Dupis & Pichora-Fuller (2015)

 

ANALYSIS GUIDELINES

Comparison Research

 

NOTE:

  • The investigation is not on intervention. Accordingly, no summary of an intervention is included in the review.

 

KEY:

DF = Difference Limen

eta =   partial eta squared

f = female

Fo = Fundamental Frequency

HFPTAB = high frequency pure tone average

m = male

MLU = mean length of utterance

NA = Not Applicable

P = participant or patient

PTAB = standard pure-tone average

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

 

 

SOURCE: Dupis, K., & Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (2015.) Aging affects identification of vocal emotions in semantically neutral sentences. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58, 1061- 1076.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: July 13, 2015

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: No grade assigned because this in not intervention research

 

TAKE AWAY: This investigation involved the comparison 2 groups of typical speakers and, therefore, should not be considered to be intervention research. Nevertheless, it is informative for the practice of speech-language pathology. Two experiments revealed that there are age related differences in the ability to recognize emotion using prosody with younger Ps outperforming older Ps. These differences cannot be explained by hearing acuity as measured by pure tone averages or by auditory processing (Fo DL, gap detection, Intensity DL.)

 

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

                                                                                                           

  • What was the type of design?  Comparison Research

 

  • What was the focus of the research? Essential Research

                                                                                                           

  • What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence? Level = B

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:

                                                                                                           

  • If there were groups, were participants randomly assigned to groups? No, the groups were age-based.

 

EXPERIMENT #1

 

  1. Were experimental conditions concealed?

                                                                                                           

  • from participants? No

                                                                    

  • from administrators of experimental conditions? No

                                                                    

  • from analyzers/judges? Unclear

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

 

– How many participants were involved in the study?

 

  • total # of participants (Ps): 84
  • # of groups: 2
  • List names of groups and the number of Ps in each group:.

 

CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS

                                                                                                             

  • language: all Ps had acquired English by 5 years of age
  • educational level of participants (Ps):

Younger group = all university students (mean years of education = 13.5)

     Older group = completed at least Grade 10

  • Hearing: Clinically normal hearing

 

– DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS

 

  • age:

Younger group: mean 19.7 years

     – Older group: mean 68.9 years

  • gender:

Younger group: f (70%); m (30%)

     – Older group: f (71%); m (29%)

  • vocabulary:

Younger group = mean score on Mill Hill Vocabulary Test = 12.4 (of 20)

     Older group = mean score on Mill Hill Vocabulary Test = 14.9 (of 20)

     – mean score on Mill Hill Vocabulary Test was significantly different for the 2 groups

  • educational level of Ps:

Younger group = mean years of education = 13.5; all university students

     Older group = mean years of education = 15.3; 75% had at least some postsecondary education

     – the mean years of education was significantly different for the 2 groups

 

– Were the groups similar? No

                                                         

– Were the communication problems adequately described? NA, all Ps were within normal limits

 

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?

                                                                                                             

  • Subject (Classification) Groups? Yes

– Age (Younger, Older)

                                                               

  • Experimental Conditions? Yes

– Emotion (anger, disgust, fear, sadness, neutral, happiness, pleasant suprise)

     – Talker of the sentence stimuli (younger, older)

     – Test list (7 different lists of neutral sentences)

 

  • Criterion/Descriptive Conditions? Yes

     – Hearing acuity level: pure tone averages

 

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably?

Yes ___     No ___     Unclear _x__     Not Applicable ____

 

 

  1. Was the dependent measure appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

                                                                                                             

– The dependent measure was

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Accuracy of identification of prosodically presented emotions represented

 

– The dependent measures was NOT subjective.

 

– The dependent measure was objective. Ps used a touch screen to indicate choices.

 

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

  • Interobserver for analyzers? No

 

  • Intraobserver for analyzers? No
  • OUTCOME #3:

 

  • Treatment or task administration fidelity for investigators? No

 

 

  1. Description of design:
  • Hearing acuity was tested prior to the experiment.
  • Individually, Ps listened to 140 sentences (20 exemplars of 7 emotions) read by a younger speaker or an older speaker.
  • The sentences were semantically neutral.
  • Ps were directed to indicate on a touch screen which of 7 emotions were represented by the prosody: anger, disgust, fear, sadness, neutral, happiness, pleasant surprise.)

 

 

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

 

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Accuracy of identification of prosodically presented emotions

– Design :

  • emotion was a within subjects factor
  • age, talker (of sentence lists), and sentence list
  • hearing acuity issues

 

–   Significant main effects:

 

  • Emotion:

∞ easiest emotions: anger and sadness

∞ most difficult: disgust and pleasant surprise

 

  • Age: younger better than older listeners

 

–   Significant interaction:   Emotion x Talker

  • Anger sentences read by Older talker were easier to interpret.
  •       Happiness and sadness sentences read by the Younger talker were easier to interpret.

– Hearing Acuity

  • Older Ps had significantly poorer PTAB ad HFPTAB scores.

 

  • What statistical tests were used to determine significance? t-test, ANOVA, Tukey, Huynh-Geldt estimate of sphericity, Bonferroni correction; Mauchly’s test

 

  • Were effect sizes provided? Yes

–  OUTCOME #1: Accuracy of identification of prosodically presented emotions

 

  • MAIN EFFECTS

          – Emotion = 0.20 (large)

          – Listener Age = 0.29 (large)

 

  • INTERACTION

         – Emotion x Talker Age = 0.12 (medium)

 

 

  • Were confidence intervals (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. Summary of correlational results:

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Accuracy of identification of prosodically presented emotions represented

– Design :

  • hearing acuity and pure tone averages (standard pure tone average, PTAB, and high frequency pure tone average, HFPTAB) compared for both age groups
  • hearing acuity and pure tone averages (PTAB and HFPTAB) compared

– for both age groups

– for each sentence types

 

– There were no significant correlations.

 

 

  1. Summary of descriptive results: Qualitative research – Not applicable (NA)

 

 

  1. Brief summary of clinically relevant results:

 

  • There are age related differences in the ability to recognize emotion using prosody with younger Ps outperforming older Ps.
  • These differences cannot be explained by hearing acuity.

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: B

 

 

========================================

 

 

EXPERIMENT #2

 

 

  1. Were experimental conditions concealed?

                                                                                                           

  • from participants? No

                                                                    

  • from administrators of experimental conditions? No

                                                                    

  • from analyzers/judges? Unclear

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

 

–   How many participants were involved in the study?

 

  • total # of participants (Ps): 56
  • # of groups: 2
  • List names of groups and the number of Ps in each group:

     Younger = 28

Older = 28

  • Did all groups maintain membership throughout the investigation? Yes, there were only two sessions.

                                                                                

– CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS

  • language: all Ps had acquired English by 5 years of age
  • educational level of participants (Ps):

Younger group = all university students

     Older group = completed at least Grade 10

  • Hearing: Clinically normal hearing

 

– DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS

  • age:

Younger group: mean 21.6 years

     – Older group: mean 70.7 years

  • gender:

Younger group: f (61%); m (39%)

     – Older group: f (43%); m (57%)

  • vocabulary: Older group reported to have higher mean score on Mill Hill Vocabulary Test.
  • educational level of Ps: the mean years of education was reported to be similar for the 2 age groups

 

–  Were the groups similar? Yes _

                                                         

– Were the communication problems adequately described? Not Applicable (NA), the participants (Ps) were typical speakers.

 

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?

                                                                                                             

  • Subject (Classification) Groups? Yes

– Age: Younger, Older

                                                               

  • Experimental Conditions? Yes

– Emotion (anger, disgust, fear, sadness, neutral, happiness, pleasant suprise)

     – Talker (younger, older)

     – Test list (7 different lists of neutral sentences)

 

  • Criterion/Descriptive Conditions? Yes
  • Hearing Acuity: pure tone averages

          – PTAB

         – HFPTAB

 

  • Suprathreshold Auditory processing

         – Vowel Fundamental Frequency (Fo ) Difference Limen (DF)

          – Gap detection in speech

          – Intensity DL

 

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Yes

 

 

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

The dependent measure was

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Accuracy of identification of prosodically presented emotions

 

 

– The dependent measure was NOT subjective.

 

– The dependent measure WAS objective. It was measured electronically.

 

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

  • Interobserver for analyzers? No

 

  • Intraobserver for analyzers? NO

 

  • Treatment or test administration fidelity for investigators? No

 

 

  1. Description of design:
  • There were 2 sessions:

– Session #1: pretesting including audiometric testing

– Session #2: mainly experimental testing preceded by some audiometric testing

  • Hearing was tested prior to the experiment.
  • Hearing acuity testing involved testing for 2 forms of pure tone average:

– PTAB

– HFPTAB

  • In addition, 3 forms of suprathreshiold auditory processing were measured:

– Vowel Fo DL

– Gap detection in speech

– Intensity DL

  • Individually, Ps listened to 140 sentences (20 exemplars of 7 emotions) read by a younger speaker or an older speaker.
  • The sentences were semantically neutral.
  • Ps were directed to indicate on a touch screen which of 7 emotions were represented by the prosody: anger, disgust, fear, sadness, neutral, happiness, pleasant surprise.)

 

 

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

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Accuracy of identification of prosodically presented emotions represented

– Design :

  • emotion (7 emotons)
  • age, talker (of sentence lists), and sentence list
  • hearing acuity issues

 

 

–   Significant main effects: Emotion; Listener Age; Talker Age

  • Emotion:

∞ easiest emotions: anger, sadness, fear

∞ most difficult: disgust and pleasant surprise

 

  • Listener Age: younger better than older listeners

 

  • Talker Age: younger talker resulted in more correct responses by listeners

 

–   Significant interactions:

  • Emotion x Talker Age: There was no significant differences in listener’s responses to the 2 different talkers for disgust, fear, neutral, anger, sadness. Listeners responded better to the following emotions spoken by the younger listeners: happiness and pleasant surprise.

 

  • Emotion x Listener Age: The Younger P group produced significantly higher scores for all emotions with the exception of fear and pleasant surprise.

 

– Hearing Acuity

  • Older Ps had significantly poorer PTAB and HFPTAB scores.

 

– Suprathreshold Auditory Processing

  • Younger Ps produced significantly better scores on 2 of the 3 measures of suprathreshold auditory processing (Fo DL, gap detection threshold)
  • for 1 P in the Younger group, emotional detection was more than 3 standard deviations below the mean. That P’s data were removed from the data analysis.

 

  • What statistical tests were used to determine significance? t-test, ANOVA, Tukey, Bonferroni correction, Mauchly’s test, Greenhouse-Geiser estimates of sphericity

 

  • Were effect sizes provided? Yes _x___ No____

 

   OUTCOME #1: Accuracy of identification of prosodically presented emotions

 

–   Significant main effects: Emotion; Listener Age; Talker Age

 

  • Emotion = 0.40 (large)
  • Listener Age = 0.46   (large)
  • Talker Age = 0.012 (small)

 

 

 

  • Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. Summary of correlational results:

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Accuracy of identification of prosodically presented emotions

 

– Design: The investigators correlated emotion accuracy scores with hearing acuity and suprathreshold auditory processing scores.

 

– Hearing Acuity Correlations:

  • no significant correlations for either of the pure tone averages with overall emotion identification scores or individual emotion identification scores.

 

– Suprathreshold Auditory Processing

  • 1 P from the Younger group had been eliminated from the analysis due to emotion identification 3 standard deviations below the mean.
  • When correlations were calculated on either the Younger or Older group, no significant correlations were identified.
  • When the data from the Younger and Older groups were combined, there was a correlation between Emotion Identification and Fo DL (r = -0.41; moderate-small negative correlation.)

 

 

  1. Summary of descriptive results: Qualitative research NA

 

 

  1. Brief summary of clinically relevant results:

 

  • Accuracy was higher for the younger Ps. For the most, auditory acuity and auditory processing was not a factor in the accuracy of interpreting emotion prosodically.

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: B

 

 

 

 

 

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: