Comprehension of directly and indirectly stated main ideas and details in discourse by brain-damaged and non-brain-damaged listeners

Aphasic, right-hemisphere-damaged, and non-brain-damaged subjects heard short narrative paragraphs. Each paragraph contained four main ideas and one or more details related to each main idea. After each paragraph was presented, subjects' comprehension and retention of main ideas and details from the paragraph were tested. Some of the test items directly restated information from paragraphs and others paraphrased information from paragraphs. All groups of subjects remembered main ideas better than they remembered details, and no group of subjects was significantly affected by whether test items directly or indirectly stated information from paragraphs. Disfluent aphasic and right-hemisphere-damaged subjects' overall paragraphs comprehension scores were not significantly poorer than those of non-brain-damaged subjects. Fluent and mixed aphasic subjects' overall paragraph comprehension scores were significantly worse than those of non-brain-damaged and right-hemisphere-damaged subjects. Token Test and Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination auditory comprehension scores did not predict aphasic subjects' paragraph comprehension scores. right-hemisphere-damaged subjects' overall paragraph comprehension scores were not significantly those of non-brain-damaged and right-hemisphere-damaged subjects. Token Test and Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination auditory comprehension scores did not predict aphasic subjects' paragraph comprehension scores.

[1]  J. Chall,et al.  A FORMULA FOR PREDICTING READABILITY , 1948 .

[2]  D Galin,et al.  Implications for psychiatry of left and right cerebral specialization. A neurophysiological context for unconscious processes. , 1974, Archives of general psychiatry.

[3]  J. L. Mack,et al.  Auditory Comprehension in Aphasia , 1977 .

[4]  B. J. Winer.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[5]  M. Dennis,et al.  Auditory comprehension : clinical and experimental studies with the Token test , 1979 .

[6]  A. J. North,et al.  Production of procedural discourse in aphasia , 1983, Brain and Language.

[7]  H. Gardner,et al.  The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients. , 1977, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[8]  H Goodglass,et al.  Narrative strategies of aphasic and normal-speaking subjects. , 1980, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[9]  P. Myers.  Analysis of Right Hemisphere Communication Deficits: Implications for Speech Pathology , 1978 .

[10]  A. Lecours,et al.  [Contribution to the study of semantic disorders in aphasia]. , 1971, Revue neurologique.

[11]  E. Z. Lasky,et al.  Influence of linguistic complexity, rate of presentation, and interphrase pause time on auditory-verbal comprehension of adult aphasic patients , 1976, Brain and Language.

[12]  Craig W. Linebaugh,et al.  Comprehension of Idiomatic Expressions by Right-Hemisphere-Damaged Adults , 1981 .

[13]  H. Gardner,et al.  Connotative judgements by aphasic patients on a pictorial adaptation of the semantic differential. , 1973, Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior.

[14]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Comprehension and recall of text as a function of content variables , 1975 .

[15]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Dissociation of algorithmic and heuristic processes in language comprehension: Evidence from aphasia , 1976, Brain and Language.

[16]  A. Paivio.  Imagery and verbal processes , 1972 .

[17]  K. Poeck,et al.  Text comprehension in aphasia , 1977, Brain and Language.

[18]  MacDonald Critchley,et al.  Aphasia in Adults , 1965 .

[19]  J. F. West.  Heightening the Action Imagery of Materials Used in Aphasia Treatment , 1978 .

[20]  F. Darley,et al.  The influence of context on the auditory comprehension of paragraphs by aphasic subjects. , 1978, Journal of speech and hearing research.