This is an important question, and one that interactive dualists are generally poor at even admitting exists. Most of the other physicalist attacks on interactive dualism are based on reasoning or science errors (asserting different types of things cannot interact is -- simply untrue; asserting science has shown energy conservation and causal closure of the physical are facts is likewise untrue, as shown by the current open nature of physics and continual discovery of new interactions, and by the spontaneous symmetry breaking in the gauge symmetry assumption). Defenses of dualism tend to focus on these refutable objections, and on the evidence in favor of dualism. Three good examples are The Self And its Brain, by Popper and Eccles, or this link, for a more recent example: http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Bernier/Bernier_Thesis.pdf
The issue for dualists should be made clear. Substance typically assume that consciousness is spiritual, and it interacts with the brain the way a TV broadcast station interacts with a television screen, or the way a remote drone operator interacts with a drone. This model accounts for some effect on consciousness from brain damage. If a TV's circuitry has a few wiring shorts, then it can malfunction in how it manifests a signal (such as a person knows what they want to say, but they are unable to form the words due to a stroke), and damage to telemetry sensors or camera on the drone can degrade the info getting back to the operator (stroke in optical processing of brain leads to blindness). Plus, dualists are often trying to defend a religious view in which "souls" are indivisible, hence they assert a an intrinsic indivisibility to consciousness. An example of both assumptions, from a recent dualist paper is here: http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Collins/Collins-Scientific%20Case%20for%20Soul.pdf Eccles model of interaction is more explicit, and has the same features.
The problem for both assumptions is that there has been considerable evidence for an extended time that CONSCIOUSNESS is affected by brain damage, and that we can lose bits of consciousness, not just our data or expression. The first documented case was a railway worker whose brain was penetrated by a spike in the 1800s, and underwent a personality change: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/phineas-gage-neurosciences-most-famous-patient-11390067/ A more recent set of examples is documented in "the Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat", documenting the case studies of a neurologist's patients, and the bits of consciousness they lost. Patients unable to even think of the left hand field of view, patients who cannot think about action verbs -- these are degradations of the DRONE OPERATOR, not of the data, or of the communication, or the drone behavior.
I have found only two dualist authors who admit this problem. Beloff http://www.newdualism.org/sites/moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk-dualism/papers/brains.html, agrees this observation supports physicalism, but he does not offer a solution. May and May offer a two-mode ad hoc addendum to dualism -- when enbodied, mind for TBD reasons tracks with bodies, but then when separate they don't: https://www.selfconsciousmind.com/TheoryOfMindAndBrain-12052011.pdf. May and May don't offer any rationale why, if minds can process "left side of visual field" when discarnate and there is no brain to process any of this in parallel, but then when there is a brain doing some of this processing, the mind can not then do the left side of visual field even if that portion of the brian is damaged -- they lack any explanation, other than "this is how it is".
Note, the damage/thinking correlation is not a fatal objection to dualism, but only to the two assumptions I noted above. A dualist model, to be compatible with this data, needs to allow that souls use brains to expand their functions and throughput of consciousness. This can be done with a much more complex, coupled/interactive model. Anyone who has driven the safety-assist cars which partially process the road data for you, then try to assist in controlling the car, will have experienced some aspects of an offboard thinking assist. Our cars do not couple directly into awareness, but per interactive dualism, our brains do. Hence apply this concept to actual awareness, and a dualist model that treats the brain as a shared enabler of some features of consciousness would be consistent with this data.
What this model would predict is that disembodied souls would have less capability and throughput than they do when embodied, and could also have different personalities. This is a consequence that most dualists are reluctant to accept, but this is only a problem for some models of dualism, and the wishes of dualists, not for dualism in principle.
Dual aspect monism (DAM) is refuted by all the refutations of identity theories, AND faces both the same problem dualists do, but also faces additional logic problems (the matter of the brain is still there, why would a wiring difference cause mental changes). I have not seen dual aspect monists even put the effort out that dualists have to articulate even as coherent a model as the TV/drone model. You will need another poster to come up with any DAM answers -- I don't think they have them.