Journal of Research in Rehabilitation Sciences

The Speech Prosody Tests: A Narrative Review

Document Type : Review Articles

Authors

1 Instructor, Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

2 Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Physiotherapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

10.22122/jrrs.v15i1.3247

Abstract

Introduction: Speech prosody is one of the important communication components that describes the paraliguistic features of speech. The tests are suitable tools for quantifying speech and language skills, and of necessary needs for evaluation, screening, describing, diagnosis, and treatment of various aspects. The purpose of present study was to review existing tests in speech prosody recognition, as well as their subtests, implementation and scorings, and ultimately their application in clinical and research fields of children and adults.Materials and Methods: An electronic search for reviewing common speech prosody tests was performed in Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Medline, Scientific Information Database (SID), Google Scholar, Ovid, and Magiran databases to obtain relevant articles published from 1981 to 2019. The keywords used included “Prosody”, “Assessment”, “Test”, “Tool”, “Evaluation”, “Diagnosis”, “Instrument”, and “Measurement”. The articles obtained using the inclusion criteria were studied following as access to the full text of the article and the English or Persian language. From 15 articles found, 8 tests that were adhered to the inclusion criteria were selected for consideration.Results: 8 speech prosody tests were evaluated which included 5 perceptual tests, 2 expressive tests, and 1 perceptual expressive test. The oldest test was made in 1981, and the latest in 2012.Conclusion: The literature review shows that some tests have been used more often in recent years due to the specialized expertise of the subtests. A review of speech tests suggests that the Profiling Elements of Prosody in Speech-Communication (PEPS-C) test is more prestigious due to the assessment of perceptual and expression areas, standardization for normal and disabled children, translation into several languages, and high psychometric properties.

Keywords

  1. Peppe S. Why is prosody in speech-language pathology so difficult? Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2009; 11(4): 258-71.
  2. Raphael LJ, Borden GJ, Harris KS. Speech science primer: Physiology, acoustics, and perception of speech. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2007.
  3. Yorkston K M, Hakel M, Beukelman DR, Fager S. Evidence for effectiveness of treatment of loudness, rate, or prosody in dysarthria: a systematic review. J Med Speech Lang Pathol 2007; 15(2): xi-xxxvi.
  4. Fletcher J. The prosody of speech: Timing and rhythm. In: Hardcastle WJ, Laver J, Gibbon FE, editors. The handbook of phonetic sciences. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2010. p. 521-602.
  5. Fakar Gharamaleki F, Shahbodaghi MR, Jahan A, Jalayi Sh. Investigation of acoustic characteristics of speech motor control in children who stutter and children who do not stutter. J Rehabil 2016; 17(3): 232-243. [In Persian].
  6. Martinez-Castilla P, Peppe S. Developing a test of prosodic ability for speakers of Iberian Spanish. Speech Commun 2008; 50(11-12): 900-15.
  7. Koike KJ, Asp CW. Tennessee Test of rhythm and intonation patterns. J Speech Hear Disord 1981; 46(1): 81-7.
  8. Crystal D. Profiling linguistic disability. San Diego, CA: Singular Pub. Group; 1992.
  9. Pindzola RH. VAP, a voice assessment protocol for children and adults. Austin, Tex.: Pro-ed; 1987.
  10. Shriberg LD, Kwiatkowski J, Rasmussen C. Prosody-voice screening Profile (PVSP): Scoring forms and training materials. Tucson, AZ: Communication Skill Builders; 1990.
  11. Blonder L, Bowers D, Heilman K. Florida Affect Battery. Gainesville, FL: Center for Neuropsychological Studies, Department of Neurology; 1998.
  12. Mirahadi SS, Khatoonabadi SA, Fekar Gharamaleki F. A review of divided attention dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease, Middle East J Rehabil Health Stud 2018; 5(3): e64738.
  13. Richmond VP, McCroskey JC. Nonverbal behavior in interpersonal relations. Allyn and Bacon; 1995.
  14. Peppe S, McCann J. Assessing intonation and prosody in children with atypical language development: the PEPS-C test and the revised version. Clin Linguist Phon 2003; 17(4-5): 345-54.
  15. Peppe S, McCann J, Gibbon F, O’Hare A, Rutherford M. Assessing prosodic and pragmatic ability in children with high-functioning autism. J Pragmat 2006; 38(10): 1776-91.
  16. Peppe S, McCann J, Gibbon F, O'Hare A, Rutherford M. Receptive and expressive prosodic ability in children with high-functioning autism. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007; 50(4): 1015-28.
  17. Ghorbani E, Khoddami SM, Soleymani Z, Jalaie S, Khodadadi M Cross-cultural adaptation of profiling elements of prosody in speech_communication: Validity and reliability in Persian. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods 2017; 7(4): 410-21.
  18. Samuelsson C, Scocco C, Nettelbladt U. Towards assessment of prosodic abilities in Swedish children with language impairment. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 2003; 28(4): 156-66.
  19. Samuelsson C, Nettelbladt U. Prosodic problems in Swedish children with language impairment: Towards a classification of subgroups. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2004; 39(3): 325-44.
  20. Torke Ladani N, Agharasouli Z, Ashayeri H, Mahmoudi Bakhtiyari B, Kamali M, Ziatabar Ahmadi SZ. Development, validity and reliability of the speech prosody comprehension test. Audiology 2012; 21(1): 69-75. [In Persian].
  21. Ostendorfy M, Shafranz I, Bates R. Prosody models for conversational speech recognition. Proceedings of the 2nd Plenary Meeting and Symposium on Prosody and Speech Processing 2003; 147-154.
  22. Regenbogen C, Schneider DA, Finkelmeyer A, Kohn N, Derntl B, Kellermann T, et al. The differential contribution of facial expressions, prosody, and speech content to empathy. Cogn Emot 2012; 26(6): 995-1014.
  23. Tseng SC. Grammar, prosody and speech disfluencies in spoken dialogues [Thesis]. Bielefeld, Germany: Bielefeld University; 1999.
  24. O'Shaughnessy, D. Relationships between syntax and prosody for speech synthesis. InProceedings of the ESCA tutorial day on speech synthesis 1990; 39-42.
  25. Cutler A, Dahan D, van Donselaar W. Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Lang Speech 1997; 40(Pt 2): 141-201.
  26. Diehl JJ, Paul R. The assessment and treatment of prosodic disorders and neurological theories of prosody. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2009; 11(4): 287-92.
  27. Rodriguez RH. Acoustic and perceptual comparisons of imitative prosody in kindergartners with and without speech disorders [MSc Thesis]. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida; 1998.
  28. Munhall KG, Jones JA, Callan DE, Kuratate T, Vatikiotis-Bateson E. Visual prosody and speech intelligibility: Head movement improves auditory speech perception. Psychol Sci 2004; 15(2): 133-7.
  29. Pell MD. Cerebral mechanisms for understanding emotional prosody in speech. Brain Lang 2006; 96(2): 221-34.
  30. Thompson WF, Schellenberg EG, Husain G. Perceiving prosody in speech. Effects of music lessons. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2003; 999: 530-2.
Journal of Research in Rehabilitation Sciences
Volume 15, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
March 2019
Pages 58-64