اختلال گفتمانی در افراد آسیب‌دیده مغزی نیمکرۀ راست: شواهدی از پردازش بندهای موصولی

Metuki, N., and Lavidor, M. Applying advancements in neurolinguistic research to enhance semantic processing via cognitive training. Journal of Neurolinguistics. 2013; 26, 662–690. http: //dx. doi. org/10. 1016/ j. jneuroling.

LaPointe, L. Aphasia and Related Neurogenic Language Disorders, Fourth Edition. Publisher: Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc; 2011.

Davis, G. A., O’Neil-Pirozzi, T. M., and Coon, M. Referential Cohesion and Logical Coherence of Narration after Right Hemisphere Stroke. Brain and Language, 1997, 56 (2), 183–210. doi:10.1006/brln.1997.1741.

Marini, A., Carlomagno, S., Caltagirone, C., and Nocentini, U. The role played by the right hemisphere in the organization of complex textual structures. Brain and Language, 2005, 93 (1), 46–54. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2004.08.002.

Lehman Blake, M. Clinical Relevance of Discourse Characteristics after Right Hemisphere Brain Damage. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2006, 15 (3), 255-267. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360 (2006/024). PMID: 16896175.

Davis, G., and Coelho, C. Referential cohesion and logical coherence of narration after closed head injury. Brain and Language, 2004, 89 (3), 508-523.

Mackenzie, C., Brady, M., Begg, T., and Lees, K. R. Communication ability following right hemisphere brain damage: The family perspective. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2001, 3 (2). 81-95.

Andreetta, S., Cantagallo, A., and Marini, A. Narrative discourse in anomia aphasia. Neruopsychologia, 2012, 50 (8):1787-93. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.04.003.

Sherratt, S., and Bryan K. Discourse production after right brain damage: Gaining a comprehensive  picture  using  a  multi-level  processing  model.  Journal  of Neurolinguistics, 2012, 25, 213–239.

Jerônimo, G. M., Carlos, L., Marrone, P., and Scherer, L. C. Narrative Discourse Comprehension in Right Hemisphere Brain Damage: A Single Case Study. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2011, 23, 203–204. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.239.

Barker, M. S., Young, B., and Robinson, G. A. Cohesive and coherent connected Speech deficits in mild stroke. Brain and Language, 2017, 168, 23–36. http://dx.doi.org /10.1016 /j. bandl. 2017.01.004.

Barnesa, S., Toocaram, S., Nickels, L., Beeke, S., Best, W., and Bloch, S. Everyday conversation after right hemisphere damage: A methodological demonstration and some preliminary findings. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 2019, 52 (1), 1-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroling. 2019. 100850.

Marini, A. Characteristics of Narrative Discourse Processing after Damage to the Right Hemisphere. Semin Speech Lang. 2012; 33(1):68-78. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1301164.

Engle, R. W., Conway, A. R. A., Tuholsky, S. W., and Shisler, R. J. A resource account of inhibition. Psychological Science, 2006, 6, 122–125.

Tompkins, C. A., Lehman-Blake, M. T., Baumgaertner, A., and Fassbinder, W. Mechanisms  of  discourse  comprehension  impairment  after  right  hemisphere  brain damage; Suppression  in  inferential  ambiguity  resolution.  Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 2001, 44, 400–415. https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4301.62.

Coelho, C. A., Youse, K. M., and Le, K. N. Conversational discourse in closed-head injured and non-brain-injured adults. Aphasiology, 2002, 16(4-6), 659-672.

Cocks, N., Hird, K., and Kirsner, K. The relationship between right hemisphere damage and gesture in spontaneous discourse. Aphasiology, 2007, 21(3-4), 299–319. doi:10.1080/ 02 687030600911393.

Beeman, M., and Chiarello, C. Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998.

Tompkins, C. A. Theoretical considerations for understanding “understanding” by adults with RHBD. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 2008, 22(5), 629–629. doi: 10.1016/j .bbi. 2008. 05.010.

Ronald, D., Mauner, G., O’Meara, C. and Yun, H. Discourse expectations and relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 2012, 66, 479-508.

Fox, B. A., and Thompson, S. A. A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language, 1990, 66, 297–316.

Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., and Schriefers, H. Discourse structure and relative clause processing. Memory and Cognition, 2008, 36, 170–181.

Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, H., Johnson, M., & Lee, Y. Similarity- based interference during language comprehension: Evidence from eye tracking during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2006, 32, 1304–21.

Gibson, E. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain, 2000, pp. 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Levy, R. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 2008, 106, 1126–77.

Futrell, R. Processing effects of the expectation of informativity (M.A. thesis). Stanford University, Stanford, United States; 2012.