Neurological Basis of Deficits in Affective Prosody Comprehension ...

Neurological Basis of Deficits in Affective Prosody Comprehension Among Alcoholics and Fetal Alcohol–Exposed Adults Marilee Monnot, Ph.D. William R. Lovallo, Ph.D. Sara Jo Nixon, Ph.D. Elliott Ross, M.D. Affective prosody is a nonlinguistic aspect of language that conveys emotions and attitudes during discourse. In this study the neurological basis of affective prosodic comprehension (APC) dysfunction in alcoholics (ALC) and fetal alcohol–exposed adults (FAexp) was explored. Subjects were previously tested for APC by use of the Aprosodia Battery, including 9 right-brain-damaged and 10 leftbrain- damaged subjects. ALC and FAexp subjects were significantly less accurate than control subjects in APC, and scored similarly to patients with focal brain lesions. The specific APC impairment found in ALC and FAexp may be a consequence of both callosal and right cortical dysfunction or damage. (The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 2002; 14:321–328)

P

oor performance on neuropsychological tests of problem-solving, memory, learning, perceptual abilities, and cognitive efficiency have been used to argue that chronic alcohol abuse results in brain dysfunction.1,2 Other data indicate neuroanatomical changes due to alcohol abuse. Brain shrinkage in prefrontal and frontal areas that include both white and gray matter has been documented through autopsy and neuroimaging.3–5 Significant callosal thinning has been noted in alcoholics ages 23 to 71 years, with and without nutritional deficient conditions, chronic liver disease, or dementia.6,7 The amount of callosal thinning has been correlated with cognitive impairment involving visual/ logical memory and frontal lobe tasks, and with lifetime ethanol dose.8,9 In addition, callosal agenesis has been noted in patients diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS).10 Hemispheric differences due to alcohol abuse have been difficult to document. Visual spatial processing, generally viewed as a right hemisphere skill, has been shown to be impaired in chronic alcoholics.11,12 However, more specific damage from alcohol abuse that reReceived October 19, 2000; revised January 25, 2001; accepted February 1, 2001. From the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center Departments of Neurology (M.M., E.R.) and Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences (W.R.L., S.J.N.); Veterans Affairs Medical Center Affective Communication Research Laboratory (M.M.) and Behavioral Sciences Laboratories (W.R.L.); and Center for Alcohol & Drug-Related Studies, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Address correspondence to Dr. Monnot, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Department of Neurology, 711 Stanton L. Young Blvd., Suite 215, Oklahoma City, OK 73104. E-mail: [email protected].

J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 14:3, Summer 2002

321

PROSODY DEFICITS AND ALCOHOL EXPOSURE sults in differences between hemispheres has been hard to assess, partly because conflicting results from studies of hemispheric functioning often stem from methodological differences.13–17 Also, right and left hemisphere functions are so different that comparison of tasks used for assessment is very difficult.18,19 However, emotional processing appears to be lateralized to the right hemisphere,20 and a prior report from the study described here found severe deficits in affective prosodic comprehension (APC).21 The present paper is focused on defining the neuroanatomical basis of the deficits found in APC among subjects with a history of alcohol abuse or fetal exposure. Prosody is a nonlinguistic feature of language that is embedded into the articulatory aspects of speech through acoustic features such as pitch, intonation patterns, stress, timing, rhythm, and differential pausing. It is a suprasegmental feature that imparts information beyond that transmitted by articulation, word choice, and grammar.22–25 Prosodic systems include affective prosody, which conveys emotions and attitudes; linguistic prosody, which connotes semantics and punctuation; dialectical prosody, which underlies regional variations; and idiosyncratic prosody, which reveals personal variations.26,27 Linguistic prosody shares some of the acoustic features of affective prosody but is used for semantic purposes and to clarify potentially ambiguous syntax.22 It appears to be incompletely lateralized to the left hemisphere.28–32 Affective prosody gives the listener information about the speaker’s emotional and attitudinal state, and allows the speaker to convey the same. Studies have shown that if the linguistic message is at odds with the affective prosodic content, the affective prosodic content usually takes precedence.33–35 For example, if the sentence “I’m not mad!” is spoken in an angry tone, most people would believe the prosodic and attitudinal content rather than the linguistic content. Thus, the ability to modulate affective prosody is an essential element of face-to-face communication. The focus of this paper is on affective prosodic comprehension in alcohol-exposed individuals and its relationship to the neurologic and behavioral manifestations of affective prosodic impairments in brain-damaged patients. Research suggests that modulation of affective prosody is a dominant function of the right hemisphere.36–41 Right hemisphere lesions, depending on location, produce various aprosodias, which are deficits in comprehension and/or production of affective prosody. The right hemisphere’s functional-anatomic correlates of affective prosodic comprehension (a posterior Sylvian function) and spontaneous production (an anterior superior Sylvian function) appear to mirror the left hemi-

322

sphere’s organization of propositional language.36,38,42–44 However, the degree of lateralization of affective prosody has been questioned in light of reports from a number of researchers that aphasic patients with left hemisphere lesions may also have affective prosodic deficits.32,45 Because the presence of aphasic deficits may confound cognitive testing, the Aprosodia Battery20 was developed to determine if affective prosodic deficits in patients with left brain damage (LBD) would improve under conditions of progressively reduced verbalarticulatory demands. This battery assesses both production and comprehension of affective prosody. In a study of patients with ischemic infarction, LBD patients showed a significant improvement in their ability to both comprehend and repeat affective prosody under reduced verbal-articulatory demands, whereas patients with right brain damage (RBD) showed no improvement in their performance.20 Unexpectedly, the affective prosodic deficits in LBD patients were not associated with the presence or severity of aphasic deficits and had no relationship to the cortical distribution of the lesions. However, lesions involving the deep white matter adjacent to the corpus callosum seemed to better predict affective prosodic disturbances following LBD. This finding suggests that the predominant mechanism underlying affective prosodic deficits following LBD20 is the loss of callosal integration of the dominantly lateralized language functions represented in each hemisphere (LBD/Callosal profile), whereas the predominant mechanism underlying affective prosodic deficits following RBD20 is the loss of affective communicative representations39,40,47 and the ability to dominantly modulate affective prosody (RBD/Aprosodic profile). Callosal integration is necessary to produce articulate speech with appropriate affective prosody that is temporally coherent.20,48,49 The left hemisphere must apprise the right hemisphere of what words will be articulated and their rate in order for the proper application of stress and intonation to be delivered, and the right hemisphere must inform the left hemisphere of certain affective requirements in order to introduce emotional meaning into the propositional string. Other pathological groups assessed with the Aprosodia Battery include schizophrenia patients, whose patterns of performance on the Aprosodia Battery were statistically indistinguishable from those of RBD patients.50 Other findings for schizophrenia patients have shown that their reduced ability to process affect in face and voice is correlated with lower quality of life.51 Apparently deficits in APC are related to poor psychosocial adjustment. Additionally, data from the normal elderly population show APC deficits related to age over 65 years, and their profile is unique when com-


MONNOT et al. pared with LBD, RBD, schizophrenic, and younger control subjects. Preliminary data suggest that a defect exists in affective prosodic comprehension among those exposed to high levels of alcohol.21 Therefore, the goal of this study was to determine whether the alcohol-exposed pattern of performance on the affective prosodic comprehension portion of the Aprosodia Battery is similar to the RBD/ Aprosodia profile, the LBD/Callosal profile, a combination of the two, or an entirely unique profile. In order to answer these questions, we compared the pattern of deficits seen in detoxified alcoholics without prenatal alcohol exposure and in subjects with putative fetal alcohol exposure data collected on age-matched brainlesioned patients who were tested previously on the Aprosodia Battery.

METHODS Subjects Subjects were recruited from two Veterans Affairs Medical Center facilities and were either patients or employees. Subjects agreed to participate in an approved study of emotional expression in speech and signed an informed consent form that was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center and the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Oklahoma City. After screening for neurological injury or illness, subjects were scheduled for the 1.5hour testing session. Participation was limited to individuals under age 65 years because deficits in APC have been discovered in the normal elderly population.52 Subjects were 25 to 63 years old, were either African American or Caucasian, and were all right-handed. Detoxified alcoholics (ALC) with 21 days or more of sobriety who met criteria for a DSM-IV alcohol abuse diagnosis53 were scheduled for testing. Subjects who reported information indicating their mothers had abused alcohol during pregnancy were placed in a group of fetal alcohol exposure subjects (FAexp), whether or not they themselves had a history of alcohol abuse. The criteria for FAexp group placement included family history information such as mother’s incarceration for public drunkenness and loss of custody of minor children due to alcohol abuse. Subjects with a Quantity Frequency Index of less than 5 ounces of absolute ethanol per drinking day were placed in the control group (CON) if they reported no history of alcoholism treatment or fetal alcohol exposure. Characteristics of control and alcohol-exposed subjects are shown in Table 1. In order to provide comparisons with other populations, 10 left hemisphere brain-damaged patients (LBD) and 9


right hemisphere brain-damaged patients (RBD), agematched to the ALC and FAexp groups, were included in statistical analyses of subtest performance patterns. These patients were selected from previously documented studies.20,54 Exclusion criteria for ALC and FAexp groups included serious neurological injury. In addition, all five subject groups were screened for neurological illness, chronic illnesses that result in significant restriction of oxygen to the brain, and DSM-IV psychiatric disorders other than substance abuse, and subjects were excluded if any of these were present. Medical records were examined for evidence of neurological injuries or serious illnesses; one alcoholic was removed from the final study group because of a closed head injury. Test Materials A health questionnaire was used during telephone screening for inclusion/exclusion criteria. The Shipley Institute of Living Scale55 was used to screen subjects for cognitive impairment. The Alcohol and Substance Use TABLE 1.

Characteristics of control and alcohol-exposed subjects

Characteristic Demographics Gender Male Female Ethnicity African American Caucasian Age, years MeanⳲSD (range) Education, years MeanⳲSD (range) Shipley Institute of Living Scales, meanⳲSD Vocabulary Abstraction Conceptual Quotient Aprosodia Battery Comprehension subtest, Z-scores Word MeanⳲSD ( range) Monosyllabic MeanⳲSD (range) Asyllabic MeanⳲSD (range) Discrimination MeanⳲSD (range)

Control (nⴔ41)

Alcoholic (nⴔ32)

FAexp (nⴔ11)

19 22

29 3

11 0

6 35

17 15

11 2

43.5Ⳳ9.5 (25–63)

47.3Ⳳ7.2 (29–58)

46.9Ⳳ6.7 (34–56)

14.1Ⳳ1.8 (12–18)

13.0Ⳳ1.3 (11–16)

12.7Ⳳ1.9 (10–16)

17.3Ⳳ2.9 14.1Ⳳ2.1 85.7Ⳳ11.2

16.1Ⳳ2.4 13.7Ⳳ2.9 85.9Ⳳ15.7

15.9Ⳳ2.1 13.2Ⳳ2.6 83.4Ⳳ12.1

0.0Ⳳ1.0 –1.5Ⳳ1.6 –3.8Ⳳ1.6 (–2.3 to 1.1) (–4.9 to 1.1) (–6.3 to –1.0) 0.0Ⳳ1.0 –1.8Ⳳ1.7 –3.8Ⳳ1.2 (–2.9 to 1.6) (–5.5 to 1.5) (–5.5 to –1.6) 0.0Ⳳ1.0 –1.03Ⳳ1.03 –3.5Ⳳ1.2 (–2.3 to 1.3) (–3.1 to 0.5) (–6.2 to –1.9) 0.0Ⳳ1.0 –0.4Ⳳ1.1 –1.4Ⳳ0.9 (–2.7 to 1.4) (–2.7 to 1.4) (–2.7 to 0.9)

Note: FAexp⳱subjects with fetal alcohol exposure.

323

PROSODY DEFICITS AND ALCOHOL EXPOSURE

324

Statistical Analyses The number of correct responses on each of the four Affective Comprehension subtests of the Aprosodia Battery (Word, Monosyllabic, Asyllabic, and Discrimination) were the primary dependent variables used in this study. Z-scores were computed based on the CON group mean and standard deviation. Both SAS56 and SPSS 8.0 for Windows (SPSS, Inc.) statistical programs were used to analyze data. For the variables reported in Table 1, a mean was calculated for normal distributions, and a median to more accurately describe sample characteristics when outliers distorted the distribution. Variables were assessed by skewness figures57 and the ShaFIGURE 1.

Comparison of means and profiles for scores on the Affective Comprehension subtests of the Aprosodia Battery of five groups: control subjects (CON); detoxified alcoholics (ALC); left brain-damaged patients (LBD); subjects with fetal alcohol exposure (FAexp); and right brain-damaged patients (RBD). Subjects in these groups were classified as impaired if they had scores ⬍–1.64 SD on at least one Affective Comprehension subtest. The subtests are described under Methods in the text.

1.0 0.0 –1.0

z Score

Questionnaire, a structured interview instrument (copyrighted by the Oklahoma Center for Alcohol and DrugRelated Studies at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center), determined extent of substance abuse in volunteers and their extended families. Thirty-two alcoholics (ALC) reported data indicating that their mothers did not abuse alcohol at any time during early childbearing years. However, 11 subjects reported concrete behavioral data indicating that they were fetally exposed to alcohol (FAexp). Of these subjects, 9 were recovering alcoholics and the other 2 reported no lifetime alcohol use disorder. Forty-one control subjects (CON) were included in the final project group. The Aprosodia Battery20 assesses production, comprehension, and discrimination of affective prosody. The two major sections of the Aprosodia Battery are Production (spontaneous production and repetition of affective prosody) and Comprehension (identification and discrimination of conveyed emotion in speech). Subjects listen to compact disk recordings of three sets of utterances. The first Comprehension subtest, Word, uses a completely articulated sentence, “I am going to the other movies,” that is repeated using random variations of six emotions. The six emotions are Happy, Sad, Angry, Surprised, Disinterested or Bored, and Neutral. In addition, two stress patterns, with emphasis on “am” and with emphasis on “other,” test the subject’s ability to suppress attention to linguistic prosody cues. Each exemplar is presented twice, resulting in 24 sentences in each subtest. Subjects indicate which one of six emotions they hear; exemplars can be repeated so that attentional variables are reduced. Twenty-four monosyllabic (“ba ba ba ba ba“) and 24 asyllabic (“aaaaahhhhh”) utterances with the same emotional and stress patterns are also presented to the subject. The fourth subtest, Discrimination, presents 24 pairs of low-pass filtered exemplars from the Word subtest. The 12 affective-stress sentence combinations comprising the Word Comprehension stimulus set were played through a 70–300 Hz bandpass-filter and recorded. This procedure preserves prosodic-acoustic information involving intonation and intensity at both global (affective) and local (stress) levels while markedly reducing phonetic information. A stimulus compact disk was then made comprising 24 randomized sentences: 12 with the same affective intonation but different stress patterns and 12 with different intonations but the same stress pattern. For each of the 24 pairs, subjects must tell if the two sentences use the same or different emotional categories. Because these sentences employ different stress patterns, the task also tests the ability to discriminate between affective and linguistic prosody.

–2.0 CON (n=41) ALC (n=25) LBD (n=7) FAexp (n=11) RBD (n=9)

–3.0 –4.0 –5.0 Word

Mono.

Asyl.

Disc.

Comprehension Subtest


Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc results for patient groups (groups in parentheses are not significantly different)

Word

ALC > LBD ALC = (RBD, FAexp) = LBD (RBD, FAexp) = LBD

Monosyllabic

(ALC, LBD, RBD, FAexp)

Asyllabic

(ALC, LBD) > (RBD, FAexp)

Discrimination

(ALC, LBD, FAexp) > RBD


MONNOT et al. piro-Wilk W Normality Test56 for their appropriateness in parametric analyses. Nonparametric tests used when variables did not show normal distribution were the Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis tests (rank sums), median test (number of points above median), and Van der Waerden test (normal quantiles). Variance equality was assessed via the Bartlett; the conservative Welch analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test means when the variances were unequal. Post hoc analyses of estimated marginal means using Student-Newman-Keuls (homogeneous subsets and harmonic mean sample size with alpha⳱0.05) were used to ascertain significant differences on subtest scores for each group. Means comparisons were also assessed by using the TukeyKramer honestly significant difference test (significance level at ⬍0.05) and the Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc analysis.

RESULTS Group Demographics Group characteristics are shown in Table 1. Gender, ethnicity, and years of education were not associated with Aprosodia Battery scores among control subjects; oneway ANOVA and regression analyses performed on each of these variables with the four Comprehension subtests resulted in P⬎0.10 on all tasks. The scores earned by the three groups (CON, ALC, and FAexp) on the Shipley Institute of Living Scales (Table 1) were analyzed by use of one-way ANOVAs. No significant differences were found between the groups on vocabulary, abstract reasoning, and a measure of cognitive impairment. Aprosodia Battery Scores The research goal was to determine if the profiles of scores from the four Aprosodia Battery Comprehension subtests for ALC and FAexp groups were similar to an LBD/Callosal profile, an RBD/Aprosodia profile, a combination of the two, or a unique profile. To explore this question, the patterns of deficits of ALC and FAexp subjects were compared with data previously collected on patients with unilateral ischemic strokes who were tested on the Aprosodia Battery at 4 to 6 weeks post infarction.20,54 Because the research interest was on subjects with abnormal performance, the experimental groups were limited to individuals who scored ⬍–1.64 SD (normal curve proportion ⬍0.05) on at least one of the four Comprehension subtests. Group sizes, subtest means, and profiles are displayed in Figure 1. The data were subjected to a 5⳯4 repeated-measures ANOVA to compare means. A significant task by group interaction


was observed (F⳱5.60, df⳱12,264, P⳱0.000), in addition to significant main effects for group (F⳱53.98, df⳱4,88, P⳱0.000) and task (F⳱32.03, df⳱3,264, P⬍0.000). Post hoc analyses using multiple 2⳯4 repeated-measures ANOVAs assessed how each patient group performed compared with CON. These tests showed highly significant task by group interaction (all F⬎8.45, all P⬍0.001), and main effects for group (all F⬎61.62, all P⬍0.001) and task (all F⬎8.49, all P⬍0.001) for the ALC, FAexp, and LBD groups. For RBD, however, no significant task by group interaction (F⳱0.45, df⳱3,144, P⳱0.71) or main effect for task (F⳱0.46, df⳱3,144, P⳱0.71) was observed, but a highly significant main effect for group was found (F⳱99.89, df⳱1,48, P⳱0.000). To assess how the four patient groups performed against each other, a 4⳯4 repeatedmeasures ANOVA was performed to compare means. It showed a significant task by group interaction (F⳱2.54, df⳱9,144, P⬍0.01) and highly significant main effects for both group (F⳱10.58, df⳱3,48, P⳱0.000) and task (F⳱19.03, df⳱3,144, P⳱0.000). A Student-NewmanKeuls post hoc analysis (alpha⳱0.05) was performed, with results shown at the bottom of Figure 1. Although the post hoc findings are somewhat complex, the following is evident by examining Figure 1. The ALC profile (open squares) is not significantly different from the LBD profile (closed squares) for the Monosyllabic, Asyllabic, and Discrimination subtests, but shows a significant divergence on the Word subtest that suggests a partial RBD component. The FAexp profile (open triangles) is not significantly different from the RBD profile (closed triangles) for the Word, Monosyllabic, and Asyllabic subtests, but shows divergence on the Discrimination subtest that suggests a partial LBD component. Therefore, subtest performance on the Aprosodia Battery by ALC and FAexp could represent a combination of right and left brain-damaged profiles. To determine if this supposition was correct, the LBD and RBD data were collapsed into a single brain-damaged group (BD). The subtest means and profiles are displayed in Figure 2. A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed comparing BD, ALC, and FAexp group means. This time, the results showed no significant task by group interaction (F⳱0.41, df⳱2,49, P⬍0.67). However, significant main effects for group (F⳱15.07, df⳱2,49, P⬍0.000) and task (F⳱42.61, df⳱2,49, P⬍0.000) were still present. Since no interaction was observed, the Comprehension profile patterns of BD, ALC, and FAexp were statistically identical, supporting the supposition that alcohol-exposed subjects have a combination of LBD/Callosal and RBD/Aprosodic deficits. The causes for the significant main effects were assessed by collapsing the data two ways—across groups

325

PROSODY DEFICITS AND ALCOHOL EXPOSURE preserving tasks and across tasks preserving groups— followed by separate one-way ANOVAs and StudentNewman-Keuls post hoc analyses (alpha⳱0.05) because no task by group interaction was present. The main effect for group was due to less severe overall deficits in ALC (mean Z-score⳱–1.52) compared with FAexp (mean Z-score⳱–3.12) and BD (mean Z-score⳱–2.82), which did not differ from each other. The main effect for task was due to the similar performance on the first two subtests, Word (mean Z-score⳱–2.94) and Monosyllabic (mean Z-score⳱–2.83), both significantly impaired compared with Asyllabic (mean Z-score⳱–2.15), which in turn was statistically worse than Discrimination (mean Z-score⳱–1.11).

DISCUSSION A weakness of this study was the inability of the research team to confirm FAexp subjects’ reports of mother’s ingestion of alcohol during pregnancy; the mothers of all 11 FAexp subjects either had died, were suffering from dementia, or were unavailable to the subject at the time of the study. However, the criteria for inclusion were very conservative and have been discussed elswhere.21 The small sample size for this group means that generalizations must be made guardedly until further studies have been completed, but because of the risk of missing important neurological impairments, FIGURE 2.

Comparison of means and profiles for scores on the Affective Comprehension subtests of the Aprosodia Battery of detoxified alcoholics (ALC), fetal alcohol– exposed subjects (FAexp), and brain-damaged patients (BD). Subjects in these groups were classified as impaired if they had scores ⬍–1.64 SD on at least one Affective Comprehension subtest. The subtests (Word, Monosyllabic, Asyllabic, Discrimination), are described under Methods in the text.

0.0

ALC (n=25) FAexp (n=11) BD (n=16)

z Score

–1.0 –2.0 –3.0 –4.0 –5.0 Word

Mono.

Asyl.


326

Disc.

this population should not be ignored in other research efforts. Another weakness of this study was that subjects were not tested for spatial-visual capabilities. Spatialvisual processing appears to be a dominant function involving the right posterior parietal cortex in strongly right-handed people and is usually found to be impaired in alcoholics. Another dominant right posterior cortical skill, however, was tested, namely affective prosodic comprehension. Despite these weaknesses, the results are robust and the APC deficits are clinically significant. The results of the statistical analyses from this study of affective prosodic comprehension in alcohol-exposed subjects may be summarized in two major points. First, the severity levels of APC deficits are quite different for the ALC group than for the FAexp group. This may indicate that ethanol exposure at different periods of human neural development produces different intensities of damage. Second, comparisons with scores achieved by patients with focal brain damage (BD) suggest that the patterns of deficits demonstrated by ALC and FAexp on the Aprosodia Battery are a combination of the RBD and LBD profiles: namely, dysfunction or damage involving the right cortex and the corpus callosum. The LBD profile has been shown to be associated with deep white matter lesions adjacent to the callosum rather than to the distribution of left cortical lesions. The RBD profile is accounted for by right cortical lesion distribution.46 Both the corpus callosum and the right cortex have been shown by imaging and neuropsychological testing to be atrophied and/or dysfunctional in chronic alcoholics and also in patients with FAS or FAE (fetal alcohol exposure). All patient groups showed impaired comprehension compared with CON, but the overall severity of affective prosodic comprehension dysfunction varied (Figure 1). Both FAexp and BD groups showed more severe deficits than ALC (Figure 2). Although none of the alcoholexposed subjects in this study had been diagnosed with FAS or FAE because they were born before 1973 when data were first published about the dangers of fetal exposure, the FAexp group was quite impaired on APC (Table 1). Ordinarily, facial abnormalities, growth disorders, and pervasive cognitive dysfunction are typical criteria for FAS/FAE diagnoses. Apparently, some prenatal exposure to alcohol may be associated with the loss of specific cognitive abilities, even in the absence of symptoms meeting established FAS/FAE diagnostic criteria.58,59 If the criteria for placement of subjects in the ALC and FAexp groups was an accurate reflection of when ethanol exposure occurred, the prenatal exposure resulted in the most damage to areas of the brain associated with APC.


MONNOT et al. A specific cognitive dysfunction due to ethanol exposure is suggested by these data. Exposure to alcohol had a deleterious effect on the affective-prosodic but not the verbal-linguistic aspects of communication. ALC and FAexp subjects were not different from CON subjects in the left hemisphere verbal skills subserving vocabulary and the frontal areas subserving abstract reasoning, based on screening with the Shipley Institute of Living Scales. In addition, none of the subjects had overt aphasic deficits. Each subject underwent an extensive clinical interview about substance use and family history by the first author, and no subject displayed speech or language difficulties requiring further formalized testing for aphasia or anomia. Many clinicians and researchers assume that lexicon, grammar, and syntax are the most important factors underlying language competency, but emotional and attitudinal aspects are also essential. The detoxified alcoholics and the fetal alcohol–exposed subjects in this study performed similarly to focal brain-damaged patients with clearly established deficits in affective pro-

sodic comprehension. Thus, one can assume communication competency was compromised. If this is so, it may help explain some of the social and employment problems experienced by alcohol-exposed individuals. Similar findings for schizophrenics have shown that their reduced ability to process affect in face and voice is correlated to severe psychotic symptoms and lower quality of life.51 Social relationships, employment interviews, telephone conversations, and supervision sessions are some of the interpersonal situations that may be impaired if APC accuracy is significantly limited. These preliminary results indicate that early exposure to ethanol and/or excessive alcohol ingestion may have a deleterious effect on an important skill related to social interaction and communication, namely affective prosodic comprehension. This work was supported in part by a Merit Review Grant from the Medical Research Service of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Dr. Ross and a grant from the Tharp Foundation, Nashville, TN, to Dr. Monnot.

References

1. Nixon SJ, Phillips JA: Neurocognitive deficits and recovery in chronic alcohol abuse. CNS Spectrums 1999; 4:95–108 2. Parsons OA: Intellectual impairment in alcoholics: persistent issues. Acta Med Scand 1987; 717(suppl):33–46 3. Kril JJ, Halliday GM: Brain shrinkage in alcoholics: a decade on and what have we learned? Prog Neurobiol 1999; 58:381–387 4. Pfefferbaum A, Sullivan EV, Mathalon DH, et al: Frontal lobe volume loss observed with magnetic resonance imaging in older chronic alcoholics. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1997; 21:521–529 5. Nicolas JM, Estruch R, Salamero M, et al: Brain impairment in well-nourished chronic alcoholics is related to ethanol intake. Ann Neurol 1997; 41:590–598 6. Pfefferbaum A, Lim KO, Desmond JE, et al: Thinning of the corpus callosum in older alcoholic men: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1996; 20:752–757 7. Oishi MY, Mochizuki Y, Shikata E: Corpus callosum atrophy and cerebral blood flow in chronic alcoholics. J Neurol Sci 1999; 162:51–55 8. Estruch R, Nicolas JM, Salamero M, et al: Atrophy of the corpus callosum in chronic alcoholism. J Neurol Sci 1997; 146:145–151 9. Hopper KD, Patel S, Cann TS, et al: The relationship of age, gender, handedness, and sidedness to the size of the corpus callosum. Acad Radiol 1994; 1:243–248 10. Riley EP, Mattson SN, Sowell ER, et al: Abnormalities of the corpus callosum in children prenatally exposed to alcohol. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1995; 19:1198–1202 11. Parsons OA: Neurocognitive deficits in alcoholics and social drinkers: a continuum? Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1998; 22:954–961 12. Oscar-Berman M, Shagrin B, Evert D, et al: Impairments of brain and behavior: the neurological effects of alcohol. Alcohol Health Res World 1997; 21:65–75 13. Jenkins RL, Parsons OA: Neuropsychological effect of chronic alcoholism on tactual-spatial performance and memory in males. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1981; 5:26–33 14. Miglioti M, Buchtel HA, Campanini T, et al: Cerebral hemi-


spheric lateralization of cognitive deficits due to alcoholism. J Nerv Ment Dis 1979; 167:212–217 15. Parsons O, Leber W: Alcohol, cognitive dysfunction and brain damage, in Biomedical Processes and Consequences of Alcohol Use. Rockville, MD, NIAAA, 1982, pp 1182–1191 16. Oscar-Berman M: Neuropsychological consequences of alcohol abuse: questions, hypotheses and models, in Neuropsychology of Alcoholism: Implications for Diagnosis and Treatment, edited by Parsons O, Butters N, Nathan P. New York, Guilford, 1985, pp 256–269 17. Fox AM, Coltheart M, Solowij N, et al: Dissociable cognitive impairments in problem drinkers. Alcohol Alcohol 2000; 35:52–54 18. Goldstein G, Shelley C: Does the right hemisphere age more rapidly than the left? Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology 1981; 3:67–78 19. Hochnadel G, Kaplan E: Neuropsychology of normal aging, in Clinical Neurology of Aging, edited by Albert ML. New York, Oxford University Press, 1984, pp 231–244 20. Ross ED, Thompson RD, Yenkosky J: Lateralization of affective prosody in brain and the callosal integration of hemispheric language functions. Brain Lang 1997; 56:27–54 21. Monnot M, Nixon S, Lovallo W, et al: Altered emotional perception in alcoholics: deficits in comprehension of affective prosody. Alcohol Clin Exp Res (in press) 22. Monrad-Krohn GH: The third element of speech: prosody and its disorders, in Problems in Dynamic Neurology, edited by Halpern L. Jerusalem, Hebrew University Press, 1963, pp 101–118 23. Crystal D: The English Tone of Voice. New York, St. Martin’s, 1975 24. Bolinger D: Language: The Loaded Weapon. London, Longman, 1980 25. Kent RD, Read C: The Acoustic Analysis of Speech. San Diego, CA, Singular Publishing Group, 1992 26. Monrad-Krohn GH: Dysprosody or altered “melody of language.” Brain 1948; 70:405–415

327

PROSODY DEFICITS AND ALCOHOL EXPOSURE 27. Ross ED: Affective prosody and the aprosodias, in Principles of Behavioral and Cognitive Neurology, edited by Mesulam MM. New York, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp 316–331 28. Behrens SJ: The perception of stress and lateralization of prosody. Brain Lang 1985; 26:332–348 29. Ross ED: Prosody and brain lateralization: fact vs fancy, or is it all just semantics? Arch Neurol 1988; 45:338–339 30. Ryalls J: Concerning right-hemisphere dominance for affective language. Arch Neurol 1988; 45:337–338 31. Trauner DA, Ballantyne A, Friedland S, et al: Disorders of affective and linguistic prosody in children after early unilateral brain damage. Ann Neurol 1996; 39:361–367 32. Pell MD: Recognition of prosody following unilateral brain lesion: influence of functional and structural attributes of prosodic contours. Neuropsychologia 1998; 36:701–715 33. Bolinger D: Intonation. Harmondsworth, UK, Penguin, 1972 34. Ackerman B: Form and function in children’s understanding of ironic utterances. J Exp Child Psychol 1983; 35:487–508 35. Ross ED: Cortical representation of the emotions, in Contemporary Behavioral Neurology, edited by Trimble MR, Cummings JL. Boston, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997, pp 107–126 36. Heilman KM, Scholes R, Watson RT: Auditory affective agnosia: disturbed comprehension of affective speech. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1975; 38:69–72 37. Heilman K: Comprehension of affective and nonaffective prosody. Neurology 1984; 34:917–921 38. Gorelick PB, Ross ED: The aprosodias: further functional-anatomic evidence for the organization of affective language in the right hemisphere. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1987; 50:553– 560 39. Bowers D, Coslett HB, Bauer RM, et al: Comprehension of emotional prosody following unilateral hemispheric lesions: processing defect versus distraction defect. Neuropsychologia 1987; 25:317–328 40. Bowers D, Bauer RM, Heilman KM: The nonverbal affect lexicon: theoretical perspectives from neuropsychological studies of affect perception. Neuropsychology 1993; 7:433–444 41. Buchanan TW, Lutz K, Mirzazade S, et al: Recognition of emotional prosody and verbal components of spoken language: an fMRI study. Cogn Brain Res 2000; 9:227–238 42. Tucker DM, Watson RT, Heilman KM, Discrimination and evocation of affectively intoned speech in patients with right parietal disease. Neurology 1977; 27:947–950 43. Ross ED, Mesulam MM: Dominant language functions of the

328

right hemisphere? Prosody and emotional gesturing. Arch Neurol 1979; 36:144–148 44. Heilman KM, Gilmore RL: Cortical influences in emotion. J Clin Neurophysiol 1998; 15:409–423 45. De Bleser R, Poeck K: Analysis of prosody in the spontaneous speech of patients with CV-recurring utterances. Cortex 1985; 21:405–416 46. Ross ED: Right hemisphere syndromes and the neurology of emotions, in Behavioral Neurology and the Legacy of Norman Geschwind, edited by Schacter SC, Devinsky O. New York, Raven, 1997, pp 183–194 47. Blonder LX, Bowers D, Heilman KM: The role of the right hemisphere in emotional communication. Brain 1991; 114:1115–1127 48. Speedie LJ, Coslett B, Heilman KM: Repetition of affective prosody in mixed transcortical aphasia. Arch Neurol 1984; 41:268– 270 49. Ross ED: How the brain integrates affective and propositional language into a unified brain function: hypotheses based on clinicopathological correlations. Arch Neurol 1981; 38:745–748 50. Ross ED: Affective prosodic deficits in schizophrenia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry (in press) 51. Poole JH, Tobias FC, Vinogradov S: The functional relevance of affect recognition errors in schizophrenia. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2000; 6:649–658 52. Ross ED, Orbelo D, Testa J, et al: Age-related changes in processing affective prosody. Neurology 2000; 54(7, suppl 3):A418– A419 53. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 1994 54. Ross ED, Orbelo D, Burgard M, et al: Functional-anatomic correlates of aprosodic deficits in patients with right brain damage (abstract). Neurology 1998; 50(suppl 4):A363 55. Shipley Institute of Living Scale. Los Angeles, Western Psychological Services, 1991 56. Sall J, Lehman A: JMP Start Statistics, 1st edition. SAS Institute. Belmont, CA, Duxbury Press, 1996 57. Zar JH: Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd edition. London, PrenticeHall, 1984 58. Mattson SN, Riley EP: A review of the neurobehavioral deficits in children with fetal alcohol syndrome or prenatal exposure to alcohol. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1998; 22:270–294 59. Mattson SN, Riley EP: Implicit and explicit memory functioning in children with heavy prenatal alcohol exposure. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 1999; 5:462–471
