Objective: The current research aimed at classifying communication profiles among right-brain-damaged adults with an intercultural perspective, and so begins to fill in a long-standing gap in the literature. Method: The sample was made up of 112 right-brain-damaged individuals from three nationalities (Canadians, Brazilians and Argentineans). They were assessed using 13 language tasks from the Protocol MEC in Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese and French. Results: A hierarchical cluster analysis led to four distinct clinical profiles of communication. Since only a few distinctions between nationalities were observed, the results suggest that there probably is a partial universality of clinical profiles of communication impairments after a right brain damage. Conclusions: This study proposes a preliminary taxonomy of communication disorders among right-brain-damaged individuals with cross-cultural implications. The exploration of associated stroke sites and neuropsychological concomitant deficits would contribute to the eventual development of a more accurate clinical intervention.

Keywords:
Right brain damage, Communication, Stroke, Clusters
1.
Critchley M: Speech and speech loss in relation to duality of the brain; in Mountcastle VB (ed): Interhemispheric Relations and Cerebral Dominance. Baltimore, Hopkins Press, 1962.
2.
Eisenson J: Language dysfunctions associated with right brain damage. Am Speech Hear Assoc 1959;1:117.
3.
Weinstein EA: Affection of speech with lesions of the nondominant hemisphere. Res Publ Assoc Res Nerv Ment Dis 1964;42:220–228.
4.
Harley T: The Psychology of Language: From Data to Theory. Hove, Psychology Press, 2001.
5.
Brandão L: Discurso e cognição em duas variantes da demência frontotemporal e na doença de Alzheimer. Rev Neuropsicol Latinoam 2010;2:11–24.
6.
Cummings L, Phil D: Pragmatics and adult language disorders: past achievements and future directions. Semin Speech Lang 2007;28:96–110.
7.
Lehman-Blake M: Communication deficits associated with right hemisphere brain damage; in Damico JS, Müller N, Ball MJ (eds): The Handbook of Language and Speech Disorders. Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, pp 556–576.
8.
Tompkins C: Rehabilitation for cognitive-communication disorders in right hemisphere brain damage. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;93:S61–S69.
9.
Ferré P, Ska B, Lajoie C, Joanette Y: Clinical focus on prosodic, discursive and pragmatic treatment for right hemisphere damaged adults: what’s right ? Rehabil Res Pract 2011;2011:35–37.
10.
Joanette Y, Goulet P, Daoust H: Incidence et profils des troubles de la communication verbale chez les cérébrolésés droits. Rev Neuropsychol 2004;1:3–27.
11.
Ferré P, Clermont MF, Lajoie C, Côté H, Abusamra V, Ska B, et al: Identification de profils communicationnels parmi les individus cérébrolésés droits: profils transculturels. Rev Soc Latinoam Neuropsychol 2009;1:32–40.
12.
Blake ML, Duffy JR, Myers PS, Tompkins CA: Prevalence and patterns of right hemisphere cognitive/communicative deficits: retrospective data from an inpatient rehabilitation unit. Aphasiology 2002;16:537–547.
13.
Myers PS: Profiles of communication deficits in patients with right cerebral hemisphere damage: implications for diagnosis and treatment; in RH Brookshire (ed): Clinical Aphasiology Conference Proceedings. Minneapolis, BRK Publishers, 1979, pp 38–46.
14.
Tompkins CA: Right Hemisphere Communication Disorders: Theory and Management. San Diego, Singular Publishing Group, 1995.
15.
Joanette Y, Ska B, Côté H: Protocole Montréal d’Evaluation de la Communication. Isbergues, Ortho Edition, 2004.
16.
Côté H, Moix V, Giroux F: Évaluation des troubles de la communication des cérébrolésés droits. Rééduc Orthophon 2004;219:107–133.
17.
Ferreres A, Abusamra V, Cuitiño M, Côté H, Ska B, Joanette Y: Protocolo MEC. Protocolo para la Evaluación de la Comunicación de Montreal. Neuropsi E Buenos Aires, 2007.
18.
Fonseca RP, Parente MAMP, Côté H, Ska B, Joanette Y: Bateria Montreal de Avaliação da Comunicação – Bateria MAC. Pró-Fono São Paulo, 2008.
19.
Uzzell BP, Pontón MO, Ardila A: International Handbook of Cross-Cultural Neuropsychology. London, Routledge, 2007.
20.
Paradis M: The other side of language: pragmatic competence. J Neurolinguistics 1998;11:1–10.
21.
Beausoleil N, Fortin R, Le Blanc B, Joanette Y: Unconstrained oral naming performance in right- and left-hemisphere-damaged individuals: when education overrides the lesion. Aphasiology 2003;17:143–158.
22.
Jodzio K, Lojek E, Bryan K: Functional and neuroanatomical analysis of extralinguistic disorders in right hemisphere-damaged patients. Psychol Lang Commun 2005;9:55–73.
23.
Lajoie C, Ferré P, Ska B: L’ impact de la nature des lésions sur les troubles de la communication consécutifs à une lésion cérébrale droite. Rev Neuropsicol Latinoam 2010;2:12–20.
24.
Ferré P, Clermont M-F, Côté H, Fonseca R, Abusamra V, Ferrerres A, et al: Clinical profiles of communication impairments after a right-hemisphere stroke. Academy of Aphasia Annual Congress, Boston, 2009.
25.
Côté H, Payer M, Giroux F, Joanette Y: Towards a description of clinical communication impairment profiles following right-hemisphere damage. Aphasiology 2007;21:739–749.
26.
Fonseca RP, Ferré P, Wilson MA, Ska B, Joanette Y: Communication profiles and their relationship with executive dysfunction. Academy of Aphasia, Athens, 2010.
27.
Paradis M: The need for awareness of aphasia symptoms in different languages. J Neurolinguistics 2001;14:85–91.
28.
Oldfield RC: The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neurospsychologia 1971;9:97–113.
29.
Fonseca RP, Parente P, Côté H, Joanette Y: Processo de adaptação da bateria Montreal de avaliação da comunicação: bateria MAC – ao português brasileiro. Psicol Reflex Crit 2007;20:259–267.
30.
Abusamra V, Côté H, Joanette Y, Ferreres A: Communication impairments in patients with right hemisphere damage. Language 2009;1:67–82.
31.
Fonseca P, Fachel G, Maria J, Ferreira D, Parente P, De MA, et al: Brazilian version of the Protocole Montréal d’Évaluation de la Communication (Protocole MEC ): normative and reliability data. Span J Psychol 2008;11:678–688.
32.
Kavé G, Heled E, Vakill E, Agranov E: Which verbal fluency measure is most useful in demonstrating executive deficits after traumatic brain injury? J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2011;33:358–365.
33.
Penn C: Pragmatic assessment and therapy for persons with brain damage: what have clinicians gleaned in two decades? Brain Lang 1999;68:535–552.
34.
Benton E, Bryan K: Right cerebral hemisphere damage: incidence of language problems. Int J Rehabil Res 1996;19:47–54.
35.
Peña-Casanova J, Gramunt-Fombuena N, Quiñones-Úbeda S, Sánchez-Benavides G, Aguilar M, Badenes D, et al: Spanish Multicenter Normative Studies (NEURONORMA Project): norms for the Rey-Osterrieth complex figure (copy and memory), and free and cued selective reminding test. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2009;24:371–393.
36.
Zanini S, Bryan K, De Luca G, Bava A: The effects of age and education on pragmatic features of verbal communication: evidence from the Italian version of the Right Hemisphere Language Battery (I-RHLB). Aphasiology 2005;19:1107–1133.
37.
Brady M, Armstrong L, Mackenzie C: An examination over time of language and discourse production abilities following right hemisphere brain damage. J Neurolinguistics 2006;19:291–310.
38.
Mackenzie C, Brady M, Begg T, Lees KR: Communication ability following right hemisphere brain damage: the family perspective. Adv Speech Lang Pathol 2001;3:81–95.
39.
Saur D, Lange R, Baumgaertner A, Schraknepper V, Willmes K, Rijntjes M, et al: Dynamics of language reorganization after stroke. Brain 2006;129:1371–1384.
40.
Moss A, Nicholas M: Language rehabilitation in chronic aphasia and time postonset: a review of single-subject data. Stroke 2006;37:3043–3051.
41.
Saczynski JS, Sigurdsson S, Jonsdottir MK, Eiriksdottir G, Jonsson PV, Garcia ME, et al: Cerebral infarcts and cognitive performance: importance of location and number of infarcts. Stroke 2009;40:677–682.
42.
Caplan LR: Caplan’s Stroke: A Clinical Approach, ed 3. Boston, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000.
43.
Cabeza R: Hemispheric asymmetry reduction in older adults: The HAROLD model. Psychol Aging 2002;17:85–100.
44.
Davis SW, Dennis NA, Daselaar SM, Fleck MS, Cabeza R: Qué pasa? The posterior-anterior shift in aging. Cereb Cortex 2008;18:1201–1209.
45.
Martins R, Simard F, Provost J-S, Monchi O: Changes in regional and temporal patterns of activity associated with aging during the performance of a lexical set-shifting task. Cereb Cortex 2012;22:1395–1406.
46.
Park DC, Reuter-Lorenz P: The adaptive brain: aging and neurocognitive scaffolding. Annu Rev Psychol 2009;60:173–196.
47.
Schneider-Garces NJ, Gordon BA, Brumback-Peltz CR, Shin E, Lee Y, Sutton BP, et al: Span, CRUNCH, and beyond: working memory capacity and the aging brain. J Cogn Neurosci 2010;22:655–669.
48.
Myers PS: CAC Classics Profiles of communication deficits in patients with right cerebral hemisphere damage: implications for diagnosis and treatment. Aphasiology 2005;19:1147–1160.
49.
Champagne-Lavau M, Joanette Y: Pragmatics, theory of mind and executive functions after a right-hemisphere lesion: Different patterns of deficits. J Neurolinguistics 2009;22:2–5.
50.
Tompkins CA, Meigh K, Gibbs Scott A, Guttentag Lederer L: Tompkins CA: Can high-level inferencing be predicted by Discourse Comprehension Test performance in adults with right hemisphere brain damage? Brain Behav Immun 2009;23:1016–1027.
51.
Pekkala S, Goral M, Hyun J, Obler LK, Erkinjuntti T, Albert ML: Semantic verbal fluency in two contrasting languages. Clin Linguist Phon 2009;23:431–445.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.