Prosody in typical and clinical populations: Children and adults with hearing loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: Aims of this doctoral thesis were to: 1) evaluate published tools for assessing prosodic skills in children and adults, 2) investigate age effects on different aspects of prosody perception in typically developing children and report normative performance for New Zealand-English speaking 7-12 year olds, 3) compare prosody perception and production in children with hearing loss and age- and gender-matched children with normal hearing, 4) examine the effects of age, hearing level, and musicality on children’s prosody perception, and 5) investigate prosody perception and musical pitch discrimination in adults using cochlear implants. Methods: Published tools were identified through searching online databases, bibliographies of relevant articles and contacting authors. Six receptive subtests of Profiling Elements of Prosody in Speech-Communication (PEPS-C) and Child Paralanguage and Adult Paralanguage subtests of Diagnostic Analysis of Non Verbal Accuracy 2 (DANVA 2) were used as prosody perception measures. Musical pitch discrimination was assessed using Contour and Interval subtests of the Montreal Battery of Evaluation of Amusia (MBEA). Prosody productions were rated using the perceptual prosody rating scales. Results: The literature review identified nine prosody assessment tools available for use with children and adults that were appraised for their intended purpose, target population, domains of prosody assessed, feasibility, and psychometric properties. The review highlighted the need to continue to develop and test tools for effective and comprehensive assessment of prosodic skills. The second study revealed that prosodic competence develops significantly between the ages of 7 and 11 years. Results from the PEPS-C test revealed a differential pattern of acquisition for different aspects of prosody, with 7-8 year olds being significantly poorer than 11-12 year olds on Chunking and Contrastive Stress subtests. Performance on the DANVA 2 test of affective prosody perception differed significantly across emotional categories (angry > happy > sad > fearful) and the level of emotion intensity (better scores for high emotion intensity items). The third study showed that children with hearing loss aged 7 to 12 years performed significantly poorer than controls on PEPS-C and DANVA 2 tests. Prosody perception scores were significantly correlated with age, hearing level, and musicality. Prosody production evaluated using perceptual rating scales showed greater variation in perceptual ratings of pitch, pitch variation, and overall prosody in the hearing loss group compared to the control group. Adults using cochlear implants performed significantly poorer than adult normative values reported for PEPS-C and DANVA 2 tests and the majority performed at chance on MBEA tasks. Conclusions: The relatively small number of tools available to evaluate prosody compared to other aspects of language suggests that prosody is often overlooked in terms of formal language assessment. The normative results reported for New Zealand-English speaking children will be useful when assessing prosodic difficulties in children with hearing loss or autism spectrum disorder. Together, the studies on children and adults with hearing loss suggest that clinical assessment and therapy services for people with hearing loss should be expanded to target prosodic difficulties.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".