Voice Analysis: Right Hemisphere Damage

  • Weed & Fusaroli (2020)
  • Right Hemisphere Damage: Acoustic Measures of Prosody in Right-Hemisphere Damage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
  • N papers = 16, N effect sizes = 107, N participants = 424
  • Last updated: 2020-12-19
  • Curator(s): LNJ, ND
  • Search Strategy: "We queried PubMed, PsychINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, using the following combination of search terms: (prosody OR intonation OR inflection OR intensity OR pitch OR fundamental frequency OR speech rate OR voice quality) AND (RHD OR right hemisphere) AND (stroke) AND (acoustic), with no restrictions on date of publication. Further papers were identified by searching the references in the papers identified by the initial search. Our search resulted in a total of 49 papers. Our initial list of 49 papers was then screened, and we included only papers meeting the following criteria: (1) The study quantified acoustic measures of vocal production of participants with RHD, (2) The study reported original research (not a review), (3) The study included data from at least two participants, (4) The study included a control group. Of the initial 49 papers, 8 were case studies with data from only one individual, 6 did not report sufficient data in either tables or plots for inclusion in a meta-analysis, 2 papers did not report data from an acoustic analysis, 2 papers lacked a control group, 11 papers did not measure vocal production, 2 did not include participants with RHD, 1 did not report original data (review article), and 1 only included RHD participants who were actively selected to differ from NBD controls. Although this final paper otherwise met our inclusion criteria, we felt that actively choosing patients who differed from the control group on the object of study introduced unnecessary bias, and we did not include it. We note in passing that the effect sizes for this paper (which measured variation in F0) were somewhat larger (Hedges’s g = 1.3 – 1.8) than many of the included papers, although not unlike the effect size in a paper with the same first author which was included (Ross & Monnot, 2008). After these 33 papers were excluded, 16 papers remained for analysis." (Weed & Fusaroli, 2020)
  • Systematic: yes
  • Voice features: speech_duration, speech_duration_variability, speech_duration_ratio, speech_percentage, pause_duration, pitch, pitch_variability, F0_contour, intensity, intensity_variability

Emmorey, K. D. (1987). The neurological substrates for prosodic aspects of speech. Brain and Language, 30(2), 305-320.

Ryalls, J., Joanette, Y., & Feldman, L. (1987). An acoustic comparison of normal and righthemisphere-damaged speech prosody. Cortex, 23(4), 685-694.

Behrens, S. J. (1988). The role of the right hemisphere in the production of linguistic stress. Brain Lang, 33(1), 104-127.

Behrens, S. J. (1989). Characterizing sentence intonation in a right hemisphere-damaged population. Brain and language.

Ouellette, G. P., & Baum, S. R. (1994). Acoustic analysis of prosodic cues in left- and righthemisphere-damaged patients. Aphasiology, 8(3), 257-283.

Gandour, J., Larsen, J., Dechongkit, S., Ponglorpisit, S., & Khunadorn, F. (1995). Speech prosody in affective contexts in Thai patients with right hemisphere lesions. Brain and Language, 51(3), 422-443.

Pell, M. D. (1999a). Fundamental frequency encoding of linguistic and emotional prosody by right hemisphere-damaged speakers. Brain and Language, 69(2), 161-192.

Pell, M. D. (1999b). The temporal organization of affective and non-affective speech in patients with right-hemisphere infarcts. Cortex.

Balan, A., & Gandour, J. (1999). Effect of sentence length on the production of linguistic stress by left-and right-hemisphere-damaged patients. Brain and language, 67(2), 73-94.

Baum, S. R., Marc D. Pell, Carol. (2001). Using prosody to resolve temporary syntactic ambiguities in speech production: acoustic data on brain-damaged speakers. Clin Linguist Phon, 15(6), 441-456.

Gandour, J., & Baum, S. R. (2001). Production of stress retraction by left- and right-hemispheredamaged patients. Brain Lang, 79(3), 482-494.

Hird, K., & Kirsner, K. (2003). The effect of right cerebral hemisphere damage on collaborative planning in conversation: an analysis of intentional structure. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 17(4-5), 309-315.

Ross, E. D., & Monnot, M. (2008). Neurology of affective prosody and its functional-anatomic organization in right hemisphere. Brain Lang, 104(1), 51-74.

Guranski, K., & Podemski, R. (2015). Emotional prosody expression in acoustic analysis in patients with right hemisphere ischemic stroke. Neurologia i Neurochirurgia Polska, 49(2), 113-120.

Yang, S. Y., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2016). Production of Korean Idiomatic Utterances Following Left- and Right-Hemisphere Damage: Acoustic Studies. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 59(2), 267-280.

Wright, A., Saxena, S., Sheppard, S. M., & Hillis, A. E. (2018). Selective impairments in components of affective prosody in neurologically impaired individuals. Brain and Cognition, 124, 29-36.