Search

Introduction: Transcribing disordered speech can be useful when diagnosing motor speech disorders such as primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS), who have sound additions, deletions, and substitutions, or distortions and/or slow, segmented speech. Since transcribing speech can be a laborious process and requires an experienced listener, using automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems for diagnosis and treatment monitoring is appealing. This study evaluated the efficacy of a readily available ASR system (wav2vec 2.0) in transcribing speech of PPAOS patients to determine if the word error rate (WER) output by the ASR can differentiate between healthy speech and PPAOS and/or among its subtypes, whether WER correlates with AOS severity, and how the ASR's errors compare to those noted in manual transcriptions., Method: Forty-five patients with PPAOS and 22 healthy controls were recorded repeating 13 words, 3 times each, which were transcribed manually and using wav2vec 2.0. The WER and phonetic and prosodic speech errors were compared between groups, and ASR results were compared against manual transcriptions., Results: Mean overall WER was 0.88 for patients and 0.33 for controls. WER significantly correlated with AOS severity and accurately distinguished between patients and controls but not between AOS subtypes. The phonetic and prosodic errors from the ASR transcriptions were also unable to distinguish between subtypes, whereas errors calculated from human transcriptions were. There was poor agreement in the number of phonetic and prosodic errors between the ASR and human transcriptions., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that ASR can be useful in differentiating healthy from disordered speech and evaluating PPAOS severity but does not distinguish PPAOS subtypes. ASR transcriptions showed weak agreement with human transcriptions; thus, ASR may be a useful tool for the transcription of speech in PPAOS, but the research questions posed must be carefully considered within the context of its limitations., Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.26359417.

Purpose: We describe the communication challenges of four patients with a neurodegenerative disorder consistent with behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), characterized by early behavioral and personality changes. By describing their clinical profiles, we identify common barriers to functional communication in this population and provide recommendations for how speech-language pathologists (SLPs) might contribute to minimizing them., Method: Four patients with bvFTD were selected from a cohort of patients with progressive communication impairments. Three of them returned for at least one follow-up visit. Case histories are presented along with the results of comprehensive speech and language, neuropsychological, and neurological testing., Results: At the time of initial evaluation, patients were between the ages of 54 and 66 years and had been experiencing symptoms for 1.5-6 years. Consistent with their bvFTD diagnoses, all patients had prominent behavioral and personality changes that impacted communication. Patients 1 and 2 also had mild aphasia at enrollment, primarily characterized by anomia and loss of word meaning. Patients 3 and 4 both had apraxia of speech and moderate-to-severe aphasia at enrollment with prominent anomia and agrammatism. All four patients had impaired executive functioning and relative sparing of visuospatial skills; episodic memory was also impaired for Patients 2 and 4. Even though functional communication was progressively limited for all patients, none of them received regular support from an SLP., Conclusions: This case series adds to a scant, but growing, literature demonstrating that patients with bvFTD have communication impairments. SLPs are uniquely positioned to identify barriers to functional communication and to provide tailored strategy training to the patients and their care partners over the course of their disease. Systematic evaluation of the efficacy of treatment in this population would be valuable., Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25933762.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe, compare, and understand speech modulation capabilities of patients with varying motor speech disorders (MSDs) in a paradigm in which patients made highly cued attempts to speak faster or slower., Method: Twenty-nine patients, 12 with apraxia of speech (AOS; four phonetic and eight prosodic subtype), eight with dysarthria (six hypokinetic and two spastic subtype), and nine patients without any neurogenic MSD completed a standard motor speech evaluation where they were asked to repeat words and sentences, which served as their "natural" speaking rate. They were then asked to repeat lower complexity (counting 1-5; repeating "cat" and "catnip" 3 times each) and higher complexity stimuli (repeating "catastrophe" and "stethoscope" 3 times each and "My physician wrote out a prescription" once) as fast/slow as possible. Word durations and interword intervals were measured. Linear mixed-effects models were used to assess differences related to MSD subtype and stimuli complexity on bidirectional rate modulation capacity as indexed by word duration and interword interval. Articulatory accuracy was also judged and compared., Results: Patients with prosodic AOS demonstrated a reduced ability to go faster; while they performed similarly to patients with spastic dysarthria when counting, patients with spastic dysarthria were able to increase rate similar to controls during sentence repetition; patients with prosodic AOS could not and made increased articulatory errors attempting to increase rate. AOS patients made more articulatory errors relative to other groups, regardless of condition; however, their percentage of errors reduced with an intentionally slowed speaking rate., Conclusions: The findings suggest comparative rate modulation abilities in conjunction with their impact on articulatory accuracy may support differential diagnosis between healthy and abnormal speech and among subtypes of MSDs (i.e., type of dysarthria or AOS). Findings need to be validated in a larger, more representative cohort encompassing several types of MSDs., Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22044632.

Purpose: Prior studies have shown that communication-related participation restrictions in patients with degenerative disease do not always match clinician judgment or objective indices of symptom severity. Although there is a growing body of literature documenting that discrepancies between patients with dementia and their care partners' perception of participation restrictions exist, it is not known how care partner perceptions of communication participation restrictions specifically match or diverge from the patients' experiences, which may inform the use of care partner proxy in the context of degenerative diseases., Method: Thirty-eight patients with progressive neurologic conditions (progressive supranuclear palsy, corticobasal syndrome, and primary progressive aphasia or apraxia of speech) and, in most instances, focal cognitive-communication disorders were included. The patients and their accompanying care partners independently completed the Communicative Participation Item Bank, short form, a 10-question survey about communication participation restrictions in different contexts. Care partners were instructed to complete the form with their perception of the patient's experience. The difference between patient and care partner total scores were calculated and analyzed relative to clinical and demographic variables of interest., Results: Care partner ratings modestly tracked with patient experience and objective indices of symptom severity but did not exactly match patient ratings. The presence of aphasia increased, but did not fully account for, the likelihood of a discrepancy between care partner and patient ratings., Conclusion: Although careful consideration should be given prior to using care-partner report as a proxy for patient experience, it is worthwhile to include care partner ratings as a means of supporting conversations about differing perceptions, guiding joint intervention planning, and monitoring care-partner perceptions of change along with the implementation of supported conversation strategies.

Purpose Individuals with primary progressive apraxia of speech have apraxia of speech (AOS) as the initial and predominant symptom. Many develop aphasia and/or dysarthria later in the disease course. It was previously demonstrated that patients with neurodegenerative AOS experience reduced participation in communication that is further exacerbated by co-occurring language deficits (Utianski et al., 2020). Measures of disease severity did not necessarily correlate with measures of participation restrictions. The aim of this follow-up study was to describe changes in communication limitations in these patients, again measured by (a) the patient via the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) and (b) the speech-language pathologist via the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's (ASHA's) Functional Communication Measures (FCMs) and an adapted motor speech disorder (MSD) severity rating to determine if there are significant changes in these and other objective speech and language measures at follow-up after 1 year. Method Of the 24 patients reported in the study of Utianski et al. (2020), 17 (10 men, seven women) returned for a second visit approximately 1 year following the first visit. Identical procedures were utilized; the communication measures collected at each visit were statistically compared. Correlations were calculated between the participation ratings and other clinical assessment measures at the second visit and for the change in scores on those measures between the first and second visits. Results There were statistically significant differences in AOS and aphasia severity between visits. There were significant changes in clinical assessments, MSD severity rating, and all ASHA FCMs between visits, but not the CPIB. Correlation analyses suggest the relationships among clinical and participation measures are complex; overall, patients with more severe changes in AOS experienced greater changes in participation restrictions. Conclusions The findings of this study support the use of patient-reported outcome measures as they may better reflect the patient experience, including the influence of factors such as ongoing speech therapy and the emergence of neuropsychiatric features, and associated changes in day-to-day functioning, when other measures may simply index the progression of the disease. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16528512.

Purpose This study describes motor speech disorders and associated communication limitations in six variants of progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP). Method The presence, nature, and severity of dysarthria and apraxia of speech (AOS) were documented, along with scores on the Apraxia of Speech Rating Scale-Version 3 (ASRS-3) for 77 (40 male and 37 female) patients with PSP. Clinician-estimated and patient-estimated communication limitations were rated using the Motor Speech Disorders Severity Rating (MSDSR) Scale and the Communicative Effectiveness Survey (CES), respectively. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each of these dependent variables. One-tailed t tests were conducted to test mean differences in ASRS-3 and CES between participants with and without AOS and between participants with and without dysarthria. Spearman rank correlations were calculated between ASRS-3 scores and clinical judgments of AOS and dysarthria severity and between MSDSR and CES ratings. Results Nine participants (12%) had normal speech. Eighty-seven percent exhibited dysarthria; hypokinetic and mixed hypokinetic-spastic dysarthria were observed most frequently. AOS was observed in 19.5% of participants across all variants, but in only 10% exclusive of the PSP speech and language variant. Nearly half presented with AOS in which neither phonetic nor prosodic features clearly predominated. The mean ASRS-3 score for participants with AOS was significantly higher than for those without and correlated strongly with clinician judgment of AOS severity. Mean ASRS-3 was higher for participants with dysarthria than for those without but correlated weakly with dysarthria severity. Mean MSDSR and CES ratings were lower in participants with AOS compared to those without and moderately correlated with each other. Conclusions Motor speech disorders that negatively impact communicative effectiveness are common in PSP and occur in many variants. This is the first description of motor speech disorders across PSP variants, setting the stage for future research characterizing neuroanatomical correlates, progression of motor speech disorders, and benefits of targeted interventions. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14111837.

Purpose Individuals with primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS) have apraxia of speech (AOS) in which disruptions in articulation or prosody predominate the speech pattern, referred to, respectively, as phonetic or prosodic subtypes. Many develop aphasia and/or dysarthria. Past research has demonstrated that simple temporal acoustic measures are sensitive to the presence of AOS. The aim of this study was to describe the change in temporal acoustic measures over time and assess if specific patterns of AOS or co-occurring aphasia or dysarthria impact the rate of change over time. Method Durations for multiple productions of the words cat , catnip , catapult , and catastrophe , in an imitative speech task, were recorded for 73 patients, with two to six visits each. A linear mixed-effects model was used to assess the cross-sectional differences and longitudinal influence of AOS subtype and presence of aphasia/dysarthria on speech rate. Pearson correlations were calculated between rate measures and performance on other clinical measures. Results Cross-sectionally, patients with prosodic-predominant PPAOS produced words more slowly than those with phonetic-predominant PPAOS. Patients with either aphasia or dysarthria produced words more slowly than those without. Longitudinally, the speech rate of patients with phonetic-predominant PPAOS had a reduction of 0.5 syllables per second per year. Patients with prosodic-predominant AOS changed less quickly, as did those who developed aphasia. Dysarthria did not impact rate of change. There were strong associations between speech rate measures and other clinical indices of speech and language functioning. Conclusion Simple temporal acoustic measures may reflect the subtype of AOS (phonetic or prosodic predominant), serve as an index of progression of AOS, and inform prognostication relative to the presenting combination of speech and language features. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.13564724.

Purpose Individuals with primary progressive apraxia of speech (AOS) have AOS in which disruptions in articulation and prosody predominate the speech pattern. Many develop aphasia and/or dysarthria later in the disease course. The aim of this study was to describe the communication limitations in these patients, as measured by (a) the patient via the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) and (b) the speech-language pathologist via the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's (ASHA) Functional Communication Measures (FCMs) and an adapted motor speech disorder (MSD) severity rating. Method Speech and language evaluations were completed for 24 patients with progressive AOS ( n = 7 with isolated AOS; n = 17 with a combination of AOS and aphasia). Descriptive comparisons were utilized to evaluate differences in communication measures among patients with various combinations of MSDs and aphasia. Differences associated with phonetic predominant or prosodic predominant AOS were also examined. Across the entire cohort, correlations were calculated between the participation ratings and other clinical assessment measures. Results The CPIB reflected greater limitations for those with aphasia and AOS compared to isolated AOS, but was not notably different when dysarthria occurred with AOS ( n = 9/24). Across the cohort, there were statistically significant correlations between the CPIB and ASHA FCM-Motor Speech and Language Expression ratings and the MSD severity rating. The CPIB did not correlate with the ASHA FCM-Language Comprehension or other speech-language measures. Conclusions Patients with neurodegenerative AOS experience reduced participation in communication that is further exacerbated by co-occurring language deficits. The study suggests measures of severity cannot be assumed to correlate with measures of participation restrictions and offers a foundation for further research examining the day-to-day sequela of progressive speech and language disorders. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12743252.

Purpose The primary aim was to examine the utility of the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised (WAB-R; Kertesz, 2007) for classifying variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA). Traditional WAB-R metrics of Aphasia Quotient (AQ), subtest scores, WAB-R classification, and several novel metrics were examined. A secondary aim was to examine these same WAB-R metrics in individuals with primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS). Method A retrospective analysis of WAB-R records from 169 participants enrolled in a study of neurodegenerative speech and language disorders was conducted. PPA/PPAOS classification was determined by consensus review of speech, language, and cognitive profiles. Scores on each of the WAB-R subtests were obtained to derive AQ, WAB-R aphasia profile, and 3 ratios reflecting relative performance on subtests. Results Mean AQ was significantly higher in the PPAOS group compared to all PPA variants except primary fluent aphasia. AQ above the normal cutoff was observed for 20% of participants with PPA. Significant main effects of group were noted for each of the subtests. Follow-up comparisons most frequently discriminated PPAOS, primary agrammatic aphasia (PAA), and logopenic progressive aphasia. Primary fluent aphasia and semantic dementia (SD) subtest scores were less distinctive, with the exception of Naming for SD, which was significantly lower than for PAA and PPAOS. When the WAB-R AQ detected aphasia, a classification of anomic aphasia was most frequently observed; this pattern held true for each of the PPA variants. The mean Information Content:Naming ratio was highest for SD, and the mean Comprehension:Fluency ratio was highest for PAA. Conclusions In the current study, AQ underestimated the presence of PPA and WAB-R classification did not distinguish among PPA classification determined by consensus. Performance on individual subtests and relative performance across subtests demonstrated inconsistent alignment with PPA classification. We conclude the WAB-R in isolation is inadequate to detect or characterize PPA. We instead suggest utilizing the WAB-R as 1 component of a comprehensive language and motor speech assessment when PPA is suspected.