The production of linguistic prosodic structures in subjects with right hemisphere damage

Abstract

This study examined the right hemisphere contribution to the production of linguistic prosody where acoustic features of prosodic structures in different linguistic contexts were examined accompanied by perceptual judgements. When control and right hemisphere damaged (RHD) subjects were asked to produce lexical stress differences (Experiment 1), prosodic boundaries to denote syntactic constituents (Experiment 2), and questions and statements (Experiment 3) conveyed through prosody, both groups were similar in producing the duration, F0 and amplitude acoustic cues within prosodic structures to convey different linguistic meanings. Listeners were able to perceive the meanings of the productions of both groups in Experiments 1 and 3, but had greater difficulty perceiving the productions of the RHD group in Experiment 2. These findings, which suggest that the right hemisphere has a limited role in the production of linguistic prosody, are discussed in relation to perceptual theories of prosody.

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

“…The findings of the present investigation are consistent with those of several recent experiments that have shown relatively normal patterns of acoustic cues to sentence-level prosodic distinctions as produced by both LHD and RHD patients (e.g., Baum et al, 2001;Schirmer et al, 2001;Walker et al, 2004). Despite the relatively preserved patterns, individuals with LHD in particular, displayed less consistent use of temporal parameters in signaling the intonational phrase boundaries (and hence the syntactic distinctions) in the present investigation.…”

“…These results suggest either that normal speakers do not utilize F0 in a consistent manner to mark the type of syntactic boundaries examined in the present study (Albritton et al, 1996;Stirling & Wales, 1996;Walker et al, 2004) or that the specific measures used do not adequately reflect the actual distinguishing features produced (e.g., Baum et al, 2001; but cf. Blasko & Hall, 1998;Ladd, 1988;Price et al, 1991;Warren, 1985) 4 .…”

“…Schirmer et al (2001) have also found largely unimpaired prosody production abilities in both LHD and RHD speakers in a task requiring the shifting of stress across sentence positions to indicate focus. Nonetheless, as in previous studies (e.g., Walker et al, 2004), listeners exhibited greater difficulty in identifying the position of contrastive emphasis in productions of the brain-damaged individuals relative to control subjects.…”

“…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).…”

“…Whereas the majority of studies of the production (and perception; see e.g., Heilman et al, 1984;Pell & Baum, 1997a;Weintraub et al, 1981) of linguistic prosody in brain-damaged patients have concentrated on global acoustic cues to sentence type (i.e., declarative vs. interrogative vs. imperative), there has recently been a surge of interest in more subtle, but extremely important linguistic distinctions that are signalled by prosodic cues in both normal speech production (e.g., Beach, 1991;Grabe & Warren, 1995;Nagel et al, 1994;Price et al, 1991), as well as in production by brain-damaged patients (e.g., Grela & Gandour, 1998;Schirmer et al, 2001;Walker et al, 2004; see also Grosjean & Hirt, 1996;Marslen-Wilson et al,.1992;Nagel et al, 1994;Shapiro & Nagel, 1995;Walker et al, 2001;2004 for data on perception). Of particular relevance to the present investigation are a number of investigations that have examined the ability of brain-damaged patients to mark syntactic boundaries using prosodic cues.…”