Right brain damage and the verbal expression of emotion: A preliminary investigation

Abstract

Background: Emotional expression or evaluation is intrinsically involved in all communication. In discourse, it has the function of expressing the speaker's opinions, building rapport with the listener, and providing a discourse framework. Emotion may be expressed verbally (lexically), nonverbally (e.g., gesture), or extralinguistically (e.g., prosody). Although it has been established that individuals with right brain damage (RBD) are impaired in the comprehension and production of emotion, research to date has focused on nonverbal and extralinguistic channels. The verbal expression of emotion in this population has been investigated in some studies but most of these have used global rating scales. Therefore, data at the verbal or lexical level of emotional expression following RBD are scarce. Aims: To explore the quantity and type of verbal emotional expression produced by individuals with RBD in their personal experience narratives. Methods & Procedures: Two personal experience narratives (using a negative and a positive emotional discourse topic) were elicited from a group of 7 males with RBD and a matched group of 10 non-brain-damaged (NBD) males. The discourse samples were transcribed and analysed in terms of the frequency and type of appraisal resources, i.e., the semantic choices made to express emotions, judgements, and valuations, and the way these can be graded (Martin, 2000;Martin & Rose, 2003).Outcomes & Results: The RBD group used fewer total appraisal resources in the verbal expression of emotion, particularly on the negative topic. Overall, they graded their emotional expression less and evaluated phenomena more than the NBD group. The major differences between the two groups were observed in the proportion of resources used in the negative topic: the RBD group evaluated phenomena more frequently than they expressed their own feelings, whereas the reverse was observed for the NBD group. On the positive topic, both groups used similar proportions of appraisal resources. Conclusions: This preliminary investigation has revealed that individuals with RBD may be impaired in the quantity and choice of verbal emotional expression produced in personal experience narratives on a negative, but not a positive, topic. The novel application of the appraisal framework to the discourse of this population has indicated that this method has considerable merit in highlighting differences in lexical emotional expression. It can also provide further insight into the assessment and treatment of the interpersonal and social integration deficits observed in individuals with acquired neurogenic disorders.

Discourse production after right brain damage: Gaining a comprehensive picture using a multi-level processing model

“…For example, the frightening personal narratives elicited considerably longer samples from most of the participants with RBD. This may relate to the interest value of this topic or to the effect of emotion, particularly negative emotion, on the discourse produced by RBD speakers (Bloom et al, 1993;Heberlein, Adolphs, Pennebaker, & Tranel, 2003;Sherratt, 2007b). It is thus difficult to come to any conclusion regarding narrative length in participants with RBD as the results may be dependent on task/topic variables.…”

“…This manifests in a disturbance in the comprehension and production of emotional expression as conveyed by means of facial expression, verbal content, body language and the prosodic features of oral speech (Mneimne et al, 2010;Smith & Bulman-Fleming, 2005). It has also been noted that emotional content suppressed their pragmatic performance and their discourse had less emotional intensity and content (Borod, Bloom, Brickman, Nakhutina, & Curko, 2002;Gainotti, 1999;Sherratt, 2007b). Evidence to-date shows that the flat effect of these speakers is more likely to be the result of a decrease in arousal and attention, or a deficit in inferencing or theory of mind, rather than of an underlying emotional disturbance (Myers, 1999).…”

Textual cohesion in oral narrative and procedural discourse: the effects of ageing and cognitive skills

“…Second, four personal‐experience narratives were obtained by verbal requests to ‘Tell me about a frightening/embarrassing/happy/funny experience that you have had at any time in your life’. A range of emotionally charged narratives were used because discourse topic may affect the discourse performance due to its interest value, the speaker's involvement in or attitude to it, its importance, vividness, or stressful or sensational nature (Longacre , Peterson and McCabe , Sherratt ). Third, six procedures (relatively complex, male oriented or gender neutral, and usually learnt as an adult) were elicited by a verbal request to ‘Tell me how you would …’ (change a car tyre, fix window, teach bike‐riding, buy a jacket, borrow a library book, shop in a supermarket).…”

Narratives of focal brain injured individuals: A macro-level analysis

“…People with RHD also used fewer appraisals (e.g., affect, judgment) compared to controls in expressing emotions in their personal narratives. This could be due to impairment in talking about authorial (first person) affect as opposed to non-authorial (second or third person) one such as providing information about feelings of others in a retelling or a sequenced picture task (Sherratt, 2007). In our study, participants were required to report on the actions and the feelings/motivations of the protagonists in a pictured story, and we indicated comparable evaluative performance for people with RHD and controls when they provide non-authorial affect.…”