Skip to main content

Table 3 Evaluation of the results of studies included in the review by auditory processing outcome, localization of injury, TBI severity, age at time of injury, time elapsed since injury, social economic status (SES), executive function, mental health, socialization and employment difficulties

From: Prosodic processing post traumatic brain injury - a systematic review

Study Type of AP impairment TBI impaired compared to controls (Yes/No) Significant association with severity of TBI (Yes/No/Not assessed) Significant association with location/type of brain lesion (Yes/No/Not assessed) Significant association with age at injury (Yes/No/Not assessed) Significant association with time elapsed since injury (Yes/No/Not assessed) Significant association with SES (Yes/No/Not assessed) Significant association with cognitive/executive functions (Yes/No/Not assessed) Reports of mental health or socialization issues among the TBI group (Yes/No/Not assessed) Impaired employment post-TBI (Yes/No/Not assessed)
Dennis et al. [40] Prosody-identifying empathy and irony Yes
η 2 = .095
Yes: GCS score Yes: focal CT abnormality score negatively associated with identifying literal truth, B = −3.96, SE = 1.74, β = −.29, p = .026, but not empathy and irony. No: diffuse CT abnormality score did not predict any outcome Yes: older age positively correlated with better recognition of empathy, irony and literal truths; η 2 = .15 No Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed
Dimoska et al. [38] (1) Prosody—labelling emotions; (2) prosody: processing muffled or non-sense sentence Yes: TBI, compared to controls, had overall greater difficulty with (1) and (2), reaction time was also slower Not assessed Those impaired on labelling had intracerebral and subdural hemorrhages, cerebral edema, or extensive injuries to left/right temporal lobes. Out of 4 participants with focal lesions in right frontal region, only 1 was impaired on labelling task Not assessed No Not assessed Yes: working memory (r = 0.520; p < .01) and verbal comprehension (r = 0.413; p < .05) was correlated with labelling emotions, but not for emotion discrimination Yes Yes
Ietswaart et al. [36] (1) Prosody—labelling emotions, (2) prosody—discrimination of non-emotional tones, (3) prosody—discrimination of emotional tones Yes: for (1) at initial assessment and follow up η 2 = .16; reaction time is also slower, η 2 = .21. No: for (2) and (3) No No Not assessed Yes: both TBI and orthopaedic injured controls improved at 1-year follow-up Not assessed Yes: correlation with verbal fluency, r = > .60, p = < .001. But impairment is still significant after controlling for cognitive abilities Yes Not assessed
McDonald and Saunders [39] Prosody—labelling emotions Yes: impaired for audio-visual and especially impaired for audio-only. Bonferroni adjusted confidence interval = 95% Not assessed No Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Yes Yes
Milders et al. [37] (1) Prosody—labelling emotions, (2) prosody—discrimination of emotional tones and (3) non-emotional tones, t(32) = 2.6, p < .05, (4) prosody—semantics incongruent with prosody Yes: for (1), (3) and (4). No: for (2) Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Yes: TBI group was more impaired on pragnosia and suffered from depression compared to controls, behavioural and social problems were also elevated post-TBI Employment significantly decreased after TBI. Pre-TBI: 13/17 patients were full- or part-time employed. Post-TBI: 5 were employed, and all 5 worked at lower level
Schmidt et al. [33] (1) Prosody—labelling emotions, (2) phonological discrimination Yes: impaired for all time points and for both (1) and (2) Yes Not assessed Yes: younger age at injury associated with faster rate of recovery in emotional prosody performance Yes Yes: higher SES correlated with faster rate of improvement in emotional prosody performance Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed
Schmidt et al. [34] Prosody—labelling emotions; phonological discrimination Yes: impaired for labelling emotions from prosody and correlated with performance on phonological discrimination No TBI had greater mean apparent diffusion co-efficient (ADC) values and lesser fractional anisotropy (FA) values. Within TBI, FA was related to Simple Emotion Score only in left cingulum bundle, r = −0.305, p = 0.047. FA of the genu of the corpus callosum was related to phonological discrimination, r = 0.407, p = 0.012 Not assessed Not assessed Yes: children with higher SES scores performed better than those with lower scores, t Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed
Zupan and Neumann [35] Prosody—labelling emotions Yes, η p 2 = 0.09 No Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed