Casper et al. (2007)

NATURE OF PROSODIC DISORDERS

ANALYSIS FORM

 

Key:

E = examiner

Fo = fundamental frequency

NA = not applicable

P = participant or patient

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

 

SOURCE: Casper, M. A., Raphael, L. J., Harris, K. S., & Geibel, J. M. (2007). Speech prosody in cerebellar ataxia. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 42, 407-426.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: September 14, 2014

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: B   (The highest possible grade, based in the design was B+.)

 

POPULATION: Dysarthria, Ataxia; Adult

 

PURPOSE: To compare productions of selected acoustic measures of prosody from the connected speech of neurotypical adults and adults with cerebellar ataxia.

 

INSIGHTS ABOUT PROSODY:

  • Participants (P) with cerebellar ataxia and neurotypical adults differed significantly on the following acoustic measures of prosody:

– duration

– fundamental frequency (Fo)

– formant frequencies

  • There is sufficient difference between Ps with cerebellar ataxia and neurotypical P to label the Ps with cerebella ataxia as displaying impaired or compromised prosody.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified? Prospective, Nonrandomized Group Comparison Design

 

  1. Group membership determination:

 

  1. If there were groups of participants were members of groups matched? NA
  1. Was participants’ communication status concealed?
  2. from participants? NA
  3. from assessment administrators? No
  4. from data analyzers? Unclear

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Variable. Some excellent information was provided by the investigators but other information (e.g., age, time since diagnosis, severity, speech characteristics) was omitted.
  2. How many participants were involved in the study?
  • total # of participants: 12
  • was group membership maintained throughout the experiment? Yes
  • # of groups: 2
  • List names of groups: Ps with cerebellar ataxia; neurotypical Ps
  • # of participants in each group: 6

                       

INCLUSION CRITERION FOR Ps WITH CEREBELLAR ATAXIA

  • diagnosis was confirmed by MRIs taken within a month of speech tasks

INCLUSION CRITERIA FOR NEUROTYPICAL Ps (each was matched to a P with cerebellar ataxia on the basis og)        

  • age
  • gender
  • dialect
  • educational level

DESCRIPTION OF P CHARACTERISTICS INCLUDED

  • language spoken: all Ps spoke English by 12 years of age
  • diagnoses for Ps with cerebellar ataxia:

– Friedreich’s ataxia (3)

– olivo-ponto degeneration (1)

– pure-recessive cerebellar degeneration (1)

– unknown (1)

  • MRI resultes: investigators provided an MRI for each of the Ps with cerebellar ataxia
  • ratings of cerebellar degeneration: ranged from 1 to 3 in the cerebellar vermis and cerebellar hemispheres
  • involvement of brainstem and/or spinal cord: brainstem (2Ps); spinal cord (3Ps)

 

  1. Were the communication problems adequately described? No
  • disorder type: dysarthria, cerebellar ataxia

 

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?
  2. Subject (Classification) Groups? Yes
  • Ps with cerebellar ataxia and neurotypical Ps

                                                               

  1. Experimental Conditions? Yes
  • production of /pap/ in a read sentence in which /pap/ was in a phrase-final accented environment
  • production of /pap/ in a read sentence in which /pap/ was in a nonphrase-final accented environment
  • production of /pap/ in a read sentence in which /pap/ was in a nonphrase-nonfinal accented environment
  • production of /pap/ in a read sentence in which /pap/ in a nuclear accented environment
  • 2 productions of /pap/ in a read sentence in which /pap/ was (1) in a post nuclear unaccented environment and (2) a stressed word

 

  1. Criterion/Descriptive Conditions?

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Yes

 

 

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes
  2. The dependent measures were
  • Dependent Measure #1: F2 of /pap/
  • Dependent Measure #2: F1 of /pap/
  • Dependent Measure #3: Fo of /pap/
  • Dependent Measure #4: the duration of the syllable /pap/
  1. None of the dependent measures were subjective.

 

  1. All of the dependent/ outcome measures were objective?

 

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

  1. Interobserver for analyzers? No, but the Investigators described how they derived each measure.

 

  1. Intraobserver for analyzers? No but the Investigators described how they derived each measure.

 

  1. Treatment fidelity for investigators? Not Applicable

 

  1. Description of design:
  • Both groups of Ps (Ps with cerebellar ataxia and neurotypical Ps) read sentences in response to questions from the examiner (E).
  • The five sentences had been developed to present the production of /pap/ in 6 different prosodic contexts.
  • Each sentence was read 10 times in response to a question from E.
  • The investigators used an repeated measures mixed design ANOVA for statistical analysis: diagnosis (2) by prosodic condition (6) with the repeated measure on prosody. The statistical analysis also explored the interaction between the diagnoses and the prosodic conditions.
  • The investigators also compared some of the prosodic conditions among themselves:
  1. accented production of /pap/ in phrase-final context versus accented production of /pap/ in non- phrase-final position
  2. accented non-phrase final production of /pap/ versus unaccented non-phrase-final production of /pap/
  3. nuclear accented production of /pap/ versus post-nuclear unaccented production of /pap/
  4. post-nuclear unaccented production of /pap/ (i.e., full vowel) versus reduced production of /pap/ (i.e., reduced vowel)

 

  1. What were the results of the inferential statistical testing?

 

  1. The comparisons that are significant ( p ≤ 0.05) are
  • Dependent Measure #1: F2 of /pap/

– there was a significant interaction between diagnosis and prosodic condition.

– for the 4 comparisons listed in #9, neurotypical Ps produced significant differences for

#2. accented non-phrase final production of /pap/ versus unaccented non-phrase-final production of /pap/

#3. nuclear accented production of /pap/ versus post-nuclear unaccented production of /pap/

#4. post-nuclear unaccented production of /pap/ (i.e., full vowel) versus reduced production of /pap/ (i.e., reduced vowel)

– for the 4 comparisons listed in #9, Ps with cerebellar ataxia produced no significant differences

 

  • Dependent Measure #2: F1 of /pap/

– There was a significant difference among the prosodic conditions and there was a significant interaction between diagnosis and prosodic condition.

– for the 4 comparisons listed in #9, neurotypical Ps produced significant differences for

#2. accented non-phrase final production of /pap/ versus unaccented non-phrase-final production of /pap/

#3. nuclear accented production of /pap/ versus post-nuclear unaccented production of /pap/

#4. post-nuclear unaccented production of /pap/ (i.e., full vowel) versus reduced production of /pap/ (i.e., reduced vowel)

– for the 4 comparisons listed in #9, Ps with cerebellar ataxia produced only one significant difference:

#4. post-nuclear unaccented production of /pap/ (i.e., full vowel) versus reduced production of /pap/ (i.e., reduced vowel)

 

 

  • Dependent Measure #3: Fo of /pap/

– there was a significant difference among the prosodic conditions and there was a significant interaction between diagnosis and prosodic condition.

– for the 4 comparisons listed in #9, neurotypical Ps produced significant differences for

#1. accented production of /pap/ in phrase-final context versus accented production of /pap/ in non- phrase-final position

#3. nuclear accented production of /pap/ versus post-nuclear unaccented production of /pap/

#4. post-nuclear unaccented production of /pap/ (i.e., full vowel) versus reduced production of /pap/ (i.e., reduced vowel)

– for the 4 comparisons listed in #9, Ps with cerebellar ataxia produced no significant differences

 

  • Dependent Measure #4: the duration of the syllable /pap/

– There was a significant difference among the prosodic conditions and diagnoses and there was a significant interaction between diagnosis and prosodic condition.

– All 4 comparisons listed in #9, neurotypical Ps yielded significant differences

– For the 4 comparisons listed in #9, Ps with cerebellar ataxia produced only comparison #1 was significantly different

#1. accented production of /pap/ in phrase-final context versus accented production of /pap/ in non- phrase-final position

  1. The statistical tests used to determine significance were
  • ANOVA:
  • pair-wise comparisons
  1. Were effect sizes provided? No
  1. Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. What were the results of the correlational statistical testing? NA
  1. What were the results of the descriptive analysis?
  • Dependent Measure #1: F2 of /pap/

– Neurotypical Ps displayed a clear pattern of differential use of F2 across prosodic conditions.

– Ps with cerebellar ataxia produced a smaller range of F2 values and did not clearly differentiate across the prosodic conditions

 

  • Dependent Measure #2: F1 of /pap/

– Neurotypical Ps displayed a clear pattern of differential use of F1 across prosodic conditions.

– With one exception, Ps with cerebellar ataxia did not clearly differentiate across the prosodic conditions

 

  • Dependent Measure #3: Fo of /pap/

– For the 6 prosodic conditions, there was only one significant difference between the 2 diagnostic groups.

– With one exception, neurotypical Ps displayed a clear pattern of differential use of F0 across prosodic conditions.

– Ps with cerebellar ataxia produced reduced Fo abd did not clearly differentiate across the prosodic conditions

 

  • Dependent Measure #4: the duration of the syllable /pap/

 

– Neurotypical Ps displayed a clear pattern of differential use of duration across prosodic conditions.

– With one exception, Ps with cerebellar ataxia did not clearly differentiate across the prosodic conditions

– Clearly, the ability of Ps with cerebellar ataxia to modulate duration differed from neurotypical Ps.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: