Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38848458›Full record

ReviewNeuropsychological rehabilitation2025

A targeted review of prosodic production in agrammatic aphasia.

Lauryn Zipse, Jeanne Gallée, Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lauryn ZipseDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA, USA.
Jeanne GalléeDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA, USA.
Stefanie Shattuck-HufnagelSpeech Communication Group, Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Funding

The effects of unison production on speech fluency in people with aphasiaR15DC019231 · NIDCD · MGH INSTITUTE OF HEALTH PROFESSIONS · PI ZIPSE, LAURYN R. · 2021 to 2021
$619k
NIDCD NIH HHS R15 DC019231
6 · The paper itself

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

Aphasia, BrocaSpeechHumansAgrammatismAphasiaApraxia of speechProsodySyntax

Identifiers

PMID38848458
PMCPMC11624319

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.