Catalogo Articoli (Spogli Riviste)

OPAC HELP

Titolo:
Inferencing in adults with right hemisphere brain damage: An analysis of conflicting results
Autore:
Lehman, MT; Tompkins, CA;
Indirizzi:
Univ Pittsburgh, Dept Commun Sci & Disorders, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA Univ Pittsburgh Pittsburgh PA USA 15260 sorders, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA
Titolo Testata:
APHASIOLOGY
fascicolo: 5-6, volume: 14, anno: 2000,
pagine: 485 - 499
SICI:
0268-7038(200005/06)14:5-6<485:IIAWRH>2.0.ZU;2-6
Fonte:
ISI
Lingua:
ENG
Soggetto:
PREDICTIVE INFERENCES; DISCOURSE COMPREHENSION; DRAWING INFERENCES; OCCUR ONLINE; TEXT; INTEGRATION; REPRESENTATION; INFORMATION; CONTRIBUTE; RETRIEVAL;
Tipo documento:
Article
Natura:
Periodico
Settore Disciplinare:
Clinical Medicine
Citazioni:
56
Recensione:
Indirizzi per estratti:
Indirizzo: Tompkins, CA Univ Pittsburgh, Dept Commun Sci & Disorders, 4033 Forbes Tower, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA Univ Pittsburgh 4033 Forbes Tower Pittsburgh PA USA 15260 USA
Citazione:
M.T. Lehman e C.A. Tompkins, "Inferencing in adults with right hemisphere brain damage: An analysis of conflicting results", APHASIOLOGY, 14(5-6), 2000, pp. 485-499

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 inferencegeneration 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 interpretationsmay 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 biasescontribute to inaccurate interpretations of RHD inferencing. Suggestions are provided for dealing with group heterogeneity and issues of generalizability.

ASDD Area Sistemi Dipartimentali e Documentali, Università di Bologna, Catalogo delle riviste ed altri periodici
Documento generato il 05/04/20 alle ore 00:45:50