SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

A Comparative Study of Intonation and Emphatic Stress in Bengali-Speaking Individuals with Parkinson’s Disease

· 2026-08-31

DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-10845526/v1

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Abstract Background Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a progressive neurological disorder that affects motor and speech functions. Speech disturbances in PD commonly involve suprasegmental features such as intonation, stress, and rhythm. Objective acoustic assessment can provide quantitative information about these speech characteristics and may support clinical assessment and therapy planning. The present study focused on the acoustic evaluation of intonation and emphatic stress in Bengali-speaking individuals with PD. Method The study included 40 Bengali-speaking participants aged 50–80 years , comprising 10 individuals with PD and 30 healthy participants. Speech samples were recorded using a Sennheiser Electret condenser microphone and analyzed using Praat software version 5.2.01 at a sampling frequency of 44,100 Hz. Bengali sentences representing intonation and emphatic stress were used as stimuli. Acoustic parameters including fundamental frequency (F0), intensity, and duration were analyzed. Results The study examined differences in the acoustic characteristics of intonation and emphatic stress between individuals with PD and healthy participants. The analysis focused on variations in F0, intensity, and time duration across the two groups. The study was designed to identify objective acoustic differences associated with suprasegmental speech production in PD. Conclusion Objective acoustic assessment of intonation and emphatic stress provides useful information regarding suprasegmental speech characteristics in individuals with Parkinson’s disease. Such acoustic measures may contribute to

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.