We present a critical review of the literature on melodic intonation therapy (MIT), one of the most formalized treatments used by speech-language therapist in Broca’s aphasia. We suggest basic clarifications to enhance the scientific support of this promising treatment. First, therapeutic protocols using singing as a speech facilitation technique are not necessarily MIT. The goal of MIT is to restore propositional speech. The rationale is that patients can learn a new way to speak through singing by using language-capable regions of the right cerebral hemisphere. Eventually, patients are supposed to use this way of speaking permanently but not to sing overtly. We argue that many treatment programs covered in systematic reviews on MIT’s efficacy do not match MIT’s therapeutic goal and rationale. Critically, we identified two main variations of MIT: the French thérapie mélodique et rythmée (TMR) that trains patients to use singing overtly as a facilitation technique in case of speech struggle and palliative versions of MIT that help patients with the most severe expressive deficits produce a limited set of useful, readymade phrases. Second, we distinguish between the immediate effect of singing on speech production and the long-term effect of the entire program on language recovery. Many results in the MIT literature can be explained by this temporal perspective. Finally, we propose that MIT can be viewed as a treatment of apraxia of speech more than aphasia. This issue should be explored in future experimental studies.

Melodic intonation therapy (MIT) is a structured protocol for language rehabilitation in people with Broca’s aphasia. The main particularity of MIT is the use of intoned speech, a technique in which the clinician stylizes the prosody of short sentences using simple pitch and rhythm patterns. In the original MIT protocol, patients must repeat diverse sentences in order to espouse this way of speaking, with the goal of improving their natural, connected speech. MIT has long been regarded as a promising treatment but its mechanisms are still debated. Recent work showed that rhythm plays a key role in variations of MIT, leading to consider the use of pitch as relatively unnecessary in MIT. Our study primarily aimed to assess the relative contribution of rhythm and pitch in MIT’s generalization effect to non-trained stimuli and to connected speech. We compared a melodic therapy (with pitch and rhythm) to a rhythmic therapy (with rhythm only) and to a normally spoken therapy (without melodic elements). Three participants with chronic post-stroke Broca’s aphasia underwent the treatments in hourly sessions, 3 days per week for 6 weeks, in a cross-over design. The informativeness of connected speech, speech accuracy of trained and non-trained sentences, motor-speech agility, and mood was assessed before and after the treatments. The results show that the three treatments improved speech accuracy in trained sentences, but that the combination of rhythm and pitch elicited the strongest generalization effect both to non-trained stimuli and connected speech. No significant change was measured in motor-speech agility or mood measures with either treatment. The results emphasize the beneficial effect of both rhythm and pitch in the efficacy of original MIT on connected speech, an outcome of primary clinical importance in aphasia therapy.