Background
Methods
Sources
Results
Study | Study type | Journal published in | Study location | Exposure method—overall | Methods that assesses prosodic processing | Outcome measures | Limitations |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dennis et al. [40] | Retrospective cohort study | Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society | Canada and USA | Pictures of scenarios presented in forms of literal truth, ironic criticism and empathic praise as indicated by audiotapes of speaker’s utterances with neutral, ironic or empathic intonation. Participants were asked about facts and beliefs and to identify the intent of the speaker indicated by their tones | Participants must identify the intent of the speaker as indicated by their tones | Cognition, conation, identifying empathy and irony through prosody | While irony and empathy were presented through audio, the scenarios were delivered via pictures. |
Dimoska et al. [38] | Retrospective cohort study | Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society | Australia | To assess participant's perception of emotion in voice, they completed two discrimination tasks using spoken sentences that varied in the amount of semantic information: that is, (1) well-formed English, (2) a nonsense language, and (3) low-pass filtered speech producing "muffled" voices. Participants also completed neuropsychological tests measuring impulsivity, cognitive/executive functions and inhibition of prepotent, automatic response | Materials: (1) audios of semantically well-formed or non-sense sentences with good phonetics and prosody spoken in various emotions and (2) muffled sentences without semantics and intact pitch/contour. Procedures: (1) same/different judgments for emotions portrayed by muffled and non-sense sentences and (2) identify emotional tone using prosody only or with semantics | Emotion recognition from voice | Small sample size, heterogeneous study population |
Ietswaart et al. [36] | Prospective cohort study | Neuropsychologia | UK | (1) Labelling facial expressions and labelling morphed facial expressions, (2) labelling emotions from prosody and prosodic discrimination, (3) assessments for language comprehension deficits, (4) assessment of mental speed and pre-morbid intelligence and (5) test of depression and anxiety | (1) Emotional prosody discrimination: neutral sentences spoken in same/different emotional tone, (2) labelling emotions of neutral sentences spoken different emotional tones and (3) non-emotional prosody discrimination: sentences spoken in interrogative or declarative tone | Emotional recognition from face and prosody, depression and anxiety | Limited information for lesion analysis |
McDonald and Saunders [39] | Retrospective cohort study | Journal of The International Neuropsychological Society | Australia | Ambiguous or neutral scenarios depicted in emotional (happy, surprised, angry, sad, fearful, disgusted) or neutral format. The emotional stimuli were presented via (1) audiovisual, (2) “still” photographs, (3) dynamic visual and (4) audio-only. Participants were presented with all four formats and asked to label emotions | Identifying emotions portrayed in audio and audio-visual format | Emotion recognition through various media formats | Controls had significantly more years of education than TBI |
Milders et al. [37] | Retrospective cohort study | Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology | UK | Participants were assessed for (1) emotional and behavioural consequences, (2) home integration, social integration and work integration (employment), (3) recognition of facial expression, (4) understanding intentions and social situation and (5) recognition of emotional prosody | Prosody discrimination: pairs of neutral sentences spoken in same/different (a) non-emotional tones and (b) emotional tones, (c) labelling emotional prosody and (d) labelling emotions when semantics conflicted with prosody | Emotional/behavioural issues, social integration, emotion recognition (face and prosody) | Small sample size, possible biased recruitment method |
Schmidt et al. [33] | Prospective cohort study | Neuropsychologia | USA | Participants were assessed on recognition of emotions from voice and visual cues. They also did 2 control tasks, one that tests phonological discrimination and the other for face identity recognition | (1) Emotional prosody task: indicate emotions portrayed in audio of 4 semantically neutral sentences spoken in different emotional prosody and (2) phonological discrimination: match/non-match judgments made for 2 non-sense words that were identical or varied by a single phoneme | Labelling emotions from prosody and face, phonological discrimination | Only used one emotional prosody task, with limited trials |
Schmidt et al. [34] | Prospective cohort study | Brain injury | USA | All were assessed on labelling emotional prosody, phonological discrimination and cognitive/neuropsychological tests at baseline and 3 months and underwent MRI at 3 months. DTI analysis was performed to investigate tracts that connect brain regions associated with emotional prosody | (1) Emotional prosody task: identify audio of neutral sentences spoken in different emotional prosody and (2) phonological discrimination: same/different judgments made for pairs of non-words that were identical or varied by a single phoneme | Emotional prosody recognition, phonological discrimination. Quantitative DTI variables | (1) Restricted to participants in a relatively acute stage of recovery and (2) did not take into account mechanism of injury |
Zupan and Neumann [35] | Retrospective cohort study | Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation | USA | (1) Unimodal: facial affect recognition, (2) unimodal vocal affect recognition and (3) affect recognition from context-enriched multimodal medium. Participants were asked to identify emotions | (2) Vocal affect recognition (Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Affect 2 -Voices): repetitions of neutral sentence spoken different emotional tones. Participants asked to indicate emotion portrayed | Recognition of emotions through voice, face and multimodal medium | No direct comparison for multimodal task (novel method); did not collect data on psychiatric issues |
Study | Study population | Characteristics matched | Age at assessment | Sex | Time between injury and assessment | Localization of brain injury, type of TBI/CHI | Mechanism of injury | Severity of TBI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dennis et al. [40] | 71 children previously hospitalized for TBI and 57 with orthopaedic injuries (OI) without loss of consciousness or brain injury. Exclusion: (1) history of serious injury, (2) premorbid neurological disorder or mental retardation, (3) child abuse or assault, (4) severe psychiatric disorder requiring hospitalization, (5) sensory or motor impairment that prevented assessment and (6) primary language other than English | Age at injury and assessment, sex, race, SES, mechanism of injury | TBI and OI controls: 8–13 years old | OI: 34 males, 23 females; TBI: 47 males, 24 females | 12 and 63 months | (1) Focal lesion: mild/moderate TBI: 83%; severe TBI: 55%; (2) diffuse lesion: mild/moderate TBI: 50%; severe TBI: 45%; (3) skull fracture: mild/moderate TBI: 56%; severe TBI: 50% | (1) MVA: OI: 5%; mild/moderate TBI: 32%; severe TBI: 52%; (2) sports/bike/recreation: OI:72%; mild/moderate TBI: 38%; severe TBI:24%; (3) fall: OI: 23%; mild/moderate TBI: 30%; severe TBI: 5 24% | Mild/moderate: GCS scores 9–15 (n = 50); severe: GCS scores 3–8 (n = 21) |
Dimoska et al. [38] | 18 adults with moderate–severe TBI and 18 healthy controls. Inclusion: (1) experiencing social difficulties post-TBI, (2) sufficient cognitive and motor capacity to do study and (3) fluent in English. Exclusion: (1) premorbid neurological or psychiatric conditions, (2) current aphasia or agnosia and (3) current psychosis | Age, education | TBI: 22 to 63 years (mean 45.2; SD 11.7). Control: 23–62 years (mean 44.4; SD 12.1) | TBI: 13 males, 5 females | Mean time post-injury = 15.0 years (SD 9.5 months) | Mixed, as shown by CT scan | MVA: 11; assault: 4; fall: 2; blow to head: 1 | PTA mean duration: 79.8 days (range 1–270 days); severity based on clinical judgment of CT scans/medical records and PTA, though specific criteria not specified |
Ietswaart et al. [36] | 30 TBI patients and 32 orthopaedic controls (OC). Inclusion for TBI: (1) diagnosis of TBI, (2) CT scan diagnosis or (3) evidence PTA. Exclusion criteria: (1) neurological or psychiatric history, (2) history of alcohol or drug dependency, (3) dementia or learning difficulties and (4) persistent post-injury language deficits; an extra exclusion criterion for OC was brain injury or PTA | Age, years of education, SES, sex | 16–70 years old for TBI and OC | TBI: 25 males and 5 females. OC: 28 males and 4 females | Immediately after injury. Average interval = 2.1 (S.D. 1.8) months for TBI group. Follow-up: 1 year later | CT scans: 12 had damage mostly in frontal lobes, 6 mostly in temporal or parietal areas and 6 had diffuse lesions. No lesion information was available for six patients | Road traffic accidents: 13; fall from height: 5; other falls: 6; assault: 5; other causes: 3 | Mild TBI: GCS 13–15 or PTA <24 h; moderate TBI: GCS 9–12 or PTA 1–7 days; severe TBI: GCS <9 or PTA >7 days |
McDonald and Saunders [39] | 34 adults with severe TBI and 28 healthy matched controls without neurological damage. Inclusion: (1) suffered a severe TBI resulting in altered consciousness of 1+ day and (2) fluent in English, not diagnosed with aphasia, normal sight and hearing. Mean length of PTA was 76 days (SD = 59) | Age, sex | TBI: 21 to 64 years (mean = 41). Controls: mean = 40.7 years, SD = 11.8 | TBI: 9 females, 25 males. Controls: 22 males, 6 females | At least 1 year post-injury, on average 9.5 years post-injury (SD = 8) | Heterogeneous type (contusions, hemorrhages, hematoma, fracture) and location (bilateral, unilateral, frontal, parietal, temporal, occipital, basal ganglia) of injuries, with majority of frontal lobe lesions | MVA: 22; assault: 5; fall 5; work-related injury: 2 | Mean length of PTA was 76 days (SD = 59). Specific criteria not reported |
Milders et al. [37] | 17 TBI patients without history of psychiatric disease or a premorbid alcohol or drug addiction. 17 healthy participants served as controls. A relative of each patient rated aspects of patient’s emotional and social behaviour before and after injury | Gender, age, years of education | TBI: 19 and 42 years (M = 30.5, SD = 13.3) Controls: M = 29.1, SD = 12.1 | TBI: 7 females, 10 males. Controls: 7 females, 10 males | Mean = 4.4 years (SD = 4.9) | Not reported | Road traffic accident: 15; domestic accident: 1; assault: 1 | Severe TBI: mean length of PTA = 33.6 days, SD = 27; GCS ≤8. Moderate TBI: GCS 9–12 |
Schmidt et al. [33] | 69 children with orthopaedic injury (OI) and 75 with non-penetrating moderate to severe TBI. All were English speaking, had never previously been hospitalized for a head injury, were not injured by abuse and did not history of mental retardation or pervasive developmental disorder | Sex, SES | TBI and OI: 7–17 years of age at time of injury | TBI: 49 males, 26 females. OI: 50 males, 19 females | Assessed at 5 points in 2 years post-injury: baseline (within 1 month), then 3, 12, 18 and 24 months post-TBI | Not reported | 7 motorcycle/moped; 5 bicycle; 12 fall; 4 sports/play; 12 hit by motor vehicle; 2 other | Moderate: lowest post-resuscitation GCS scores of 9–12 or GCS scores of 13–15 with brain lesions (contusions, hematomas) indicated by CT. Severe TBI: GCS scores of 3–8 |
Schmidt et al. [34] | 45 children with moderate or severe TBI and 46 with orthopaedic injury (OI). Inclusion criteria: English speaking, no previous hospitalization for head injury, no previous diagnosis of a severe psychiatric disorder, mental retardation or a neurodevelopmental disorder | SES, sex | TBI and OI: 7–17 years at time of injury | TBI: 14 females; 31 males; OI: 13 females, 33 males | Immediately after injury and at 3 months | Heterogeneous, as demonstrated by MRI and tracked by DTI | Low speed = 29; high speed = 16 | Moderate TBI: GCS score 9–12 or 13–15 with brain lesions (contusions, haematomas) indicated by CT scans. Severe TBI: GCS scores of 3–8 |
Zupan and Neumann [35] | 60 adults with moderate to severe TBI and 60 healthy controls. TBI must have GCS score, PTA or LOC indicative of moderate/severe TBI. Exclusion: presence of developmental affective disorder, acquired neurological disorder, psychiatric disorder and/or impaired vision or hearing. Controls were excluded if they had history of TBI or concussion. For all, English was the primary language | Age | TBI: 21.6 to 63 years (mean = 40.98; SD = 12.45); control: 18 to 63.2 years (mean = 40.64; SD = 13.04) | TBI: 37 males and 23 females; control: 38 males and 22 females | At least 6 months post-injury | Not reported | Not reported | Moderate to severe TBI (GCS ≤12; PTA ≥24 h; LOC ≥24 h) |
Prosodic impairments post-TBI
Study | Type of AP impairment | TBI impaired compared to controls (Yes/No) | Significant association with severity of TBI (Yes/No/Not assessed) | Significant association with location/type of brain lesion (Yes/No/Not assessed) | Significant association with age at injury (Yes/No/Not assessed) | Significant association with time elapsed since injury (Yes/No/Not assessed) | Significant association with SES (Yes/No/Not assessed) | Significant association with cognitive/executive functions (Yes/No/Not assessed) | Reports of mental health or socialization issues among the TBI group (Yes/No/Not assessed) | Impaired employment post-TBI (Yes/No/Not assessed) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dennis et al. [40] | Prosody-identifying empathy and irony | Yes
η
2 = .095 | Yes: GCS score | Yes: focal CT abnormality score negatively associated with identifying literal truth, B = −3.96, SE = 1.74, β = −.29, p = .026, but not empathy and irony. No: diffuse CT abnormality score did not predict any outcome | Yes: older age positively correlated with better recognition of empathy, irony and literal truths; η
2 = .15 | No | Not assessed | Not assessed | Not assessed | Not assessed |
Dimoska et al. [38] | (1) Prosody—labelling emotions; (2) prosody: processing muffled or non-sense sentence | Yes: TBI, compared to controls, had overall greater difficulty with (1) and (2), reaction time was also slower | Not assessed | Those impaired on labelling had intracerebral and subdural hemorrhages, cerebral edema, or extensive injuries to left/right temporal lobes. Out of 4 participants with focal lesions in right frontal region, only 1 was impaired on labelling task | Not assessed | No | Not assessed | Yes: working memory (r = 0.520; p < .01) and verbal comprehension (r = 0.413; p < .05) was correlated with labelling emotions, but not for emotion discrimination | Yes | Yes |
Ietswaart et al. [36] | (1) Prosody—labelling emotions, (2) prosody—discrimination of non-emotional tones, (3) prosody—discrimination of emotional tones | Yes: for (1) at initial assessment and follow up η
2 = .16; reaction time is also slower, η
2 = .21. No: for (2) and (3) | No | No | Not assessed | Yes: both TBI and orthopaedic injured controls improved at 1-year follow-up | Not assessed | Yes: correlation with verbal fluency, r = > .60, p = < .001. But impairment is still significant after controlling for cognitive abilities | Yes | Not assessed |
McDonald and Saunders [39] | Prosody—labelling emotions | Yes: impaired for audio-visual and especially impaired for audio-only. Bonferroni adjusted confidence interval = 95% | Not assessed | No | Not assessed | Not assessed | Not assessed | Not assessed | Yes | Yes |
Milders et al. [37] | (1) Prosody—labelling emotions, (2) prosody—discrimination of emotional tones and (3) non-emotional tones, t(32) = 2.6, p < .05, (4) prosody—semantics incongruent with prosody | Yes: for (1), (3) and (4). No: for (2) | Not assessed | Not assessed | Not assessed | Not assessed | Not assessed | Not assessed | Yes: TBI group was more impaired on pragnosia and suffered from depression compared to controls, behavioural and social problems were also elevated post-TBI | Employment significantly decreased after TBI. Pre-TBI: 13/17 patients were full- or part-time employed. Post-TBI: 5 were employed, and all 5 worked at lower level |
Schmidt et al. [33] | (1) Prosody—labelling emotions, (2) phonological discrimination | Yes: impaired for all time points and for both (1) and (2) | Yes | Not assessed | Yes: younger age at injury associated with faster rate of recovery in emotional prosody performance | Yes | Yes: higher SES correlated with faster rate of improvement in emotional prosody performance | Not assessed | Not assessed | Not assessed |
Schmidt et al. [34] | Prosody—labelling emotions; phonological discrimination | Yes: impaired for labelling emotions from prosody and correlated with performance on phonological discrimination | No | TBI had greater mean apparent diffusion co-efficient (ADC) values and lesser fractional anisotropy (FA) values. Within TBI, FA was related to Simple Emotion Score only in left cingulum bundle, r = −0.305, p = 0.047. FA of the genu of the corpus callosum was related to phonological discrimination, r = 0.407, p = 0.012 | Not assessed | Not assessed | Yes: children with higher SES scores performed better than those with lower scores, t
| Not assessed | Not assessed | Not assessed |
Zupan and Neumann [35] | Prosody—labelling emotions | Yes, η
p
2 = 0.09 | No | Not assessed | Not assessed | Not assessed | Not assessed | Not assessed | Not assessed | Not assessed |