Utianski, Rene L

Purpose: This viewpoint addresses the complexity of the nomenclature of progressive speech-language disorders, which often exists at the intersection of descriptive symptoms, clinical syndromes, and underlying neuropathology. Using primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS) as an example, we explore how overlapping diagnostic frameworks employed by speech-language pathologists, neurologists, and other clinicians and researchers can lead to different diagnostic labels that may evolve throughout disease progression. These discrepancies and changes can complicate patient understanding, clinical care, and affect eligibility for clinical trials. We highlight the importance of diagnostic specificity, flexibility, and multidisciplinary collaboration in improving patient counseling, prognostication, treatment planning, and clinical research alignment, particularly in the context of the growing number of clinical trials and specialized, multidisciplinary clinics. Conclusions: This viewpoint explores how symptom-based, syndrome-based, and pathology-based diagnoses can work together to support patient care and research. Accurate and specific diagnosis of speech-language disorders has important implications for patient understanding of their condition, identity, prognostic accuracy, access to care, clinical trial enrollment, and treatment planning and efficacy. Misdiagnosis or vague labeling can result in inappropriate interventions, delayed support, and skewed research findings. We argue that multidisciplinary collaboration and flexibility in recognizing evolving symptom-based and syndrome-based labels over the disease course—and as the fields learn more—is essential to empower patients with accurate, actionable information. Embracing both the specificity and the complexity of progressive speech-language disorders can both enhance communication and facilitate research.

Purpose: Model interpretability is a critical requirement for deploying artificial intelligence (AI) applications in clinical speech settings, yet existing evaluation methods often overlook this aspect. The complex nature of speech features and the opaque decision-making processes of AI models underscore the need for a tailored framework to assess interpretability in speech-based clinical AI systems. This article proposes an initial framework composed of eight key factors to consider when evaluating the interpretability of clinical speech AI models. These factors are categorized into two groups: functional factors and clinician-centered factors. The functional factors, which can be assessed independently without user involvement, include faithfulness and computational efficiency. The clinician-centered factors include four established ones from existing literature (cognitive load, human–AI task performance, mental model, and user trust) and two new factors tailored to the unique demands of clinical speech applications: clinical understandability and decision relevance. We further suggest evaluation methods for each of the identified factors and propose modifying existing instruments such as the System Usability Scale and the Healthcare Systems Usability Scale to evaluate the two newly introduced factors. Conclusions: Our identified factors form an initial framework for evaluating the interpretability of speech-based clinical AI systems, supporting the effective integration of AI into clinical workflows. Future works include conducting an evaluation experiment using the proposed framework and refining it further based on the findings from the experiment.

Background: Progressive apraxia of speech (PAOS) is a neurodegenerative disorder most commonly arising from a 4-repeat tauopathy that affects the programming or planning of speech, although many patients develop a Parkinson-plus syndrome. The role of neuroinflammation as a disease mechanism is unknown. We investigated the spatial pattern of neuroinflammation in PAOS using PET and evaluated whether it is associated with disease severity, presence of Parkinson-plus features, and tau PET uptake. Patients and Methods: Twenty-five PAOS patients (13 with Parkinson-plus features) and 30 controls underwent inflammatory 11C-ER176 and tau 18F-flortaucipir PET scans as well as detailed clinical assessments. Multiple linear regression analyses compared the inflammatory standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) between PAOS and controls and assessed the relationship with clinical test scores. Pearson correlation analysis examined the relationship between inflammatory and tau SUVRs. Results: PAOS had greater neuroinflammatory SUVR than controls in the precentral, supplementary motor area, frontal gyri, putamen, pallidum, subthalamic nucleus, and red nucleus (adjusted P < 0.05). Greater neuroinflammation was associated with worse parkinsonism, and patients who had developed Parkinson-plus features showed a broader pattern of neuroinflammation, extending to prefrontal, temporal and parietal cortices. Neuroinflammation correlated with tau uptake in most (96%) PAOS patients (r > 0.3, P < 0.05). The higher correlation was associated with worse parkinsonism (r = 0.61, P < 0.05) and disease severity (r = 0.54, P < 0.05). Conclusions: 11C-ER176 PET analysis demonstrates neuroinflammation in frontal and subcortical regions in PAOS which is particularly severe and widespread with the development of Parkinson-plus clinical features. The colocalization of neuroinflammation and tau may support a relationship between these disease mechanisms.

Background and Objectives: Stroke is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Recent studies have suggested the feasibility and potential utility of remotely supervised transcranial direct current stimulation (RS-tDCS) to improve different types of impairments in various neurological conditions. This scoping review provides a critical appraisal of RS-tDCS as an adjunct therapy to enhance recovery after stroke. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature review was systematically conducted using PubMed through Nested Knowledge software. A supplementary search was conducted in Google Scholar. Two independent authors screened and identified related studies investigating RS-tDCS in patients with stroke from inception to February 2025. Results: Studies showed that RS-tDCS was safe, with only mild side effects. Additionally, it was feasible, with high adherence rates likely due to ease of use. Regarding efficacy, RS-tDCS preliminarily yielded improvements in upper- and lower-limb motor functions and increased language and cognitive performance. However, the studies were underpowered and heterogeneous, limiting generalization of findings. Conclusions: RS-tDCS is safe and feasible, affording beneficial effects in the motor, language, and cognitive functions of patients with post-stroke impairments. RS-tDCS has the potential to improve access and reduce disparities for post-stroke experimental treatments. However, adequately powered randomized trials are needed to further investigate the efficacy.

Background and Objectives: Hearing loss is relatively common in older individuals, and individuals with frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) are no exception; this can exacerbate communication difficulties stemming from speech-language impairments. The co-occurrence of these symptoms can contribute to increased frustration and isolation for patients and their communication partners. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of self-administered hearing testing. Ultimately, this could be administered remotely, which would increase access to assessment and inform management for this population. Method: Seventeen patients with underlying FTLD, clinically presenting with progressive apraxia of speech with and without agrammatic aphasia, independently completed the Home Hearing Test supervised while in office. Results: Three patients self-reported hearing loss, but results for 100% recommended formal evaluation. Eleven patients demonstrated good test accuracy. Six patients had “poor” or not computable accuracy; among them, five had evidence of cognitive impairment and/or behavioral changes, and one had known severe hearing loss, although differences between those with good and poor test accuracy were not significant. Patients with poor test accuracy had more difficulty with limb praxis. Conclusions: Most participants independently completed the test, though some had reduced test accuracy that may have been associated with cognitive impairment and/or limb apraxia. This study supports the need for hearing screenings in all patients with progressive apraxia of speech and aphasia and highlights both the feasibility and caution required in implementing self-administered testing protocols. Further work should evaluate the feasibility of in-home hearing screenings in a broader range of FTLD phenotypes and directly compare sensitivity and specificity of hearing loss detection with in-clinic administration. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28306613

Purpose: Speakers with primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS) have an insidious onset of motor speech planning/programming difficulties. As the disease progresses, the apraxia of speech (AOS) becomes more severe and a co-occurring dysarthria often emerges. Here, longitudinal data from speakers with phonetic- and prosodic-predominant PPAOS are used to characterize the progression of their motor speech impairment, including the development of dysarthria and mutism. Method: Data are presented from 52 speakers who had PPAOS at enrollment (i.e., progressive AOS in the absence of aphasia, cognitive, or other neurologic symptoms). Twenty-one had predominantly phonetic features, whereas 31 had primarily prosodic features. All participants underwent a comprehensive motor speech evaluation at their enrollment visit and each annual return visit, with a median of three visits per participant. Results: Almost 25% of the speakers with PPAOS presented with dysarthria at their enrollment visit (median disease duration of 3.65 years), whereas more than 70% of them had developed dysarthria by their last visit (median disease duration of 6.85 years). Neither the likelihood to develop dysarthria nor the disease duration at which it was detected differed significantly between the phonetic and prosodic groups. However, muteness emerged sooner for speakers with phonetic-predominant PPAOS; the median disease duration at which they became mute was 1.5 years shorter than for their prosodic counterparts. Conclusions: Clinically, these results facilitate more accurate prognostication of motor speech symptoms in speakers with PPAOS, allowing for timely introduction of alternative means of communication. The results also support the differentiation between progressive AOS and dysarthria as distinct motor speech disorders that often co-occur in these individuals.

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to offer an evaluation of speech-language pathologists' (SLPs') experiences with and knowledge of functional speech disorders. Functional speech disorders occur as a part of functional neurological disorders, a complex disorder that is often overlooked and misdiagnosed. Through an assessment of experience with and common myths about functional speech disorders among SLPs, the importance of providing education to SLPs about this patient population is discussed. Method: As a part of the presentation about functional speech disorders during the 2023 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Health Care Summit, 122 participants were asked to anonymously respond to a series of questions that outlined their demographics, training in functional speech disorders, and experiences with this patient population. Descriptive data are presented. Results and Conclusions: Among attendees, 58% were exposed to functional speech disorders in graduate school while 75% had seen a patient with a functional speech disorder, most of whom had also diagnosed the patients' communication disorder. This study highlights the role of the SLP in identifying and managing functional speech disorders and the increased attention this patient population has received over time, as well as the work yet to be done. Functional speech disorders are a legitimate clinical entity, for which a diagnosis can be made based on positive clinical features (i.e., is not a diagnosis of exclusion). The call to action includes guidance for clinicians, educators, and academic training programs to support this patient population. See the Appendix for a plain language summary.

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