Speech prosody in Broca's aphasia

Danly, Martha; Shapiro, Barbara E.

doi:10.1016/0093-934x(82)90082-7

Cited by 144 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The LHD participants showed speech timing difficulties, as expected for this population (Baum, 1992;Danly & Shapiro, 1982;Gandour et al, 1994;Strand & McNeil, 1996) and produced longer sentences overall than the RHD and NC groups, who produced sentences with comparable overall lengths. Of course, given the small number of participants in each group, the absence of a difference must be interpreted with caution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Again, differential prosodic productions may be found across decomposability categories. Following Van Lancker and Sidtis' (1992) cue-dependent hypothesis, however, LHD individuals are expected to have a general problem controlling speech timing in their productions (see also Baum & Boyczuk, 1999;Danly & Shapiro, 1982;Gandour et al, 1994;Gandour, et al, 2000) and therefore may not be able to distinguish literal from idiomatic interpretations on the basis of temporal cues. Whether the RHD participants will have difficulty with the control of F0 is unclear, given mixed evidence about the lateralization of F0 Pell, 1999;Schirmer et al, 2001; but see Danly & Shapiro, 1982;Van Lancker & Sidtis, 1992).…”

Section: Supplementary Materials For the Complete Stimulus Set)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Use of prosodic cues in the production of idiomatic and literal sentences by individuals with right- and left-hemisphere damage

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The neural bases of prosody during the production of literal and idiomatic interpretations of literally plausible idioms was investigated. Left-and right-hemisphere-damaged participants and normal controls produced literal and idiomatic versions of idioms (He hit the books.) All groups modulated duration to distinguish the interpretations. LHD patients, however, showed typical speech timing difficulties. RHD patients did not differ from the normal controls. The results partially support a differential lateralization of prosodic cues in the two cerebral hemispheres (Van Lancker & Sidtis, 1992). Furthermore, extended final word lengthening appears to mark idiomaticity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Supplementary Materials For the Complete Stimulus Set)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of prosodic cues in the production of idiomatic and literal sentences by individuals with right- and left-hemisphere damage

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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). (See also Mayer and colleagues, 1999; for some interesting fMRI findings with respect to prosody production.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Shah¹,

Baum²,

Dwivedi³

2006

Brain and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present investigation focussed on the neural substrates underlying linguistic distinctions that are signalled by prosodic cues. A production experiment was conducted to examine the ability of left-(LHD) and right-(RHD) hemisphere damaged patients and normal controls to use temporal and fundamental frequency cues to disambiguate sentences which include one or more Intonational Phrase level (IPh) prosodic boundaries.Acoustic analyses of subjects' productions of three sentence-types -parentheticals, appositives, and tags -showed that LHD speakers, compared to RHD and normal controls, exhibited impairments in the control of temporal parameters signalling phrase boundaries, including inconsistent patterns of pre-boundary lengthening and longer-thannormal pause durations in non-boundary positions. Somewhat surprisingly, a perception test presented to a group of normal native listeners showed listeners experienced greatest difficulty in identifying the presence or absence of boundaries in the productions of the RHD speakers. The findings support a cue lateralization hypothesis in which prosodic domain plays an important role.

show abstract

“…e.g. (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)), very few of these studies have used nonexperimental speech data and/or have taken an interactional perspective on the topic (cf. (15,16) for a couple of exceptions, albeit from somewhat different perspectives).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosodic contextualization of minimal responses to yes/no-questions in aphasic talk-in-interaction: A descriptive single-case study of a Norwegian aphasic speaker

Lind¹

2007

Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article explores aspects of the role of prosody as a contextualisation cue in aphasic conversation through auditory and acoustic analysis of an aphasic speaker's use of pitch variation in responses to closed yes/no-requests. The results reveal two prosodic realisations of 'yes' and 'no' contextualising different kinds of responses: a flat realisation with no prolongation and minimal pauses, signalling decisiveness, and a realisation with movement in pitch, prolongation and preceding pauses, signalling indecisiveness. The analysis also shows how the aphasic uses a particular realisation manipulatively for interactional purposes. The study illustrates the vital role that seemingly unimportant details play in the co-constructive process of creating meaning in interaction. The results indicate an area of competence that seems undisturbed in this speaker.

show abstract

Speech prosody in Broca's aphasia

Cited by 144 publications

References 10 publications

Use of prosodic cues in the production of idiomatic and literal sentences by individuals with right- and left-hemisphere damage

Use of prosodic cues in the production of idiomatic and literal sentences by individuals with right- and left-hemisphere damage

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

Prosodic contextualization of minimal responses to yes/no-questions in aphasic talk-in-interaction: A descriptive single-case study of a Norwegian aphasic speaker

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About