/brln.2000.2342
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, S., Fisher, A., & Flanagan, S. (2016). When diplomacy fails: Difficulty understanding hints following severe traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology, 30, 801–814. doi:10.1080/02687038.2015.1070948
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milders, M., Fuchs, S., & Crawford, J. R. (2003). Neuropsychological impairments and changes in emotional and social behaviour following severe traumatic brain injury. Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology, 25, 157–172. doi:10.1076/jcen.25.2.157.13642
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mozeiko, J., Le, K., Coelho, C., Krueger, F., & Grafman, J. (2011). The relationship of story grammar and executive function following TBI. Aphasiology, 25, 826–835. doi:10.1080/02687038.2010.543983
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muller, F., Simion, A., Reviriego, E., Galera, C., Mazaux, J.-M., Barat, M., & Joseph, P.-A. (2010). Exploring theory of mind after severe traumatic brain injury. Cortex, 46, 1088–1099. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2009.08.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadig, A. S., & Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Evidence of perspective-taking constraints in children’s on-line reference resolution. Psychological Science, 13, 329–336. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2002.00460.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins, M. R. (2005). Pragmatic ability and disability as emergent phenomena. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 19, 367–377. doi:10.1080/02699200400027155
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perner, J., & Wimmer, H. (1985). “John thinks that Mary thinks that … ” attribution of second-order beliefs by 5-to 10-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 39, 437–471. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(85)90051-7
   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
• 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
• Samson, D., Apperly, I. A., Braithwaite, J. J., Andrews, B. J., & Bodley Scott, S. E. (2010). Seeing it their way: Evidence for rapid and involuntary computation of what other people see. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1255. doi:10.1037/a0018729
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaeffer, J., & Matthewson, L. (2005). Grammar and pragmatics in the acquisition of article systems. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 23, 53–101. doi:10.1007/s11049-004-5540-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Tomer, R., & Aharon-Peretz, J. (2005). The neuroanatomical basis of understanding sarcasm and its relationship to social cognition. Neuropsychology, 19, 288. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.19.3.288
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snow, P. C., Douglas, J. M., & Ponsford, J. L. (1999). Narrative discourse following severe traumatic brain injury: A longitudinal follow-up. Aphasiology, 13, 529–551. doi:10.1080/026870399401993
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sperber, D, & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition(2nd ed). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind and Language, 17, 3–23. doi:10.1111/1468-0017.00186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan, K., Zaitchik, D., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (1994). Preschoolers can attribute second-order beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 30, 395–402. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.30.3.395
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teasdale, G., & Jennett, J. B. (1974). Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet, 2, 81–84. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(74)91639-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Togher, L., Hand, L., & Code, C. (1997). Analysing discourse in the traumatic brain injury population: Telephone interactions with different communication partners. Brain Injury, 11, 169–190. doi:10.1080/026990597123629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, B., Cockburn, J., Baddeley, A., & Hiorns, R. (1989). The development and validation of a test battery for detecting and monitoring everyday memory problems. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 11, 855–870. doi:10.1080/01688638908400940
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition, 13(1), 103–128. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziv, M., & Frye, D. (2004). Children's understanding of teaching: The role of knowledge and belief. Cognitive Development, 19(4), 457–477. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2004.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar