Prosody on the spectrum

This website was created to accompany our review article "Linguistic Prosody in Autism Spectrum Disorder—An Overview" (Grice, Wehrle, Krüger, Spaniol, Cangemi & Vogeley, 2023) published in Language and Linguistics Compass. We plan to update all figures and tables as and when new papers on this topic are published. We therefore encourage researchers to inform us of any work that they believe should feature in the online version of this overview, which is intended be updated continuously and indefinitely. Stay tuned!

Submitting a new paper

If you would like to submit a new paper, follow this link to the paper submission form.

First of all, this is how we analysed the different functions of prosody:

Figure 1: Functions of prosody ordered according to their degree of formality

Here is an overview of perception of prosody according to function:

Figure 2: Overview of studies on the perception of prosody according to function and to whether differences were found between ASD and control groups (yellow) or not (grey). Note the logarithmic scale for age on the x-axis.

Here is an overview of production of prosody according to function:

Figure 3: Overview of studies on production according to prosodic function and to whether differences were found between ASD and control groups (yellow) or not (grey).

Here is an overview of general characteristics of prosody:

Figure 4: Overview of studies on general prosodic characteristics according to prosodic parameter and to whether differences were found between ASD and control groups (yellow) or not (grey).

Here is more information on the papers we reviewed in tabular form:

Table 1 Perception of prosody according to function

Function	Details	Study	Differences found?	Participants	Age range	Language
lexical tone		Cheng et al. (2017)	no	40	17-34	Cantonese
lexical stress	for adults impaired only in association with speech production abnormalities	Chevallier et al. (2009)	no	34	11-17	English
		Gargan & Andrianopoulos (2021)	yes	22	12-20	English
		Grossman et al. (2010)	no	31	7-18	English
		Kargas et al. (2016)	yes	42	18-53	English
		Paul et al. (2005)	no	40	14-21	English
		Zhang et al. (2018)	yes	31	9-10	English
syntactic structure	implicit > explicit tasks	Chevallier et al. (2009)	no	34	11-17	English
		DePriest et al. (2017)	no	28	21-56	German
		Diehl et al. (2008)	yes	43	11-19	English
		Diehl and Paul (2013)	no	62	8-16	English
		Hesling et al. (2010)	yes	16	21-25	French
		Järvinen-Pasley, Peppé, et al. (2008)	yes	42	7-16	English
		Martzoukou et al. (2017)	yes	40	19-39	Greek
		Paul et al. (2005)	no	40	14-21	English
		Peppé et al. (2007)	no	103	4-13	English
speech acts	younger > older	Chevallier et al. (2009)	no	34	11-17	English
(questions vs. statements)	complex > one word	Diehl and Paul (2013)	yes	62	8-16	English
		Filipe et al. (2014)	no	29	8-9	Portuguese
		Hesling et al. (2010)	yes	16	21-25	French
		Järvinen-Pasley, Peppé, et al. (2008)	yes	42	7-16	English
		Paul et al. (2005)	no	40	14-21	English
		Peppé et al. (2007)	yes	103	4-13	English
		Wang et al. (2021)	no	84	7-11; 12-15; 18-55	English
turn-taking		Heeman et al. (2010)	yes	48	4-8	English
information structure	givenness	Diehl and Paul (2013)	yes	62	8-16	English
	contrast	Globerson et al. (2015)	no	55	20-40	Hebrew
		Grice et al. (2016)	yes	74	21-65	German
		Hesling et al. (2010)	yes	16	21-25	French
		Paul et al. (2005)	yes	40	14-21	English
		Peppé et al. (2007)	yes	103	4-13	English
		Segal et al. (2017)	yes	49	15-20	Hebrew
		Zhou et al. (2021)	no	27	6-10	Cantonese
intentions		Chevallier et al. (2011)	no	34	13-16	English
		Li et al. (2013)	yes	26	8-12	Cantonese
		Wang et al. (2006)	yes	38	7-16	English
emotional state	complex > basic	Diehl and Paul (2013)	yes	62	8-16	English
	higher > lower cue intensity younger > older	Globerson et al. (2015)	yes	55	20-40	Hebrew
		Hesling et al. (2010)	yes	16	21-25	French
		Järvinen-Pasley, Peppé, et al. (2008)	yes	42	7-16	English
		Paul et al. (2005)	yes	40	14-21	English
		Peppé et al. (2007)	yes	103	4-13	English

Table 2 General prosodic characteristics in production

Function	Details	Study	Differences found?	Participants	Age range	Language
general prosodic characteristics	pitch contours	Edelson et al. (2007)	yes	33	8-19	English
		Fosnot & Jun (1999)	yes	12	7-14	English
		Green and Tobin (2009)	yes	20	9-13	Hebrew
		Lau et al. (2022)	no	52	8-32	Cantonese
		Lau et al. (2022)	yes	66	6-35	English
	pitch range	Baltaxe (1984)	yes	21	2-12	English
		Bonneh et al. (2011)	yes	83	4-6	Hebrew
		Chan and To (2016)	yes	38	18-33	Cantonese
		DePape et al. (2012)	yes	18	17-34	English
		Diehl et al. (2009)	yes	42	10-18	English
		Green and Tobin (2009)	yes	20	9-13	Herbrew
		Hubbard and Trauner (2007)	yes	28	6-21	English
		Hubbard et al. (2017)	yes	30	18-42	English
		Kaland et al. (2013)	yes	40	18-51	Dutch
		Nadig and Shaw (2012)	yes	28	8-14	English
		Wehrle et al. (2022)	yes	28	31-55	German
	pitch dynamics	Wehrle et al. (2022)	yes	28	31-55	German
	rhythm	Lau et al. (2022)	yes	118	6-35	English/ Cantonese
	pauses	Sharda et al. (2010)	yes	25	4-10	English
	pauses	Thurber and Tager-Flusberg (1993)	yes	30	7-14	English

Table 3 Production of prosody according to function

Function	Details	Study	Differences found?	Participants	Age range	Language
lexical tone		Wang & Ding (2022)	no	17	4-8	Mandarin
		Chen et al. (2022)	yes	52	6-11	Mandarin/ Cantonese
lexical stress		Gargan & Andrianopoulos (2021)	yes	22	12-20	English
		Grossman et al. (2010)	yes	31	7-18	English
		Paul et al. (2005)	yes	40	14-21	English
		Paul et al. (2008)	yes	66	7-28	English
		Shriberg et al. (2001)	no	83	10-50	English
		van Santen et al. (2010)	no	26	4-8	English
syntactic structure		Diehl and Paul (2013)	no	62	8-16	English
		Fosnot and Jun (1999)	yes	12	7-14	English
		Hesling et al. (2010)	yes	16	21-25	French
		Paul et al. 2005	no	40	14-21	English
		Peppé et al. (2007)	yes	103	4-13	English
		Thurber and Tager-Flusberg (1993)	no	30	7-14	English
speech acts	younger > older	Diehl and Paul (2013)	no	62	8-16	English
		Filipe et al. (2014)	yes	29	8-9	Portuguese
		Fosnot and Jun (1999)	yes	12	7-14	English
		Hesling et al. (2010)	yes	16	21-25	French
		Paul et al. (2005)	no	40	14-21	English
		Peppé et al. (2007)	yes	103	4-13	English
		Wang et al. (2021)	no	84	7-11; 12-15; 18-55	English
turn-taking		Fine et al. (1991)	no	76	7-32	English
		Heeman et al. (2010)	yes	48	4-8	English
		Ochi et al. (2019)	yes	79	18-48	Japanese
information structure	focus	Baltaxe and Guthrie (1987)	yes	21	2-12	English
		DePape et al. (2012)	yes	18	17-34	English
		Fine et al. (1991)	no	76	7-32	English
		Shriberg et al. (2001)	yes	83	10-50	English
	contrast	Baltaxe (1984)	yes	21	2-12	English
		DePape et al. (2012)	yes	18	17-34	English
		Diehl and Paul (2013)	no	62	8-16	English
		Fine et al. (1991)	yes	76	7-32	English
		Hesling et al. (2010)	yes	16	21-25	French
		Kaland et al. (2013)	yes	40	18-51	Dutch
		Nadig and Shaw (2015)	no	26	8-14	English
		Paul et al. (2005)	yes	40	14-21	English
		Peppé et al. (2007)	yes	103	4-13	English
		Van Santen et al. (2010)	yes	26	4-8	English
	givenness	McCaleb and Prizant (1985)	yes	4	4-14	English
emotional states	original > mimicked	Hesling et al. (2010)	yes	16	21-25	French
		Hubbard and Trauner (2007)	yes	28	6-21	English
		Hubbard et al. (2017)	yes	30	18-42	English
		Paul et al. (2005)	no	40	14-21	English
		Peppé et al. (2007)	yes	103	4-13	English

Table 4 Overview of all studies

Study	Year	Perception	Production	General Characteristics	Participants	Age range	Language
Cheng et al. (2017)	2017	lexical tone			40	17-34	Cantonese
Chevallier et al. (2009)	2009	lexical stress, syntactic structure, speech acts			34	11-17	English
Gargan & Andrianopoulos (2021)	2021	lexical stress	lexical stress		22	12-20	English
Grossman et al. (2010)	2010	lexical stress	lexical stress		31	7-18	English
Kargas et al. (2016)	2016	lexical stress			42	18-53	English
Paul et al. (2005)	2005	lexical stress, syntactic structure, speech acts, information structure, emotional state	lexical stress, syntactic structure, speech acts, information structure, emotional states		40	14-21	English
Zhang et al. (2018)	2018	lexical stress			31	9-10	English
DePriest et al. (2017)	2017	syntactic structure			28	21-56	German
Diehl et al. (2008)	2008	syntactic structure			43	11-19	English
Diehl and Paul (2013)	2013	syntactic structure, speech acts, information structure, emotional state	syntactic structure, speech acts, information structure		62	8-16	English
Hesling et al. (2010)	2010	syntactic structure, speech acts, information structure, emotional state	syntactic structure, speech acts, information structure, emotional states		16	21-25	French
Järvinen-Pasley, Peppé, et al. (2008)	2008	syntactic structure, speech acts, emotional state			42	7-16	English
Martzoukou et al. (2017)	2017	syntactic structure			40	19-39	Greek
Peppé et al. (2007)	2007	syntactic structure, speech acts, information structure, emotional state	syntactic structure, speech acts, information structure, emotional states		103	4-13	English
Filipe et al. (2014)	2014	speech acts	speech acts		29	8-9	Portuguese
Wang et al. (2021)	2021	speech acts	speech acts		84	7-11; 12-15; 18-55	English
Heeman et al. (2010)	2010	turn-taking	turn-taking		48	4-8	English
Globerson et al. (2015)	2015	information structure			55	20-40	Hebrew
Grice et al. (2016)	2016	information structure			74	21-65	German
Segal et al. (2017)	2017	information structure			49	15-20	Hebrew
Zhou et al. (2021)	2021	information structure			27	6-10	Cantonese
Chevallier et al. (2011)	2011	intentions			34	13-16	English
Li et al. (2013)	2013	intentions			26	8-12	Cantonese
Wang et al. (2006)	2006	intentions			38	7-16	English
Globerson et al. (2015)	2015	emotional state			55	20-40	Hebrew
Wang & Ding (2022)	2022		lexical tone		17	4-8	Mandarin
Chen et al. (2022)	2021		lexical tone		52	6-11	Mandarin/ Cantonese
Paul et al. (2008)	2008		lexical stress		66	7-28	English
Shriberg et al. (2001)	2001		lexical stress, information structure		83	10-50	English
Van Santen et al. (2010)	2010		lexical stress, information structure		26	4-8	English
Fosnot and Jun (1999)	1999		syntactic structure, speech acts	pitch contours	12	7-14	English
Thurber and Tager-Flusberg (1993)	1993		syntactic structure	pauses	30	7-14	English
Fine et al. (1991)	1991		turn-taking, information structure		76	7-32	English
Ochi et al. (2019)	2019		turn-taking		79	18-48	Japanese
Baltaxe and Guthrie (1987)	1987		information structure		21	2-12	English
Baltaxe (1984)	1984		information structure	pitch range	21	2-12	English
DePape et al. (2012)	2012		information structure	pitch range	18	17-34	English
Kaland et al. (2013)	2013		information structure	pitch range	40	18-51	Dutch
Nadig and Shaw (2015)	2015		information structure		26	8-14	English
McCaleb and Prizant (1985)	1985		information structure		4	4-14	English
Hubbard and Trauner (2007)	2007		emotional states	pitch range	28	6-21	English
Hubbard et al. (2017)	2017		emotional states	pitch range	30	18-42	English
Edelson et al. (2007)	2007			pitch contours	33	8-19	English
Green and Tobin (2009)	2009			pitch contours, pitch range	20	9-13	Hebrew
Lau et al. (2022)	2022			pitch contours, rhythm	52	8-32	Cantonese
Lau et al. (2022)	2022			pitch contours, rythm	66	6-35	English
Bonneh et al. (2011)	2011			pitch range	83	4-6	Hebrew
Chan and To (2016)	2016			pitch range	38	18-33	Cantonese
Diehl et al. (2009)	2009			pitch range	42	10-18	English
Nadig and Shaw (2012)	2012			pitch range	28	8-14	English
Wehrle et al. (2022)	2022			pitch range, pitch dynamics	28	31-55	German
Sharda et al. (2010)	2010			pauses	25	4-10	English