成年卒中后非流畅性失语症患者言语韵律功能特征

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2024.08.014

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To explore the characteristics of speech prosody chunking, affect, focus and interaction function in patients with non-fluent aphasia after stroke.

Methods From December, 2023 to March, 2024, patients with non-fluent aphasia after stroke (experimental group, n = 25) and healthy subjects (control group, n = 25) were recruited from Shanghai Fifth Rehabilitation Hospital, and the two groups were compared in terms of chunking, affect, focus and interaction performance using a self-administered speech prosody function assessment tool and acoustic analyzing instrument.

Results In chunking prosody, there were differences in auditory discrimination (Z = -4.856, P < 0.001), auditory recognition of "two chunks" (Z = -3.024, P = 0.002), and subjective scores, total pause duration, average pause duration, average syllabic duration and structural sonic rate (|Z| > 2.911, P < 0.001) of imitating "two chunks" and autonomously outputing "two chunks" and "three chunks" between two groups. In affect prosody, there were differences in listening to distinguish different emotions (Z = -3.322, P = 0.001), listening to identify "like emotion" (Z = -3.481, P = 0.001), and the subjective score (Z = -6.214, P < 0.001), average intensity (Z = -3.581, P < 0.001) and standard deviation of intensity (Z = -3.181, P = 0.001) of imitating "like emotion" between two groups; there were differences in the subjective score (Z= -5.510, P < 0.001), average intensity (Z = -3.429, P = 0.001), standard deviation of intensity (Z = -4.777, P < 0.001) and fundamental frequency variation range (t = 1.852, P = 0.029) of autonomously outputing "like emotion" between two groups. In focus prosody, there were differences in listening to distinguish different focuses (Z = -2.658, P = 0.008), listening to identify the "end of sentence" focus (Z = -2.023, P = 0.011), and the peak stress intensity of imitating the "first sentence" focus (t =8.294, P< 0.001); the subjective score (|Z| > 5.102, P < 0.001) and peak stress intensity (t> 8.298, P < 0.001) of imitating the "mid-sentence" and "end-sentence", and the subjective score (Z = -4.371, P < 0.001) and peak stress intensity (t = 8.842, P < 0.001) of autonomously outputing the focus of the "first sentence" between two groups; there were differences in the subjective score (|Z| > 4.970, P < 0.001), peak stress intensity (t > 9.373, P < 0.001) and stress duration (|t| > 2.912, P < 0.01) of autonomously outputing the focus of the "mid-sentence" and "end-sentence". In the interaction prosody, there were no significant difference in auditory resolution and auditory recognition between two groups (P > 0.05), however, there were significant differences in the subjective score (|Z| > 4.938, P < 0.001) and the fundamental frequency slope k (|t| > 4.609, P < 0.001) of the interrogative tone both in imitative output and autonomous output.

Conclusions Patients with non-fluent aphasia showed significant abnormalities in the recognition and expression of "2 chunks" "like emotion" "sentence-final focus" and "questioning tone."

Key words: stroke, non-fluent aphasia, adults, prosody function, speech prosody

CLC Number:

R743.3

WANG Zhe, WAN Qin, HUANG Zhaoming, WANG Yongli, QIAN Hong. Characteristics of speech prosody function in adults with non-fluent aphasia after stroke[J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2024, 30(8): 979-992.

Figures/Tables 10

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Figure 1

Table 6

Comparison of differences in chunking prosody between two groups"

任务类型		参数	组别	M(Q_L, Q_U)/($\bar{x}\pm s$)	Z值/t值	P值
组块输入形式	相同	/	对照组	4.00(3.00, 4.00)	-1.247	0.212
	相同	/	试验组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	-1.247	0.212
	不同	/	对照组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	-4.856	< 0.001
	不同	/	试验组	3.00(2.00, 3.00)	-4.856	< 0.001
组块输入功能	2个组块	/	对照组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	-3.024	0.002
	2个组块	/	试验组	3.50(3.00, 4.00)	-3.024	0.002
	3个组块	/	对照组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	-0.403	0.687
	3个组块	/	试验组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	-0.403	0.687
组块输出形式	2个组块	主观得分	对照组	7.00(6.50, 7.50)	-6.197	< 0.001
		主观得分	试验组	3.00(3.00, 3.00)	-6.197	< 0.001
		停顿总时长/s	对照组	0.13(0.08, 0.19)	-4.846	< 0.001
		停顿总时长/s	试验组	0.40(0.21, 0.56)	-4.846	< 0.001
		平均停顿时长/s	对照组	0.13(0.08, 0.19)	-4.719	< 0.001
		平均停顿时长/s	试验组	0.38(0.20, 0.42)	-4.719	< 0.001
		平均音节时长/s	对照组	0.33(0.28, 0.37)	-3.925	< 0.001
		平均音节时长/s	试验组	0.42(0.37, 0.55)	-3.925	< 0.001
		构音速率/s^-1	对照组	3.20(2.78, 3.83)	-2.911	< 0.001
		构音速率/s^-1	试验组	2.72(2.28, 2.72)	-2.911	< 0.001
	3个组块	主观得分	对照组	8.00(7.00, 8.00)	-1.333	0.183
		主观得分	试验组	7.50(7.00, 8.00)	-1.333	0.183
		停顿总时长/s	对照组	0.28(0.08, 0.38)	-1.807	0.701
		停顿总时长/s	试验组	0.38(0.23, 0.55)	-1.807	0.701
		平均停顿时长/s	对照组	0.15(0.13, 0.23)	-1.705	0.088
		平均停顿时长/s	试验组	0.19(0.16, 0.21)	-1.705	0.088
		平均音节时长/s	对照组	0.40±0.08	-0.450	0.656
		平均音节时长/s	试验组	0.39±0.92	-0.450	0.656
		构音速率/s^-1	对照组	3.18±0.83	-0.780	0.438
		构音速率/s^-1	试验组	3.40±1.12	-0.780	0.438
组块输出功能	2个组块	主观得分	对照组	6.00(5.00, 7.00)	-6.132	< 0.001
		主观得分	试验组	1.00(0.00, 2.00)	-6.132	< 0.001
		停顿总时长/s	对照组	0.18(0.14, 0.24)	-5.300	< 0.001
		停顿总时长/s	试验组	0.54(0.35, 0.81)	-5.300	< 0.001
		平均停顿时长/s	对照组	0.18(0.13, 0.24)	-4.639	< 0.001
		平均停顿时长/s	试验组	0.48(0.29, 0.77)	-4.639	< 0.001
		平均音节时长/s	对照组	0.35(0.29, 0.39)	-4.978	< 0.001
		平均音节时长/s	试验组	0.49(0.44, 0.60)	-4.978	< 0.001
		构音速率/s^-1	对照组	3.01(2.69, 3.82)	-3.588	< 0.001
		构音速率/s^-1	试验组	2.50(2.27, 2.89)	-3.588	< 0.001
	3个组块	主观得分	对照组	8.00(7.60, 8.60)	-6.288	< 0.001
		主观得分	试验组	4.00(3.40, 4.40)	-6.288	< 0.001
		停顿总时长/s	对照组	0.30(0.20, 0.55)	-5.202	< 0.001
		停顿总时长/s	试验组	0.59(0.37, 0.73)	-5.202	< 0.001
		平均停顿时长/s	对照组	0.15(0.10, 0.23)	-5.136	< 0.001
		平均停顿时长/s	试验组	0.20(0.16, 0.21)	-5.136	< 0.001
		平均音节时长/s	对照组	0.41(0.32, 0.49)	-5.556	< 0.001
		平均音节时长/s	试验组	0.62(0.44, 0.79)	-5.556	< 0.001
		构音速率/s^-1	对照组	2.93(2.70, 3.66)	-3.736	< 0.001
		构音速率/s^-1	试验组	2.29(2.19, 2.85)	-3.736	< 0.001

Table 6

Table 7

Comparison of differences in affect prosody between two groups"

任务类型		参数	组别	M(Q_L, Q_U)/($\bar{x}\pm s$)	Z值/t值	P值
情感输入形式	相同	/	对照组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	-1.769	0.077
	相同		试验组	4.00(3.00, 4.00)	-1.769	0.077
	不同	/	对照组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	-3.322	0.001
	不同		试验组	3.00(3.00, 4.00)	-3.322	0.001
情感输入功能	喜欢	/	对照组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	-3.481	0.001
	喜欢		试验组	3.00(2.60, 4.00)	-3.481	0.001
	不喜欢	/	对照组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	-1.773	0.077
	不喜欢		试验组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	-1.773	0.077
情感输出形式	喜欢	主观得分	对照组	7.00(6.70, 7.20)	-6.214	< 0.001
		主观得分	试验组	3.00(2.50, 3.50)	-6.214	< 0.001
		平均强度/dB	对照组	63.00(59.50, 68.60)	-3.581	< 0.001
		平均强度/dB	试验组	56.00(51.75, 59.87)	-3.581	< 0.001
		强度标准差/dB	对照组	8.00(6.50, 9.40)	-3.181	0.001
		强度标准差/dB	试验组	4.50(4.00, 5.40)	-3.181	0.001
		平均基频/Hz	对照组	177.90±39.09	1.032	0.321
		平均基频/Hz	试验组	166.66±40.78	1.032	0.321
		基频标准差/Hz	对照组	41.77±8.25	0.629	0.528
		基频标准差/Hz	试验组	40.14±9.83	0.629	0.528
		基频变化范围/Hz	对照组	164.30±33.98	0.528	0.597
		基频变化范围/Hz	试验组	158.03±48.15	0.528	0.597
	不喜欢	主观得分	对照组	8.00(7.00, 9.00)	-1.750	0.080
		主观得分	试验组	7.00(6.00, 8.00)	-1.750	0.080
		平均强度/dB	对照组	60.23±5.05	1.862	0.069
		平均强度/dB	试验组	54.99±6.36	1.862	0.069
		强度标准差/dB	对照组	5.75(3.37, 8.50)	-0.861	0.387
		强度标准差/dB	试验组	7.20(6.80, 9.60)	-0.861	0.387
		平均基频/Hz	对照组	158.61±35.13	0.114	0.917
		平均基频/Hz	试验组	151.82±36.76	0.114	0.917
		基频标准差/Hz	对照组	40.47±37.31	1.123	0.254
		基频标准差/Hz	试验组	42.45±32.41	1.123	0.254
		基频变化范围/Hz	对照组	142.45±32.41	0.348	0.725
		基频变化范围/Hz	试验组	139.05±35.36	0.348	0.725
情感输出功能	喜欢	主观得分	对照组	6.00(5.50, 6.50)	-5.510	< 0.001
		主观得分	试验组	2.00(1.00, 3.00)	-5.510	< 0.001
		平均强度/dB	对照组	63.00(59.50, 65.60)	-3.429	0.001
		平均强度/dB	试验组	56.14(51.75, 59.87)	-3.429	0.001
		强度标准差/dB	对照组	8.00(6.50, 9.37)	-4.777	< 0.001
		强度标准差/dB	试验组	4.62(3.05, 5.37)	-4.777	< 0.001
		平均基频/Hz	对照组	171.85±38.16	0.541	0.594
		平均基频/Hz	试验组	166.95±39.57	0.541	0.594
		基频标准差/Hz	对照组	41.47±8.59	0.031	0.974
		基频标准差/Hz	试验组	41.39±7.82	0.031	0.974
		基频变化范围/Hz	对照组	171.68±34.90	1.852	0.029
		基频变化范围/Hz	试验组	150.04±36.05	1.852	0.029
	不喜欢	主观得分	对照组	7.00(6.50, 7.50)	-5.913	0.961
		主观得分	试验组	4.00(3.00, 5.00)	-5.913	0.961
		平均强度/dB	对照组	53.83±7.11	-0.606	0.548
		平均强度/dB	试验组	54.99±6.36	-0.606	0.548
		强度标准差/dB	对照组	8.25(6.00, 8.90)	-0.071	0.946
		强度标准差/dB	试验组	3.87(3.37, 4.50)	-0.071	0.946
		平均基频/Hz	对照组	155.78±35.59	0.430	0.666
		平均基频/Hz	试验组	151.13±40.09	0.430	0.666
		基频标准差/Hz	对照组	38.08±9.62	-0.010	0.994
		基频标准差/Hz	试验组	38.10±10.39	-0.010	0.994
		基频变化范围/Hz	对照组	136.37±28.93	0.054	0.958
		基频变化范围/Hz	试验组	135.86±38.98	0.054	0.958

Table 7

Table 8

Comparison of differences in focus prosody between two groups"

任务类型		参数	组别	M(Q_L, Q_U)/($\bar{x}\pm s$)	Z值/t值	P值
焦点输入形式	相同	/	对照组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	-1.819	0.068
	相同	/	试验组	4.00(3.00, 5.00)	-1.819	0.068
	不同	/	对照组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	-2.658	0.008
	不同	/	试验组	3.50(3.00, 5.00)	-2.658	0.008
焦点输入功能	句首	/	对照组	2.00(2.00, 2.00)	0.000	1.000
	句首	/	试验组	2.00(2.00, 2.00)	0.000	1.000
	句中	/	对照组	3.00(3.00, 3.00)	-0.558	0.556
	句中	/	试验组	3.00(3.00, 3.00)	-0.558	0.556
	句尾	/	对照组	3.00(3.00, 3.00)	-2.023	0.011
	句尾	/	试验组	3.00(2.75, 3.55)	-2.023	0.011
焦点输出形式	句首	主观得分	对照组	4.00(3.00, 5.00)	-1.052	0.291
		主观得分	试验组	3.00(2.50, 3.50)	-1.052	0.291
		平均基频/Hz	对照组	178.62±28.18	0.061	0.950
		平均基频/Hz	试验组	177.92±47.82	0.061	0.950
		重音持续时间/s	对照组	0.80±0.21	-0.600	0.552
		重音持续时间/s	试验组	0.83±0.19	-0.600	0.552
		重音强度峰值/dB	对照组	84.56±5.59	8.294	< 0.001
		重音强度峰值/dB	试验组	73.70±6.72	8.294	< 0.001
	句中	主观得分	对照组	6.00(5.50, 6.50)	-5.102	< 0.001
		主观得分	试验组	3.00(2.50, 3.50)	-5.102	< 0.001
		平均基频/Hz	对照组	186.89±27.41	1.013	0.321
		平均基频/Hz	试验组	182.92±47.11	1.013	0.321
		重音持续时间/s	对照组	3.13±12.75	0.935	0.345
		重音持续时间/s	试验组	0.77±0.34	0.935	0.345
		重音强度峰值/dB	对照组	83.99±5.13	8.298	< 0.001
		重音强度峰值/dB	试验组	69.74±6.59	8.298	< 0.001
	句尾	主观得分	对照组	5.00(3.00, 5.00)	-5.753	< 0.001
		主观得分	试验组	2.00(1.00, 3.00)	-5.753	< 0.001
		平均基频/Hz	对照组	185.39±32.46	0.359	0.717
		平均基频/Hz	试验组	175.03±40.23	0.359	0.717
		重音持续时间/s	对照组	3.37±12.67	0.928	0.359
		重音持续时间/s	试验组	0.95±0.24	0.928	0.359
		重音强度峰值/dB	对照组	83.87±4.46	8.983	< 0.001
		重音强度峰值/dB	试验组	70.06±7.02	8.983	< 0.001
焦点输出功能	句首	主观得分	对照组	4.00(3.00, 4.00)	-4.371	< 0.001
		主观得分	试验组	2.50(2.00, 3.00)	-4.371	< 0.001
		平均基频/Hz	对照组	178.34±29.87	0.643	0.526
		平均基频/Hz	试验组	171.76±41.98	0.643	0.526
		重音持续时间/s	对照组	0.78±0.13	-1.144	0.258
		重音持续时间/s	试验组	2.17±6.08	-1.144	0.258
		重音强度峰值/dB	对照组	83.78±5.13	8.842	< 0.001
		重音强度峰值/dB	试验组	69.34±6.35	8.842	< 0.001
	句中	主观得分	对照组	6.00(5.50, 6.50)	-4.970	< 0.001
		主观得分	试验组	3.00(2.50, 3.50)	-4.970	< 0.001
		平均基频/Hz	对照组	186.11±27.72	1.040	0.304
		平均基频/Hz	试验组	175.34±43.74	1.040	0.304
		重音持续时间/s	对照组	0.56±0.13	-3.139	0.003
		重音持续时间/s	试验组	0.81±0.37	-3.139	0.003
		重音强度峰值/dB	对照组	83.32±4.46	9.507	< 0.001
		重音强度峰值/dB	试验组	68.96±5.99	9.507	< 0.001
	句尾	主观得分	对照组	5.00(4.00, 6.00)	-5.636	< 0.001
		主观得分	试验组	2.00(1.50, 2.50)	-5.636	< 0.001
		平均基频/Hz	对照组	184.49±31.50	1.091	0.279
		平均基频/Hz	试验组	173.10±40.86	1.091	0.279
		重音持续时间/s	对照组	0.83±0.12	-2.912	0.005
		重音持续时间/s	试验组	0.99±0.25	-2.912	0.005
		重音强度峰值/dB	对照组	83.33±4.40	9.373	< 0.001
		重音强度峰值/dB	试验组	69.25±6.08	9.373	< 0.001

Table 8

Table 9

Comparison of differences in interaction prosody between two groups"

任务类型		参数	组别	M(Q_L, Q_U)/($\bar{x}\pm s$)	Z值/t值	P值
交互输入形式	相同	/	对照组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	0.000	1.000
	相同	/	试验组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	0.000	1.000
	不同	/	对照组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	-1.211	0.226
	不同	/	试验组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	-1.211	0.226
交互输入功能	陈述	/	对照组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	-1.722	0.085
	陈述	/	试验组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	-1.722	0.085
	疑问	/	对照组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	-0.615	0.540
	疑问	/	试验组	4.00(4.00, 4.00)	-0.615	0.540
交互输出形式	陈述	主观得分	对照组	8.00(8.00, 8.00)	-0.342	0.735
		主观得分	试验组	8.00(7.50, 8.25)	-0.342	0.735
		平均基频/Hz	对照组	165.40±38.07	0.873	0.388
		平均基频/Hz	试验组	155.78±39.26	0.873	0.388
		基频标准差/Hz	对照组	35.00(28.43, 42.12)	-0.219	0.813
		基频标准差/Hz	试验组	33.75(28.75, 40.62)	-0.219	0.813
		基频变化范围/Hz	对照组	128.50(108.75, 146.00)	-1.282	0.197
		基频变化范围/Hz	试验组	138.12(119.75, 164.62)	-1.282	0.197
		基频斜率k/%	对照组	-0.05±0.23	0.719	0.479
		基频斜率k/%	试验组	-0.09±0.14	0.719	0.479
	疑问	主观得分	对照组	7.00(6.00, 8.50)	-4.938	< 0.001
		主观得分	试验组	2.50(1.00, 4.00)	-4.938	< 0.001
		平均基频/Hz	对照组	189.97±39.42	1.715	0.094
		平均基频/Hz	试验组	169.21±46.24	1.715	0.094
		基频标准差/Hz	对照组	37.00(30.12, 58.20)	-0.797	0.426
		基频标准差/Hz	试验组	44.75(32.50, 49.50)	-0.797	0.426
		基频变化范围/Hz	对照组	142.25(120.75, 188.00)	-1.212	0.229
		基频变化范围/Hz	试验组	160.50(147.75, 198.00)	-1.212	0.229
		基频斜率k/%	对照组	0.45±0.18	4.609	< 0.001
		基频斜率k/%	试验组	0.15±0.27	4.609	< 0.001
交互输出功能	陈述	主观得分	对照组	8.00(7.50, 8.50)	-1.138	0.149
		主观得分	试验组	8.00(7.40, 8.40)	-1.138	0.149
		平均基频/Hz	对照组	166.18±37.09	1.072	0.291
		平均基频/Hz	试验组	154.45±40.44	1.072	0.291
		基频标准差/Hz	对照组	33.75(28.00, 42.25)	-0.034	0.977
		基频标准差/Hz	试验组	34.75(28.47, 38.62)	-0.034	0.977
		基频变化范围/Hz	对照组	131.50(109.75, 158.87)	-0.872	0.383
		基频变化范围/Hz	试验组	138.00(116.62, 162.00)	-0.872	0.383
		基频斜率k/%	对照组	-0.05±0.26	1.920	0.061
		基频斜率k/%	试验组	-0.08±0.24	1.920	0.061
	疑问	主观得分	对照组	6.00(5.00, 7.00)	-5.691	< 0.001
		主观得分	试验组	2.00(1.00, 3.00)	-5.691	< 0.001
		平均基频/Hz	对照组	192.27±39.18	1.823	0.770
		平均基频/Hz	试验组	170.63±44.17	1.823	0.770
		基频标准差/Hz	对照组	40.53±15.55	-0.692	0.493
		基频标准差/Hz	试验组	43.09±9.61	-0.692	0.493
		基频变化范围/Hz	对照组	144.75(109.75, 158.87)	-1.034	0.304
		基频变化范围/Hz	试验组	158.00(116.62, 162.00)	-1.034	0.304
		基频斜率k/%	对照组	0.58±0.16	8.574	< 0.001
		基频斜率k/%	试验组	0.12±0.21	8.574	< 0.001

Table 9

References 35

[1]	PRITCHARD M, HILARI K, COCKS N, et al. Reviewing the quality of discourse information measures in aphasia[J]. Int J Lang Commun Disord, 2017, 52(6): 689-732. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12318 pmid: 28560767
[2]	PIERI M, FOOTE H, GREALY M A, et al. Mind-body and creative arts therapies for people with aphasia: a mixed-method systematic review[J]. Aphasiology, 2023, 37(3): 504-562.
[3]	汉语失语症康复治疗专家共识组. 汉语失语症康复治疗专家共识[J]. 中华物理医学与康复杂志, 2019, 41(3): 16-19.
	Expert Consensus Group on Rehabilitation of Chinese Aphasia. Expert consensus on rehabilitation of Chinese aphasia[J]. Chin J Phys Med Rehabil, 2019, 41(3): 16-19.
[4]	郑力瑾, 肖永涛, 木怡. 非流畅性失语症患者韵律特征研究[J]. 听力学及言语疾病杂志, 2023, 31(6): 536-540.
	ZHENG L J, XIAO Y T, MU Y. A study on prosodic features of patients with nonfluent aphasia[J]. J Audiol Speech Disord, 2023, 31(6): 536-540.
[5]	SHIKAWA K, WEBSTER J, KETRING C. Agreement between transcription and rating-based intelligibility measurements for evaluation of dysphonic speech in noise[J]. Clin Linguist Phon, 2021, 35(10): 983-995.
[6]	NELE H, DANIELA S. Neural bases of social communicative intentions in speech[J]. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci, 2018, 13(6): 604-615. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsy034 pmid: 29771359
[7]	史尧平, 蔡希睿, 徐紫薇, 等. 汉语听觉语言信号和韵律信号处理的fMRI研究[J]. 临床放射学杂志, 2022, 41(7): 1227-1233.
	SHI Y P, CAI X R, XU Z W, et al. An fMRI study on the processing of Chinese auditory language signals and prosodic signals[J]. J Clin Radiol, 2022, 41(7): 1227-1233.
[8]	FROBENIUS M. A pragmatic approach to fluency and disfluency in learner language:cofluencies as sites of accountability, sequentiality,and multimodality[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2022: 11-15.
[9]	ZHAO T Y, KAWAHARA T. Joint dialog act segmentation and recognition in human conversations using attention to dialog context[J]. J Commun Disord, 2019, 57(6): 108-127.
[10]	陈颖, 曹悦, 庄敏, 等. 卒中失语患者命名功能与非语言认知功能的相关性分析[J]. 中国脑血管病杂志, 2021, 18(7): 453-457, 471.
	CHEN Y, CAO Y, ZHUANG M, et al. Correlation analysis between naming function and nonverbal cognitive function in stroke patients with aphasia[J]. Chin J Cerebrovasc Dis, 2021, 18(7): 453-457, 471.
[11]	余新春, 万勤, 王勇丽. 学龄前健听与听障儿童言语韵律组块功能的比较[J]. 听力学及言语疾病杂志, 2023, 31(2): 113-116.
	YU X C, WAN Q, WANG Y L. Characteristics of speech prosodic chunking function in preschool hearing impaired children with different types of hearing amplication[J]. J Audiol Speech Disord, 2023, 31(2): 113-116.
[12]	尹敏敏, 凌星, 杨亚茹, 等. 基于WHO-FICs构建言语流畅性障碍的诊断、评估和整体康复方案[J]. 中国康复理论与实践, 2022, 28(6): 630-636. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2022.06.002
	YIN M M, LING X, YANG Y R, et al. Development of diagnosis, assessment and intervention solution for speech fluency disorder using WHO-FICs[J]. Chin J Rehabil Theory Pract, 2022, 28(6): 630-636.
[13]	SHI R E, ZHANG Q. A domain-general perspective on the role of the basal ganglia in language and music: benefits of music therapy for the treatment of aphasia[J]. Brain Lang, 2020, 206(7): 104811-104812.
[14]	DEGANO G, DONHAUSER P W, GWILLIAMS L, et al. Speech prosody enhances the neural processing of syntax[J]. Commun Biol, 2024, 7(1): 748.
[15]	LAMEKINA Y, TITONE L, MAESS B, et al. Speech prosody serves temporal prediction of language via contextual entrainment[J]. J Neurosci, 2024, 5(3): 104-123.
[16]	HARTWIGSEN G, SAUR D. Neuroimaging of stroke recovery from aphasia: insights into plasticity of the human language network[J]. NeuroImage, 2019, 190(4): 14-31.
[17]	TURKELTAUB P E. Brain stimulation and the role of the right hemisphere in aphasia recovery[J]. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep, 2015, 15(11): 72.
[18]	QUIQUE Y M, GNANATEJA G N, DICKEY M W, et al. Examining cortical tracking of the speech envelope in post-stroke aphasia[J]. Front Hum Neurosci, 2023, 17(2): 1122480.
[19]	HELLBERND N, SAMMLER D. Prosody conveys speaker's intentions: acoustic cues for speech act perception[J]. J Mem Lang, 2016, 88(4): 70-86.
[20]	ALM P A. The Dopamine system and automatization of movement sequences: a review with relevance for speech and stuttering[J]. Front Hum Neurosci, 2021, 15(2): 661-680.
[21]	GRANDJEAN D. Brain networks of emotional prosody processing[J]. Emotion, 2021, 13(1): 34-43.
[22]	LEUNG J H, PURDY S C, TIPPETT L J, et al. Affective speech prosody perception and production in stroke patients with left-hemispheric damage and healthy controls[J]. Brain Lang, 2017, 166(2): 19-28.
[23]	ROSS E D. Disorders of vocal emotional expression and comprehension: the aprosodias[J]. Handb Clin Neurol, 2021, 5(1): 63-98.
[24]	ZIEGLER W, AICHERT I. How much is a word? Predicting ease of articulation planning from apraxic speech error patterns[J]. Cortex, 2015, 69(4): 24-39.
[25]	BAQUE L. Lexical stress contrast marking in fluent and non-fluent aphasia in Spanish: the relationship between acoustic cues and compensatory strategies[J]. Clin Linguist Phon, 2017, 31(7): 642-664.
[26]	GILLESPIE S, LAURES J, MOORE E, et al. Identification of affective state change in adults with aphasia using speech acoustics[J]. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2018, 61(12): 2906-2916.
[27]	SICOLI A M, STIVERS T, ENFIELD N, et al. Marked initial pitch in questions signals marked communicative function[J]. Lang Speech, 2015, 58(2): 204-223.
[28]	ARSLAN S, GÜR E, FELSER C. Predicting the sources of impaired wh-question comprehension in non-fluent aphasia: a cross-linguistic machine learning study on Turkish and German[J]. Cogn Neuropsychol, 2017, 34(5): 312-331. doi: 10.1080/02643294.2017.1394284 pmid: 29140189
[29]	TOMASELLO R, GRISONI L, BOUX I, et al. Instantaneous neural processing of communicative functions conveyed by speech prosody[J]. Cereb Cortex, 2022, 232(21): 4885-4901.
[30]	CUPIT J, GRAHAM N L, LEONARD C, et al. Wh-questions and passive sentences in non-fluent variant PPA and semantic variant PPA: longitudinal findings of an anagram production task[J]. Cogn Neuropsychol, 2016, 33(5/6): 329-342.
[31]	SULLIVAN N, WALENSKI M, LOVE T, et al. The comprehension of sentences with unaccusative verbs in aphasia: a test of the intervener hypothesis[J]. Aphasiology, 2017, 31(1): 67-81. pmid: 27909354
[32]	HENRY M, HUBBARD H, GRASSO S. Retraining speech production and fluency in non-fluent/agrammatic primary progressive aphasia[J]. Brain, 2018, 141(6): 1799-1814. doi: 10.1093/brain/awy101 pmid: 29718131
[33]	万勤, 杨闪闪, 黄昭鸣, 等. 非流畅性失语症患者疑问句语调产出的特点[J]. 听力学及言语疾病杂志, 2022, 30(1): 30-33.
	WAN Q, YANG S S, HUANG Z M, et al. Clinical characteristics of interrogative intonation in non‐fluent aphasia patients[J]. J Audiol Speech Disord, 2022, 30(1): 30-33.
[34]	CRUZ M, SWERTS M, FROTA S. The role of intonation and visual cues in the perception of sentence types: evidence from European Portuguese varieties[J]. Front Psychol, 2017, 8(1): 23-25.
[35]	HAWTHORNE K, FISCHER S. Speech-language pathologists and prosody: clinical practices and barriers[J]. J Commun Disord, 2020, 87(5): 106-124.

序号	组块输入形式	情感输入形式	交互输入形式	焦点输入形式
1	番茄，炒蛋和面包；番茄炒蛋和面包	香蕉；香蕉	西瓜；西瓜	姐姐喝果汁；姐姐喝果汁
2	草莓蛋糕和牛奶；草莓，蛋糕和牛奶	电视；电视	树叶；树叶	小明踢足球；小明踢足球
3	草莓蛋糕和牛奶；草莓蛋糕和牛奶	小狗；小狗	西瓜；西瓜	小明踢足球；小明踢足球
4	红枣，粽子和苹果；红枣粽子和苹果	红旗；红旗	水饺；水饺	小红弹钢琴；小红弹钢琴
5	番茄，炒蛋和面包；番茄，炒蛋和面包	红旗；红旗	树叶；树叶	熊猫吃竹子；熊猫吃竹子
6	猪肉水饺和螃蟹；猪肉水饺和螃蟹	香蕉；香蕉	水饺；水饺	姐姐喝果汁；姐姐喝果汁
7	猪肉水饺和螃蟹；猪肉，水饺和螃蟹	电视；电视	白云；白云	爷爷喝牛奶；爷爷喝牛奶
8	红枣，粽子和苹果；红枣，粽子和苹果	小狗；小狗	白云；白云	爷爷喝牛奶；爷爷喝牛奶

序号	组块输入功能	情感输入功能	交互输入功能	焦点输入功能
1	猪肉，水饺和螃蟹	小狗	西瓜	爷爷喝牛奶
2	红枣粽子和苹果	电视	水饺	小明踢足球
3	红枣，粽子和苹果	香蕉	白云	熊猫吃竹子
4	番茄炒蛋和面包	小狗	树叶	哥哥吃西瓜
5	草莓，蛋糕和牛奶	红旗	白云	姐姐喝果汁
6	番茄，炒蛋和面包	香蕉	树叶	爷爷喝牛奶
7	草莓蛋糕和牛奶	电视	水饺	小明踢足球
8	猪肉水饺和螃蟹	红旗	西瓜	小红弹钢琴

序号	组块输出形式	情感输出形式	交互输出形式	焦点输出形式
1	番茄炒蛋和面包	红旗	树叶	爷爷喝牛奶
2	红枣，粽子和苹果	电视	白云	爷爷喝牛奶
3	猪肉水饺和螃蟹	小狗	白云	姐姐喝果汁
4	猪肉，水饺和螃蟹	红旗	西瓜	小明踢足球
5	番茄，炒蛋和面包	香蕉	树叶	姐姐喝果汁
6	草莓，蛋糕和牛奶	小狗	水饺	小红弹钢琴
7	草莓蛋糕和牛奶	电视	西瓜	熊猫吃竹子
8	红枣粽子和苹果	香蕉	水饺	小明踢足球

序号	组块输出功能	情感输出功能	交互输出功能	焦点输出功能
1	猪肉水饺和螃蟹	蓝莓	树叶	小明踢足球
2	红枣粽子和苹果	苹果	蝴蝶	熊猫吃竹子
3	猪肉，水饺和螃蟹	哈密瓜	树叶	小明踢足球
4	番茄炒蛋和面包	韭菜	西瓜	爷爷喝牛奶
5	红枣，粽子和苹果	垃圾	雨伞	熊猫吃竹子
6	草莓，蛋糕和牛奶	蛋糕	西瓜	姐姐喝果汁
7	番茄，炒蛋和面包	大蒜	雨伞	姐姐喝果汁
8	草莓蛋糕和牛奶	裙子	蝴蝶	小红弹钢琴

任务	参数	临床含义
组块韵律	平均音节时长	产生音节语音片段或语音事件(一个音节)所花费的平均时间
	停顿总时长	在给定言语样本中停顿的总时长
	平均停顿时长	在给定言语样本的总停顿时长/总停顿次数
	构音速率	构音运动的快慢。
情感韵律	平均基频	声带振动的平均频率，反映音高水平的高低
	基频标准差	基频平均值的波动范围
	基频变化范围	基频的波动范围
	平均强度	声带振动的幅度，反映响度的大小
	强度标准差	响度平均值的波动范围
焦点韵律	平均基频	声带振动的平均频率，反映音高水平的高低
	重音持续时间	重音音节的持续时间
	重音强度峰值	重音音节响度的最大值
交互韵律	平均基频	声带振动的平均频率，反映音高水平的高低
	基频标准差	基频平均值的波动范围
	基频变化范围	基频的波动范围
	基频斜率k	音高变化的形态，反映该句音高的整体走势

Characteristics of speech prosody function in adults with non-fluent aphasia after stroke

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 10

References 35

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

[1]	YU Tingting, CAI Fuliang, MIAO Guihua, GU Chen, PENG Yuan. Effect of structured therapy and education based on personal strength on ischemic stroke: a randomized controlled trial [J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2024, 30(8): 965-971.
[2]	LIANG Tianjia, LONG Yaobin, LU Liyan, ZHOU Jinying, HUANG Fucai, HUANG Linpeng, WU Yingchao, LONG Yaoxiang, WEI Xiaocui, LIU Zhong. Effect of rope-assisted proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation combined with rope-assisted brain-computer interface training on upper limb function in stroke patients with hemiplegia: a randomized controlled trial [J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2024, 30(8): 972-978.
[3]	DUAN Linru, ZHENG Jiejiao, CHEN Xi, LI Yan. Analysis of relevant factors for fall risk in stroke patients [J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2024, 30(7): 811-817.
[4]	LUO Wei, HE Yi, ZHANG Qingsu. Relationship between motor function of articulation organs and speech intelligibility in poststroke dysarthria [J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2024, 30(7): 818-822.
[5]	HE Aiqun, LI Jingbo, HE Maoli, YE Simei, SONG Qiushuang, LIU Haiou, XIE Youshu. Effect of occupational skills relearning on hemiplegic arm function after stroke: a randomized controlled trial [J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2024, 30(7): 823-830.
[6]	CHEN Chen, MENG Zhaoxiang, YANG Kang, ZHANG Minjie, ZUO Ya'nan, WANG Kui, ZHANG Xibin, QUAN Yifeng, JIN Xing. Effect of intelligent mirror glove task-oriented training combined with low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on hand function in patients with stroke: a randomized controlled trial [J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2024, 30(7): 831-838.
[7]	REN Xiaomin, WEI Hui, YUE Shouwei, YIN Sen. Risk factors of stroke in nine hospitals of six cities in Shandong, China: a case-control study [J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2024, 30(7): 839-847.
[8]	YANG Bin, LIU Mingyue, GAO Dan, LI Zhe. Application of transcranial direct current stimulation in stroke rehabilitation: a bibliometrics analysis [J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2024, 30(6): 675-685.
[9]	LI Yanli, LIU Lanqun, XU Jimin, WANG Haifang. Post-stroke foot drop research： a bibliometrics analysis [J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2024, 30(6): 686-692.
[10]	YANG Shining, MA Jiang, LI Hong, GUO Liying, LIU Xianying, ZHANG Lifang. Correlation of upper extremity somatosensory evoked potentials with sensory and motor functions in stroke patients in different stages [J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2024, 30(6): 701-708.
[11]	WANG Xue, WANG Liping, SONG Ning, LIU Lanqun, ZHOU Jie, WU Jun. Effect of behavioral vision training on post-stroke ocular motility disorders [J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2024, 30(6): 726-730.
[12]	WEN Nana, ZHANG Xinhui, LONG Qing, WANG Yuhao, YU Qunping, ZHANG Hanchun, ZHENG Guohua. Predictive value of gait and balance on frailty in community-dwelling older adults in Shanghai, China [J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2024, 30(6): 731-736.
[13]	WEI Tianyuan, LIN Yufan, HE Yi, SONG Mingjie, LI Chaojinzi, ZHANG Qingsu, DU Xiaoxia. Effect of computer-assisted training on post-stroke dysarthria [J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2024, 30(5): 520-525.
[14]	XU Dongyan, WANG Weining, PAN Li, LIU Gang, LIU Jiapeng, WU Yi, ZHU Yulian. Effect of enriched environment theory-based multisensory feedback gait training on walking function in stroke patients [J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2024, 30(5): 526-534.
[15]	XIONG Xingxiu, ZHANG Zhenghui, DENG Chunyan, LI Yunbo, CHEN Zhenpeng, LI Yuanjie, SONG Jing. Effect of combination of partial body weight support and functional electrical stimulation on lower limb motor function after stroke [J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2024, 30(5): 554-559.