Speech Timing Subsequent to Brain Damage: Effects of Utterance Length and Complexity

Baum, Shari R.; Boyczuk, Jeffrey P.

doi:10.1006/brln.1999.2047

Cited by 28 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the overall noun/verb ratio for the LHD patients was smaller than those of the NC and RHD groups, indicating that verbs and nouns did not differ in length as much for the LHD group compared to the other participant groups. These results are consistent with previous research suggesting that lefthemisphere damaged patients show a reduced sentence-final lengthening effect relative to other speakers (Baum & Boyczuk, 1999;Baum et al, 2001;Shapiro & Danly, 1985).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…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

Self Cite

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: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

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

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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).…”

supporting

confidence: 89%

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

Gandour

Baum

2001

Brain and Language

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An acoustic-perceptual investigation of a phonological phenomenon in which stress is retracted in double-stressed words (e.g., thirTEEN vs THIRteen MEN) was undertaken to identify the locus of functional impairments in speech prosody. Subjects included left-hemisphere-damaged (LHD) and right-hemisphere-damaged (RHD) patients and nonneurological controls. They were instructed to read sentences containing double-stressed target words in the presence of a clause boundary or its absence. Whereas all three groups of subjects were capable of manipulating the acoustic parameters that signal a shift in stress, there were some differences between the performance of the patient groups and that of the normal controls. Further, stress production deficits were more severe in LHD aphasic patients than in RHD patients. LHD speakers exhibited deficits in the control of both temporal and F0 cues. Their F0 disturbance appears to be secondary to a primary deficit in temporal control at the phase or sentence level, as an increased number of continuation rises found for the LHD patients seemed to arise from lengthy pauses within sentences. Findings are highlighted to address the nature of breakdown in speech prosody and the competing views of prosodic lateralization.

show abstract

“…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

Self Cite

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

Speech Timing Subsequent to Brain Damage: Effects of Utterance Length and Complexity

Cited by 28 publications

References 30 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

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About