Communication Abilities Following Right Hemisphere Damage: Prevalence, Evaluation, and Profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is now consensually accepted that the contribution of both hemispheres is required to reach a functional level of communication. The unilateralized view of language function, introduced more than a century ago, has since been complemented by clinical experience as well as neuro-imaging observations. Studies based on healthy and right-brain-damaged individuals assert the necessity to better describe, assess, and care for this broad population. Indeed, various neurological conditions, including stroke, traumatic brain injury (TBI), or neurodegenerative disease, can affect the right hemisphere (RH) and lead to distinct communication disorders. In the past 30 years, knowledge about communication assessment and, more recently, therapy designed for right-brain-damaged adults has drastically evolved. This manuscript aims at presenting the theoretical and clinical background that established the current expertise to support accurate assessment of communication following right brain damage. It is believed that a better understanding of the various profiles of impairments following a RH infract will allow speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to develop the clinical awareness necessary for appropriately taking care of these individuals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".