Dalhberg et al. (2018)

August 20, 2019

ANALYSIS GUIDELINES

Comparison Research

NOTE:  This research focuses on a clinical disorder, not on an intervention. Accordingly, no summary of intervention is included in the review.

KEY:

ADD =  attention deficit disorder

ADHD =  attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder

ASD = autism spectrum disorder(s)

c2v/second =  consonant-to-vowel transitions per second

eta =  partial eta squared

fo = fundamental frequency

Hz =  Hertz

MLU = mean length of utterance

NA = Not Applicable

NAP =  Narrative Assessment Profile

P = participant or patient

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

WLN = within normal limits

 

SOURCE:  Dahlberg, S., Sandberg, A. D., Strömbergsson, S., Wenhov, L., Råstam, M, & Nettelbladt, U. (2018). Prosodic traits in speech produced by children with autism spectrum disorders—Perceptual and acoustic measurements. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 3, 1- 10.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE:  August 12, 2019

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY:  B-  (Based on the design of the investigation, the highest possible grade is B+.)

 

TAKE AWAY: This investigation explored the productive prosody of 11 Swedish children diagnosed with high functioning autism spectrum disorder (ASD group) and 11 Swedish children judged to the typically developing (TDC group). Perceptual and acoustic analyses of one-minute speech samples extracted from each child’s narratives revealed only one significantly different measure:  the ASD group produced significantly longer utterances than their TDC peers despite the fact that the TDC group had significantly more advanced receptive language scores.

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

–  What was the type of design? Comparison Research; Prospective Nonrandomized Group Design with Controls

–  What was the focus of the research?  Clinically Related  xxx

–  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
  • If there were groups and Ps were not randomly assigned to groups, were members of groups carefully matched? Yes

                                                                    

 

  1. Were conditions concealed?
  • from participants? No
  • from administrators of procedures? No
  • from analyzers/judges?Yes

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

   How many participants were involved in the study?

  • total # of Ps:22
  • # of groups:2
  • List names of groups and the number of Ps in each group:

     –  Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)  = 11

–  Typically Developing Children (TDC) = 11

  • Did all groups maintain membership throughout the investigation? Yes

 

–  CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS                                                  

  • cognitive skills:all participants were within normal limits (WLN)
  • diagnosis:

     – ASD group = diagnosis of ASD

     – TDC group = no diagnosis of ASD; no history of assessment or treatment with a speech-language pathologist (SLP) or a psychologist

 

DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS  (* = a significant difference between groups)

  • age:

     – ASD group =   11.1. years  (9.2 to 12.9)

     – TDC group =   11.1 years  (10.5. to 12.1)

  • gender:

     – ASD group =  10 males; 1 female

     – TDC group =  6 males; 1 female

  • receptive vocabulary*:

     – ASD group =  4.8 scaled score

     – TDC group =  9.6 scaled score

  • receptive linguistic age*:

     – ASD group =  10.4 years

     – TDC group =  14.7 years

  • Narrative Assessment Profile (NAP; maximum score 18; production):

     – ASD group =  14.9

     – TDC group =   16.1

  • additional diagnoses:

     – ASD group = in addition to ASD, there were the following diagnoses

         –  4 Ps = attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

          –  1 P = attention deficit disorder (ADD)

     – TDC group =  no diagnoses

 

– Were the groups similar?  Yes on most variables, but there were significant differences in receptive language age and receptive vocabulary.

                                                         

–  Were the communication problems adequately described?  Unclear

  • disorder type: High Functioning ASD

 

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?
  • Subject (Classification) Groups? Yes

     – ASD

     – TDC       

  • Experimental Conditions? No 
  • Criterion/Descriptive Conditions?No 

 

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Yes

 

 

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

ACOUSTIC MEASURES

  • OUTCOME #1:fundamental frequency (f0) average in Hertz (Hz)
  • OUTCOME #2:f0range in semitones
  • OUTCOME #3:f0 variation in semitones
  • OUTCOME #4:speech rate as represented by syllables per second which operationally was defined as consonant-to-vowel transitions per second (c2v/second)
  • OUTCOME #5:utterance length orwords per utterance

 

PERCEPTUAL MEASURES

  • OUTCOME #6:Rating of Pitch from 1 to 4 with 4 indicating the highest deviancy from typical development.
  • OUTCOME #7:Rating of Intonation from 1 to 4 with 4 indicating the highest deviancy from typical development.
  • OUTCOME #8:Rating of Speech Rate from 1 to 4 with 4 indicating the highest deviancy from typical development.
  • OUTCOME #9:Rating of Length of Utterance from 1 to 4 with 4 indicating the highest deviancy from typical development.
  • OUTCOME #10:Rating of Intensity from 1 to 4 with 4 indicating the highest deviancy from typical development.
  • OUTCOME #11:Rating of Timbre from 1 to 4 with 4 indicating the highest deviancy from typical development.
  • OUTCOME #12:Rating of Fluency from 1 to 4 with 4 indicating the highest deviancy from typical development.
  • OUTCOME #13:Rating of Nasality with indications of deviancy or no deviancy
  • OUTCOME #14:Rating of overall impression of Prosody as adequate, atypical, or very atypical.
  • OUTCOME #15:Categorization of P as having a diagnosis or ASD or not from the speech samples.

 

POST HOC ANALYSES MEASURES

  • OUTCOME #16: Comparison on all measures of the 3 Ps from the ASD group who had been correctly identified by listeners as having ASD versus the remaining 8 Ps in the ASD group

 

–  The perceptual measures were subjective.

–  The acoustic measures were objective.

 

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?
  • Interobserver for analyzers? No.  However, the raters, 3 SLPs with a specialization in voice, discussed their ratings of each P and came to a consensus.
  • Intraobserver for analyzers? No
  • Treatment or test administration fidelity for investigators?NA

 

 

  1. Description ofdesign:
  • Eleven Swedish children diagnosed with ASD and 11 matched typically developing Swedish peers were recorded telling a narrative about the beach.

 

  • The investigators removed 1 minute samples from each narrative and subjected them to acoustic and perceptual analyses.

 

  • Raters for the perceptual measures listened to the speech samples which were presented in a random order with respect to group and gender.

 

  • Because none of the TDC group and only 3 Ps from the ASD group were judged to be ASD speakers, the investigators sought to identify if the 3 identified Ps were different from their ASD peers. (I have labeled this the Post Hoc Analysis.)

 

 

  1. What were the results of the statistical (inferential) testing?
  • There was only significant difference among all the acoustic and perceptual measures:

–  OUTCOME #5: utterance length orwords per utterance

 

  • The Post Hoc analysis identified the differences between the 3 Ps from the ASD group who had been judged to be ASD speakers from their 1 minute samples and the rest of the ASD group. The analysis yielded the following significant differences:

–  The 3 Ps identified as ASD

∞ performed significantly more poorly on the NAP from the descriptive characteristics.

∞ produced significantly more atypical fluency in the 1- minute samples

∞ produced significantly more atypical speaking rates in the 1- minute samples

 

  • What was the statistical test used to determine significance?ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U

 

  • Were effect sizes provided?Yes, for one Outcome

     –  OUTCOME #5:  Utterance length or words per utterance  (Cohen’s d was 0.99 which is considered to be a large effect.

 

  • Were confidence interval (CI) provided?No

 

 

  1. Summary of correlational results:   Not Applicable (NA)

 

 

  1. Summary of descriptive results: Qualitative research  NA

 

 

  1. Brief summary of clinically relevant results:
  • SLP judges were not able to differentiate ASD and TDC speakers listening to 1 minute narrative speech samples.

 

  • Only one measure, words per utterance, differentiated the ASD group from the TDC group. (The ASD group was labeled as high functioning.)

 

  • The Ps who were correctly identified as having ASD had

– significantly poorer narrative skills

–  significantly more atypical fluency

– significantly more atypical speaking rate

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE:  B-


Van Nuffelen (2011)

September 22, 2014

CRITIQUE OF UNSUPPORTED PROCEDURAL DESCRIPTIONS

KEY:

C = clinician

DAF = delayed auditory feedback

P = patient or participant

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

Source: Van Nuffelen, G. (2011). Speech prosody in dysarthria. In V. Stojanovik & J. Setter (Eds.), Speech prosody in atypical populations: Assessment and remediation (pp. 147- 167). Surry, UK: J & R Press.

 

Reviewer(s): pmh

 

Date: September 21, 2014

 

Overall Assigned Grade (because there are no primary supporting data, the highest grade will be F): F

 

Level of Evidence: F = Expert Opinion, no supporting evidence for the effectiveness of the intervention although the author may provide secondary evidence supporting components of the intervention.

 

Take Away: As the author notes, despite the common perception of dysarthria as an adult issue, children also can exhibit one or more forms of dysarthria. The   focus of this chapter was on using prosody to improve intelligibility (ability of a listen to understand a verbal message without context) and comprehensibility (ability of a listen to understand a verbal message in context) in adults or children with dysarthria.

The author provides background information about prosody’s relevance to speech-language pathology and analyzes assessment procedures (these will be reviewed in this blog at a later date when we add a section on assessment issues.) This review is concerned with the recommendations for using prosody to improve intelligibility and/or comprehensibility. Prior to working on expressive prosody, the author recommends that receptive prosody be targeted if assessment suggests this is skill is a challenge. The author provides techniques and content for treating intonation, stress, and rate as they relate to intelligibility/comprehensibility.

    

  1. Was there review of the literature supporting components of the intervention? Narrative Review

 

  1. Were the specific procedures/components of the intervention tied to the reviewed literature? Yes

 

  1. Was the intervention based on clinically sound clinical procedures? Yes
  1. Did the author(s) provide a rationale for components of the intervention? Yes
  1. Description of outcome measures:
  • Outcome #1: to improve receptive prosody
  • Outcome #2: to improve stress and intonation by chunking utterances into appropriate syntactic units
  • Outcome #3: to increase the length of breath groups that correspond with syntactic units
  • Outcome #4: to use stress to differentiate word classes
  • Outcome #5: to use stress to emphasize appropriately a word in an utterance
  • Outcome #6: to use intonation to differentiate speech acts
  • Outcome #7– to produce utterance with appropriate affective prosody
  • Outcome #8– to produce a speaking rate that optimizes intelligibility/comprehensibility

 

  1. Was generalization addressed? No

 

  1. Was maintenance addressed? No

 

 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION

 

Description of Intervention #1to improve receptive prosody (specific intervention procedures and content were not provided)

 

POPULATION: Dysarthria; Adult, Child

TARGETS: to differentiate acceptable and unacceptable productions of examples of prosodic patterns

TECHNIQUES: feedback from C (clinician)

STIMULI: auditory, audio-recordings

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES

  1. C plays audio recordings of examples of prosodic patterns.
  2. P (patient) judges if the example is correct or incorrect.
  3. C provides feedback to the P regarding the accuracy of the judgment.

RATIONALE/SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION: The author cited research indicating that receptive prosody is co-located in the brain with certain forms of dysarthria. Accordingly, there is a possibility that some speakers with dysarthria such as those with spastic dysarthria or upper motor neuron dysarthria may also have a receptive prosodic problem. There is only limited research about the receptive prosodic skills of speakers with dysarthria so it is important to insure that receptive prosodic skills are intact. Also, among children with high-functioning autism, there is a significant correlation between receptive and expressive prosody. (Logical support)

Description of Intervention #2 to improve stress and intonation by chunking utterances into appropriate syntactic units

 

POPULATION: Dysarthria; Adult, Child

 

TARGETS: matching of the production of breath units with syntactic units.

TECHNIQUES: behavioral instruction/metalinguistics, modeling, visual feedback

STIMULI: auditory, visual

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES:

  • The following are general ideas for treating prosody and specific ideas for treating chunking/phrasing listed in the chapter.

– C identifies the typical length of P’s breath group

– C guides P to produce utterances with pauses associated with a breath group at a syntactic boundaries.

– C uses the following techniques:

  1. behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics
  2. modeling

iii. visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure pauses.

RATIONALE/SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION: Speakers with dysarthria can have short breath groups. If pausing to breath does not correspond with a syntactic boundary, intelligibility problems can occur. (Logical support)

Description of Intervention #3— to increase the length of breath groups that correspond with syntactic units

 

POPULATION: Dysarthria; Adult, Child

 

TARGETS: breath units

TECHNIQUES: behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics, modeling, visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure duration.

STIMULI: auditory, visual

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES:

  • The following are general ideas for treating prosody and specific ideas for lengthening breath groups listed in the chapter.

– C identifies the typical length of P’s breath group

– C guides P to produce longer breath groups.

– C uses the following techniques:

  1. behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics
  2. modeling

iii. visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure duration.

RATIONALE/SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION: Speakers with dysarthria can have short breath groups. Increasing the length of breath groups can increase the length of utterances and, perhaps, intelligibility/comprehensibility. (Logical support)

Description of Intervention #4—to use stress to differentiate word classes

 

POPULATION: Dysarthria; Adult, Child

 

TARGETS: production of lexical stress (e.g., ob JECT versus OB ject)

TECHNIQUES: behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics; modeling; contrastive stress drills; visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure intensity, frequency, duration.

STIMULI: auditory, visual

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES:

  • The following are general ideas for treating prosody and specific ideas for improving lexical stress listed in the chapter.

– C presents contrastive stress drills in which minimal pair words for P to produce that differ only in location of stress (“RE ject” versus “re JECT”)

– C uses the following techniques:

  1. behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics
  2. modeling

iii. visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure duration, intensity, pause, and frequency.

RATIONALE/SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION: Improving lexical stress assists the listener in understanding what the speaker is intending. (Logical support)

Description of Intervention #5–to use stress to emphasize appropriately a word in an utterance

 

POPULATION: Dysarthria; Adult, Child

 

TARGETS: phrasal/sentence stress

TECHNIQUES: behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics; modeling; contrastive stress drills; visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure intensity, frequency, and duration.

STIMULI: auditory, visual

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES:

  • The following are general ideas for treating prosody and specific ideas for improving phrasal stress listed in the chapter.

– C presents contrastive stress drills in which minimal pair sentences which P will produce will differ only in location of stress (e.g., “DAVID took the money” versus “David took the MONEY”)

– C uses the following techniques:

  1. behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics
  2. modeling

iii. visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure duration, intensity, pause, and frequency.

RATIONALE/SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION: The speaker should stress the word that he/she believes is the most important word in the sentence for the listener. (Logical support)

Description of Intervention #6—to use intonation to differentiate speech acts

 

POPULATION: Dysarthria; Adult, Child

 

TARGETS: intonation, intonation terminal contour

TECHNIQUES: behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics; modeling; contrastive stress drills; visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure frequency

STIMULI: auditory, visual

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES:

  • The following are general ideas for treating prosody and specific ideas for improving intonation listed in the chapter.

– C presents contrastive stress drills in which minimal pair sentences which P will produce will differ only in the intonation (terminal contour) signaling different speech acts (e.g., “David took the money.” versus “David took the money?”)

– C uses the following techniques:

  1. behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics
  2. modeling

iii. visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure frequency.

Description of Intervention #7– to produce utterance with appropriate affective prosody

 

POPULATION: Dysarthria; Adult, Child

 

TARGETS: affective prosody

TECHNIQUES: behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics; modeling; contrastive stress drills; visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure frequency, intensity, pause, and duration

STIMULI: auditory, visual

 

ADMINISTRATOR: SLP

 

PROCEDURES:

  • The following are general ideas for treating prosody and specific ideas for improving affective prosody listed in the chapter.

– C presents contrastive stress drills in which minimal pair sentences which P will produce will differ only in the intonation (terminal contour) signaling different emotions (e.g., happy, sad, angry)

– C uses the following techniques:

  1. behavioral descriptions/metalinguistics
  2. modeling

iii. visual feedback using instruments that acoustically measure frequency.

Description of Intervention #8– to produce a speaking rate that optimizes intelligibility/comprehensibility

 

POPULATION: Dysarthria; Adult, Child

 

TARGETS: rate, intelligibility, comprehensibility

TECHNIQUES: behavioral description/metalingustics, speaking slower on demand, pacing, alphabet board, hand or finger tapping, delayed auditory feedback

STIMULI: auditory, visual, tactile/kinesthetic

 

ADMINISTRATOR:

 

PROCEDURES:

  • To reduce the rate of speech, the clinician may focus on
  1. reducing articulation rate
  2. inserting additional, syntactically appropriate pauses
  3. increasing the length/duration of pauses
  • The author described several approaches for slowing speech rate”
  1. Speaking slower on demand—C instructs P to talk at a specific percentage of his/her typical speaking rate (e.g., one-third P’s normal rate).
  1. Pacing – C directs P’s attention to a device (e.g., pacing board, metronome, Facilitator of Metronomic Pacing by Key Elemetrics, or the computer software Pacer) and asks P to talk saying a word or syllable for each square on the pacing board or in time with the metronome or computer program.
  1. Alphabet Board – P points to the first letter of each word when speaking.
  1. Hand or Finger Tapping – P taps for each intended syllable when speaking.
  1. Delayed Auditory Feedback (DAF) –C identifies the optimal delay time and then directs P to talk while wearing the DAF device..

RATIONALE/SUPPORT FOR INTERVENTION: Logical—

  • Rather than normalizing the rate of speech, the target should be to produce speech at a rate that optimizes intelligibility/comprehensibility. At this point, there is no strategy that has been identified as superior for all Ps. Rather, Cs should identify the strategy that works for the individual P insuring that it improves intelligibility/comprehensibility.
  • Of the approaches for reducing rate, the author presented the following rationales:
  1. reducing articulation rate—a number of studies support that this increases articulatory precision (distinctiveness) but research is contradictory as to whether reducing rate increases intelligibility
  2. inserting additional, syntactically appropriate pauses—this may improve comprehensibility by highlighting syntactic and/or word boundaries or by giving the listener additional time to interpret the utterance
  3. increasing the length/duration of pauses–—this may improve comprehensibility by highlighting syntactic and/or word boundaries or by giving the listener additional time to interpret the utterance
  • The author presented the following support for the techniques for slowing speech rate”
  1. Speaking slower on demand—The author cited research to support this approach but her own previously reported research did not yield significant changes in articulation rate, pause duration, or pause frequency.
  2. Pacing –The author cited her own previously reported research indicating a significant decrease articulation in rate and significant increases in total pause duration and pause frequency.
  3. Alphabet Board –The author cited her own previously reported research indicating significant decreases in articulation rate and pause frequency and significant increases in mean and total pause duration.
  4. Hand or Finger Tapping – The author cited her own previously reported research indicating a significant a decrease articulation in rate and a significant increase pause frequency.
  5. Delayed Auditory Feedback (DAF) – The author cited her own previously reported research indicating a significant decrease articulation rate.

 

CONTRAINDICATIONS FOR USE OF THE INTERVENTION—see above


Casper et al. (2007)

September 16, 2014

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.