ReviewNeuropsychological rehabilitation2025
A targeted review of prosodic production in agrammatic aphasia.
Review in Neuropsychological rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring Concepts of Understanding in the Working Practice of Speech and Language Therapists in the UK: A Preliminary Survey.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It is unclear whether individuals with agrammatic aphasia have particularly disrupted prosody, or in fact have relatively preserved prosody they can use in a compensatory way. A targeted literature review was undertaken to examine the evidence regarding the capacity of speakers with agrammatic aphasia to produce prosody. The aim was to answer the question, how much prosody can a speaker "do" with limited syntax? The literature was systematically searched for articles examining the production of grammatical prosody in people with agrammatism, and yielded 16 studies that were ultimately included in this review. Participant inclusion criteria, spoken language tasks, and analysis procedures vary widely across studies. The evidence indicates that timing aspects of prosody are disrupted in people with agrammatic aphasia, while the use of pitch and amplitude cues is more likely to be preserved in this population. Some, but not all, of these timing differences may be attributable to motor speech programming deficits (AOS) rather than aphasia, as these conditions frequently co-occur. Many of the included studies do not address AOS and its possible role in any observed effects. Finally, the available evidence indicates that even speakers with severe aphasia show a degree of preserved prosody in functional communication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.