Intraword Timing Relations in Thai after Unilateral Brain Damage

Production of Stress Retraction by Left- and Right-Hemisphere-Damaged Patients

“…The authors again concluded that the deficit-this time exhibited only by the LHD nonfluent aphasic patientwas due to an inability to implement the contrast, rather than to impaired underlying knowledge of the rule. Specifically, the LHD nonfluent aphasic patient demonstrated a significant deficit in speech timing, consistent with the earlier literature (Baum, 1992(Baum, , 1993Baum & Boyczuk, 1999;Baum & Ryan, 1993;Blumstein, Cooper, Goodglass, Statlender, & Gottlieb, 1980;Blumstein, Cooper, Zurif, & Caramazza, 1977;Cooper, Soares, Nicol, Michelow, & Goloskie, 1984;Gandour, Dechongkit, Ponglorpisit, & Khunadorn, 1994;Gandour, Dechongkit, Ponglorpisit, Khunadorn, & Boongird, 1993;Kent & Rosenbek, 1983;Strand & McNeil, 1996). However, it is noteworthy that the deficit was not restricted to temporal parameters (Grela & Gandour, 1999).…”

“…When controlled for speaking rate differences, the LHD speakers produced relatively normal pauses signaling clause boundaries (see also Baum et al, 1997;Baum et al, 2001), supporting claims that the timing impairment is not pervasive (e.g., Blumstein, 1998). However, syllable duration cues to stress were less clear in the productions of the LHD speakers (see also Ouellette & Baum, 1994), consistent with their oft-cited impairment in temporal control, particularly within words (e.g., Baum, 1992;Baum & Boyczuk, 1999;Gandour et al, 1993).…”

Neural substrates of linguistic prosody: Evidence from syntactic disambiguation in the productions of brain-damaged patients

“…For example, looking only at linguistic prosody, numerous investigators have reported impairments in the control of temporal parameters of speech prosody in lefthemisphere-damaged (LHD) individuals (e.g., Baum et al, 2001;Danly & Shapiro, 1982;Danly et al, 1983;Gandour et al, 1993;2000;Schirmer et al, 2001), but relatively spared control of timing in individuals with right hemisphere damage (RHD) (Baum & Boyczuk, 1999;Gandour et al, 1994;Schirmer et al, 2001;Walker et al, 2004). However, investigations of the control of F0 in brain-damaged speakers have yielded mixed results, sometimes demonstrating deficits on the part of LHD speakers (e.g., Cooper et al, 1984;Danly & Shapiro, 1982;Danly et al, 1983;Ryalls, 1982) and sometimes showing deficits for RHD speakers (e.g., Behrens, 1989;Bradvik et al, 1991;Bryan, 1989;Shapiro & Danly, 1985;Weintraub et al, 1981).…”

Word Length and Vowel Duration in Apraxia of Speech: The Use of Relative Measures

“…The pattern obtained with this relative duration measure was interpreted as a preservation of the phonological rule in AOS, whereas the differences between normal and apraxic speakers in absolute duration values were interpreted as disturbed articulatory implementation of the rule. Baum (1992) and Gandour and colleagues (Gandour, Dechongkit, Ponglorpisit, Khunadorn, & Boongird, 1993) have addressed similar questions among speakers with nonfluent and fluent aphasia. The duration of word stem syllables was measured in words with one, two, and three syllables.…”

“…Although the presence of an abnormal shortening pattern for a relative duration measure may be interpreted as a disruption of the rule system itself, the authors opted for a more conventional explanation. They suggested that the most likely explanation was that the vowel reduction rule was preserved at a phonological level, whereas the articulatory implementation of the rule was impaired due to a markedly reduced rate of speech in nonfluent aphasic speakers (Baum, 1992;Gandour et al, 1993).…”