| Abstract: | The inferential reasoning ability of right hemisphere-damaged (RHD) patients was tested by presenting pairs of sentences which were to be treated as single, integrated units. The two sentences treated together made one interpretation likely (a correct inference); one of the sentences in isolation encouraged a different interpretation (an incorrect inference). The position of the misleading sentence was systematically varied. Results showed that, in contrast to normal controls, RHD patients have more trouble answering inference questions, especially those concerning incorrect inferences, than answering questions about the factual content of the passages. Also, RHD patients made significantly more errors when the misleading information was contained in the first rather than in the second sentence; this finding indicates that these patients have difficulty revising previously acquired knowledge in light of new information. These results suggest the impairment of several components of normal discourse processing subsequent to right hemisphere brain damage. |
