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 13th 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.