Penner et al. (2001)

NATURE OF PROSODIC DISORDERS

ANALYSIS FORM

Key:

Fo = fundamental frequency

P = participant or patient

PD = Parkinson’s disease

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

TA = typical adult

 

SOURCE: Penner, H., Miller, N, Hertrich, I., Ackermann, H., & Schumms, F. (2001). Dysprosody in Parkinson’s disease: An investigation of intonation patterns. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 15, 551-566.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: October 25, 2014

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: C+ (Based on the design, the highest possible grade was B+.)

 

POPULATION: Parkinson’s disease (PD); Adults

 

PURPOSE: To describe the interaction of accent patterns, accent timing, and medication on the peak height of fundamental frequency (Fo) in German speakers with Parkinson’s disease (PD).

 

INSIGHTS ABOUT PROSODY:

  • Compared to typical adults (TA), German speakers with PD tended to
  1. produce reduced Fo at the peak of the intonation contour and
  2. locate Fo peak on the targeted accented syllable more frequently. (This second factor is noted in the abstract but I could not find it in the results.)
  • Medication had variable effects on the Fo peaks of Ps with PD.

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?
  • Combined Design– Single Subject Design with Specific Participants: ABC design and Prospective, Nonrandomized Group Comparison Design
  1. Group membership determination:
  2. If there were groups of participants were members of groups matched? Yes
  3. The matching strategy involved the following:
  • The TA group was matched to PD group by age and status of being a native, monolingual speaker of German. The TA group had no history of neurological impairments and were hospitalized due to orthopedic issues.
  1. Was participants’ communication status concealed?
  2. from participants? No
  3. from assessment administrators? No
  4. from data analyzers? No

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups/participants adequately described? Yes
  2. How many participants were involved in the study?
  • total # of participants: 6
  • was group membership maintained throughout the experiment? Yes
  • # of groups: 2
  • List names of groups: Speakers with Parkinson’s disease (PD) and speakers with no known neurological problems—typical adults (TA)
  • # of participants in each group: PD = 3Ps; TA = 3Ps

           

  1. The following variables were actively controlled described
  • age: 72-74 years
  • gender: all Ps with PD were female
  • cognitive skills: all Ps with PD- no dementia
  • depression: none of Ps with PD had evidence of severe depression at time of investigation
  • language: all Ps were monolingual, native speakers of German
  • diagnosis: all Ps with PD had been diagnosed with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease
  • severity of PD: on the Hoehn & Yahr Scale—III to IV; on the Webster Scale –14 to 17
  • duration of PD: 9 to 14 years
  • neurological problems prior to the diagnosis of PD: none for all Ps with PD
  • medication: all Ps with PD received levodopa

 

  1. Were the communication problems adequately described? No
  • disorder type: dysarthria associated with PD

 

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?
  2. Subject (Classification) Groups? Yes: PD and TA
  3. Experimental Conditions? Yes
  • Accent patterns (4: Accent 1, Accent 2, Accent 3, Question rise)
  • Affect (2: ‘really angry’, neutral question/statement)
  • Medication level (2: Low, High)

    – Low medication = no medication and first 2 recording after receiving medications

– High medication = 3rd, 4th, and 5th recordings after receiving medications

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Unclear. For example, it is not clear if TA Ps were females and the groups produced an unequal number sentences.

 

 

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes
  2. The dependent measures were
  • Dependent Measure #1: Relative rise of Fo on accent 1 of declarative sentences
  • Dependent Measure #2: Relative rise of Fo on accent 2
  • Dependent Measure #3: Relative rise of Fo on accent 3
  • Dependent Measure #4: Relative rise of Fo on question rises
  • Dependent Measure #5: Distribution of accent pattern: peak, valley, fall, incomplete linking, linking
  • Dependent Measure #6: Percentage of middle timing in peaks and linking patterns for accent 1
  • Dependent Measure #7: Percentage of late timing in peaks and linking patterns for accent 1
  • Dependent Measure #8: Influence of medication on Fo peak
  1. The dependent measure that was subjective is
  • Dependent Measure #5: Distribution of accent pattern: peak, valley, fall, incomplete linking, linking

 

  1. The dependent measures that were objective are
  • Dependent Measure #1: Relative rise of Fo on accent 1 of declarative sentences
  • Dependent Measure #2: Relative rise of Fo on accent 2
  • Dependent Measure #3: Relative rise of Fo on accent 23
  • Dependent Measure #4: Relative rise of Fo on question rises
  • Dependent Measure #6: Percentage of middle timing in peaks and linking patterns for accent 1
  • Dependent Measure #7: Percentage of late timing in peaks and linking patterns for accent 1
  • Dependent Measure #8: Influence of medication on Fo peak

 

                                         

  1. Were reliability measures provided?
  2. Interobserver for analyzers? No
  3. Intraobserver for analyzers? No
  4. Treatment fidelity for investigators?

 

 

  1. Description of design:
  • PD and TA Ps produced similar sentences but there were different procedures for the 2 groups.
  • Both groups were recorded producing 12 difference sentences.

– The sentences were in German and each sentence had 3 accented words: accent 1, accent 2, accent 3.

– P were directed to produce the first 6 sentences as declaratives and then repeat the same 6 sentences as questions.

– P was then directed to produce the next 6 sentences as if he/she was “really angry.”

  • The PD group produced recording 5 times a day for 4 consecutive days. Sessions were separated by ½ hour.

– For 4 of the 5 days, PD Ps were administered their scheduled dose of levodopa.

– On a randomly assigned day each PD P did not receive levodopa.

– Low medication = no medication and first 2 recordings after receiving medications

– High medication = 3rd, 4th, and 5th recordings after receiving medications

– Overall, the PD Ps produced 360 sentences.

  • The TA Ps produced examples of the same sentences as the PD group but they only produced 90 sentences.
  • This investigation involved a variety of comparisons: some between group comparisons (descriptive comparisons between TA and PD), some within P comparisons (inferential statistical analysis comparing differ contexts of individual P performance), some descriptions of individual Ps.

 

  1. What were the results of the inferential statistical testing?
  2. Only comparisons that are significant are listed
  • Dependent Measure #8: Influence of medication on Fo peak

– P1 with PD = = with medication Fo of peak height was significantly higher than without medication for accent 1 (p = 0.01); with medication Fo of peak height was significantly (0.05) lower than without medication for accent 2

– P2 with PD = with medication Fo of peak height was significantly higher than without medication for accent 1 (p = 0.005) and for question rise (p = 0.0005)

  1. What was the statistical test used to determine significance? t-test: Satterthwaite adjustment (Only Dependent Measure #8 was tested with inferential statistics.)
  1. Were effect sizes provided? No
  1. Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. What were the results of the correlational statistical testing? Correlational statistics were not provided.

 

  1. What were the results of the descriptive analysis
  • Dependent Measure #1: Relative rise of Fo on accent 1

   – comparing Ps with PD and TA controls: Ps with PD tend to produce lower relative rises in F0

  • Dependent Measure #2: Relative rise of Fo on accent 2

   – comparing Ps with PD and TA controls: Ps with PD tend to produce lower relative rises in F0

 

  • Dependent Measure #3: Relative rise of Fo on accent 3

these data were not reported

 

  • Dependent Measure #4: Relative rise of Fo on question rises

   – comparing Ps with PD and TA controls: Overall, Ps with PD tend to produce lower relative rises in F0. However, P3 with PD did produce a higher mean than TA peers.

 

  • Dependent Measure #5: Distribution of accent pattern: peak, valley, fall, incomplete linking, linking

– The investigators did not identify overall patterns that differentiated Ps with PD and their TA peers.

 

  • Dependent Measure #6: Percentage of middle timing in peaks and linking patterns for accent 1

– The investigators defined middle timing as the timing of Fo peaks on the appropriate syllable.

–   P2 and P3 with PD preferred middle timing.

  • Dependent Measure #7: Percentage of late timing in peaks and linking patterns for accent 1

– The investigators defined late timing as the timing of Fo peaks on syllable following the appropriate syllable.

– P1 with PD preferred late timing.

 

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: