Production of Korean Idiomatic Utterances Following Left- and Right-Hemisphere Damage: Acoustic Studies

A systematic review on production and comprehension of linguistic prosody in people with acquired language and communication disorders resulting from unilateral brain lesions

BACKGROUND

Prosody serves central functions in language processing including linguistic functions (linguistic prosody), like structuring the speech signal. Impairments in production and comprehension of linguistic prosody have been described for persons with unilateral right (RHDP) or left hemisphere damage (LHDP). However, reported results differ with respect to the characteristics and severities of these impairments AIMS: We conducted a systematic literature review focusing on production and comprehension of linguistic prosody at the prosody-syntax interface (i.e., phrase or sentence level) in LHDP and RHDP.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

In a systematic literature search we included: (i) empirical studies with (ii) adult RHDP and/or LHDP (iii) investigating production and/or comprehension of linguistic prosody at the (iv) phrase or sentence level (v) reporting quantitative data on prosodic measures. We excluded overview papers; studies involving participants with dysarthria, apraxia of speech, foreign accent syndrome, psychiatric diseases, and/or neurodegenerative diseases; studies focusing primarily on emotional prosody; and on lexical stress / word level; studies of which no full text was available and/or that were published in a language other than English. We searched the databases BIOSIS, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PSYNDEX, PsycINFO and speechBITE, last searched on January 13^th 2022.We found 2,631 studies without duplicates. We identified 43 studies which were included into our systematic review. For data extraction and synthesis of results, we grouped studies by (i) modality (production vs. comprehension), (ii) function (syntactic structure vs. information structure), and (iii) by experiment task. For production studies, outcome measures were defined as the productive use of the different prosodic cues (lengthening, pause, f0, amplitude). For comprehension studies, performance measures (accuracy and reaction times) were defined as outcome measures. In accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statement (Page et al., 2021), we conducted a quality check to assess study risk of bias. Our review was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019120308).

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

Of the 43 studies reviewed, 30 studies involved RHDP (n = 309), assessing production in 15 studies and focusing on comprehension of prosody in 16 studies (one study investigated production and comprehension). LHDP (n = 438) were included in 35 studies of which 15 studied production and 21 evaluated comprehension of prosody (one study investigated production and comprehension). Despite the heterogeneity of results in the studies reviewed, our synthesis of results suggests that both LHDP and RHDP show limitations, but no complete impairment, in their production and/or comprehension of linguistic prosody. Prosodic limitations are evident in different areas of processing linguistic prosody, like syntactic disambiguation or the distinction between sentence types. There is a tendency towards more severe limitations in LHDP as compared to RHDP.

CONCLUSIONS

We only included published studies into our review and did not perform an assessment of risk of reporting bias as well as systematic certainty assessments of the outcomes. Despite these limitations, we conclude that both groups show deficits in production and comprehension of linguistic prosody, but neither LHDP nor RHDP are completely impaired in their prosodic processing. This suggests that prosody is a relevant communicative resource for LHDP and RHDP worth being addressed in speech-language-therapy.

Production and Comprehension of Prosodic Boundary Marking in Persons With Unilateral Brain Lesions

PURPOSE

Persons with unilateral brain damage in the right hemisphere (RH) or left hemisphere (LH) show limitations in processing linguistic prosody, with yet inconclusive results on their ability to process prosodically marked structural boundaries for syntactic ambiguity resolution. We aimed at systematically investigating production and comprehension of three prosodic cues (f ₀ range, final lengthening, and pause) at structural boundaries in coordinate sequences in participants with right hemisphere brain damage (RHDP) and participants with left hemisphere brain damage (LHDP).

METHOD

Twenty RHDP and 15 LHDP participated in our study. Comprehension experiment: Participants and a control group listened to coordinate name sequences with internal grouping by a prosodically marked structural boundary (grouped condition, e.g., "(Gabi und Leni) # und Nina") or without internal grouping (ungrouped condition, e.g., "Gabi und Leni und Nina") and had to identify the target condition. The strength and combinations of prosodic cues in the stimuli were manipulated. Production experiment: Participants were asked to produce coordinate sequences in the two conditions (grouped, ungrouped) in two different tasks: a Reading Aloud and a Repetition experiment. Accuracy of participants' productions was subsequently assessed in a rating study and productions were analyzed with respect to use of prosodic cues.

RESULTS

In the Comprehension experiment, RHDP and LHDP had overall lower identification accuracies than unimpaired control participants and LHDP were found to have particular problems with boundary identification when the pause cue was reduced. In production, LHDP and RHDP employed all three prosodic cues for boundary marking, but struggled to clearly mark prosodic boundaries in 28% of all productions. Both groups showed better performance in reading aloud than in repetition. LHDP relied more on using f ₀ range and pause duration to prosodically mark structural boundaries, whereas RHDP employed final lengthening more vigorously than LHDP in reading aloud.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that processing of linguistic prosody is affected in RHDP and LHDP, but not completely impaired. Therefore, prosody can serve as a relevant communicative resource. However, it should also be considered as a target area for assessment and treatment in both groups.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21637505.

The Brain Dynamics of Syllable Duration and Semantic Predictability in Spanish

This study examines the neural dynamics underlying the prosodic (duration) and the semantic dimensions in Spanish sentence perception. Specifically, we investigated whether adult listeners are aware of changes in the duration of a pretonic syllable of words that were either semantically predictable or unpredictable from the preceding sentential context. Participants listened to the sentences with instructions to make prosodic or semantic judgments, while their EEG was recorded. For both accuracy and RTs, the results revealed an interaction between duration and semantics. ERP analysis exposed an interactive effect between task, duration and semantic, showing that both processes share neural resources. There was an enhanced negativity on semantic process (N400) and an extended positivity associated with anomalous duration. Source estimation for the N400 component revealed activations in the frontal gyrus for the semantic contrast and in the parietal postcentral gyrus for duration contrast in the metric task, while activation in the sub-lobar insula was observed for the semantic task. The source of the late positive components was located on posterior cingulate. Hence, the ERP data support the idea that semantic and prosodic levels are processed by similar neural networks, and the two linguistic dimensions influence each other during the decision-making stage in the metric and semantic judgment tasks.

Acoustic Measures of Prosody in Right-Hemisphere Damage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose The aim of the study was to use systematic review and meta-analysis to quantitatively assess the currently available acoustic evidence for prosodic production impairments as a result of right-hemisphere damage (RHD), as well as to develop methodological recommendations for future studies. Method We systematically reviewed papers reporting acoustic features of prosodic production in RHD in order to identify shortcomings in the literature and make recommendations for future studies. We estimated the meta-analytic effect size of the acoustic features. We extracted standardized mean differences from 16 papers and estimated aggregated effect sizes using hierarchical Bayesian regression models. Results RHD did present reduced fundamental frequency variation, but the trait was shared with left-hemisphere damage. RHD also presented evidence for increased pause duration. No meta-analytic evidence for an effect of prosody type (emotional vs. linguistic) was found. Conclusions Taken together, the currently available acoustic data show only a weak specific effect of RHD on prosody production. However, the results are not definitive, as more reliable analyses are hindered by small sample sizes, lack of detail on lesion location, and divergent measuring techniques. We propose recommendations to overcome these issues: Cumulative science practices (e.g., open data and code sharing), more nuanced speech signal processing techniques, and the integration of acoustic measures and perceptual judgments are recommended to more effectively investigate prosody in RHD.

Cortical-subcortical production of formulaic language: A review of linguistic, brain disorder, and functional imaging studies leading to a production model

Formulaic language forms about one-fourth of everyday talk. Formulaic (fixed expressions) and novel (grammatical language) differ in important characteristics. The features of idioms, slang, expletives, proverbs, aphorisms, conversational speech formulas, and other fixed expressions include ranges of length, flexible cohesion, memory storage, nonliteral and situation meaning, and affective content. Neurolinguistic observations in persons with focal brain damage or progressive neurological disease suggest that producing formulaic expressions can be achieved by interactions between the right hemisphere and subcortical structures. The known functional characteristics of these structures form a compatible substrate for production of formulaic expressions. Functional imaging using a performance-based analysis supported a right hemisphere involvement in producing conversational speech formulas, while indicating that the pause fillers, uh and um, engage the left hemisphere and function like lexical items. Together these findings support a dual-process model of language, whereby formulaic and grammatical language are modulated by different cerebral structures.

The Affective Nature of Formulaic Language: A Right-Hemisphere Subcortical Process

Formulaic expressions naturally convey affective content. The unique formal and functional characteristics of idioms, slang, expletives, proverbs, conversational speech formulas, and the many other conventional expressions in this repertory have been well-described: these include unitary form, conventionalized and non-literal meanings, and reliance on social context. Less highlighted, but potent, is the intrinsic presence of affective meaning. Expletives, for example, signal strong emotion. Idioms, too, inherently communicate emotional connotations, and conversational speech formulas allow for empathetic bonding and humor. The built-in affective content of formulaic expressions, in combination with their other unique characteristics, is compatible with the proposal that brain structures other than those representing grammatical language are in play in producing formulaic expressions. Evidence is presented for a dual process model of language, whereby a right hemisphere-subcortical system modulates formulaic language.

Switching Language Modes: Complementary Brain Patterns for Formulaic and Propositional Language

Language has been modeled as a rule governed behavior for generating an unlimited number of novel utterances using phonological, syntactic, and lexical processes. This view of language as essentially propositional is expanding as a contributory role of formulaic expressions (e.g., you know, have a nice day, how are you?) is increasingly recognized. The basic features of the functional anatomy of this language system have been described by studies of brain damage: left lateralization for propositional language and greater right lateralization and basal ganglia involvement for formulaic expressions. Positron emission tomography (PET) studies of cerebral blood flow (CBF) have established a cortical-subcortical pattern of brain activity predictive of syllable rate during phonological/lexical repetition. The same analytic approach was applied to analyzing brain images obtained during spontaneous monologues. Sixteen normal, right-handed, native English speakers underwent PET scanning during several language tasks. Speech rate for the repetition of phonological/lexical items was predicted by increased CBF in the left inferior frontal region and decreased CBF in the head of the right caudate nucleus, replicating previous results. A complementary cortical-subcortical pattern (CBF increased in the right inferior frontal region and decreased in the left caudate) was predictive of the use of speech formulas during monologue speech. The use of propositional language during the monologues was associated with strong left lateralization (increased CBF at the left inferior frontal region and decreased CBF at the right inferior frontal region). Normal communication involves the integration of two language modes, formulaic and novel, that have different neural substrates.