Pragmatic Communication Deficit and Functional Outcome in Patients with Right- and Left-Brain Damage: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pragmatic communication abilities refer to the capacity to use language in a social context. Despite evidence to the contrary, the left cerebral hemisphere of the majority of right handers has been considered exclusively specialized for control of language phonology, syntax and semantics, whereas the right hemisphere has been specialized for the control of language pragmatics. Many studies have shown the non-exclusivity of the left hemisphere for language skills. Communication deficits observed in these studies for patients with right hemisphere damage confirmed the necessity for integrity of the right hemisphere across a number of language components. The aim of this study is to investigate the specific role of the right and left hemispheres across several aspects of communication deficits, with particular attention given to the influence of these deficits on functional outcome. The second aim is to characterize possible correlations between pragmatic and other cognitive deficits. We evaluated 22 patients, 15 with left- and 7 with right-brain ischemic or hemorrhagic damage, using cognitive, pragmatic and language tests. We deployed the Right Hemisphere Language Battery-Santa Lucia and Montreal d'Evaluation de la Communication to assess pragmatic abilities. The results showed no statistically significant differences between patients with left- and right-brain damage, highlighting the importance of integration between the two hemispheres in the communication process. Multiple significant correlations were found between pragmatic abilities and cognitive tests assessing global cognitive functioning, pantomime expression and comprehension. Pragmatic deficits were also shown to correlate with functional cognitive outcome. It is important to assess pragmatic abilities in patients with cognitive deficits after both left and right stroke for tailoring neuropsychological intervention to mitigate pragmatic disabilities in functional outcomes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".