Hypernasal Speech Is Perceived as More Monotonous than Typical Speech.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Anecdotal clinical reports have stated that hypernasal speech sounds monotonous. However, the relationship between the perception of intonation (i.e., the fundamental frequency variation across an utterance) and hypernasality (excessive nasal resonance during the production of non-nasal sounds) has not been investigated in research. We hypothesized that auditory-perceptual ratings of intonation would be significantly lower for more hypernasal stimuli. METHODS: One male and one female voice actor simulated 3 levels of intonation (monotone, normal, and exaggerated) at 4 different levels of hypernasality (normal, mild, moderate, and severe). Thirty participants listened to the simulations and rated the intonation on a visual analogue scale from 0 (monotone) to 100 (exaggerated). RESULTS: A mixed-effects ANOVA revealed main effects of intonation (F2 = 236.46, p < 0.001), and hypernasality (F3 = 159.89, p < 0.001), as well as an interaction between the two (F6 = 28.35, p < 0.001). Post hoc analyses found that speech was rated as more monotonous as hypernasality increased. Summary/Implications: The presence of hypernasality in speech can lead listeners to perceive speech as more monotonous. Instrumental measures should be used to corroborate auditory-perceptual evaluations of speech features like intonation.

The Behavioral Mapping of Psychomotor Slowing in Psychosis Demonstrates Heterogeneity Among Patients Suggesting Distinct Pathobiology.

OBJECTIVES: Psychomotor slowing (PS) occurs in up to half of schizophrenia patients and is linked to poorer outcomes. As standard treatment fails to improve PS, novel approaches are needed. Here, we applied the RDoC framework using 3 units of analysis, ie, behavior, self-report, and physiology to test, whether patients with PS are different from patients without PS and controls. METHODS: Motor behavior was compared between 71 schizophrenia patients with PS, 25 without PS, and 42 healthy controls (HC) using 5 different measures: (1) for behavior, an expert rating scale: Motor score of the Salpêtrière Retardation Rating Scale, (2) for self-report, the International Physical Activity Questionnaire; and for physiology, (3) Actigraphy, which accounts for gross motor behavior, (4) Gait velocity, and (5) coin rotation task to assess manual dexterity. RESULTS: The ANCOVAs comparing the 3 groups revealed differences between patients with PS and HC in expert ratings, self-report, and instrumental measures (all P ≤ .001). Patients with PS also scored higher in expert ratings and had lower instrumental activity levels compared to patients without PS (all P ≤ .045). Instrumental activity levels correlated with an expert rating of PS (rho = -0.51, P-fdr corrected <.001) and classified similarly at 72% accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: PS is characterized by slower gait, lower activity levels, and slower finger movements compared to HC. However, only actigraphy and observer ratings enable to clearly disentangle PS from non-PS patients. Actigraphy may become the standard assessment of PS in neuroimaging studies and clinical trials.