Utianski, Rene L

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: Apraxia of speech (AOS) is a motor speech disorder affecting articulatory planning and speech programming. When AOS is the sole manifestation of neurodegeneration, it is termed primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS). Recent work has shown that there are distinct PPAOS subtypes: phonetic, prosodic, and those that do not clearly align with either (mixed). PPAOS subtypes differ with respect to the predominating motor speech difficulties, as well as disease progression and underlying pathology. Because past studies have determined PPAOS subtype based on clinical impression, the goal of the present study was to quantitatively determine the distribution of speech error types across PPAOS subtypes in a word repetition task and to investigate how word complexity affects the type and number of speech errors across PPAOS subtypes. Method: Forty-five patients with PPAOS (13 phonetic, 23 prosodic, and nine mixed) and 45 healthy controls produced multiple repetitions of words that varied in phonetic complexity. Sound additions, deletions, and substitutions/distortions (phonetic errors) and within-word segmentations (prosodic errors) were calculated. Results: All three PPAOS groups produced significantly more errors than controls, but the total number of errors was comparable among subtypes. The phonetic group produced more phonetic-type errors compared to the prosodic group but comparable to the mixed group. The prosodic group produced more segmentations compared to the phonetic and mixed PPAOS groups. As word complexity increased, the total number of errors increased for PPAOS patients. The phonetic and prosodic groups were more likely to produce phonetic- and prosodic-type errors, respectively, as word complexity increased. Conclusions: This study provides novel quantitative data showing that PPAOS subtype can be supported by the type and distribution of speech errors in a word repetition task. This may facilitate earlier, more reliable differential diagnosis and aid in disease prognosis, as PPAOS subtypes have distinct disease trajectories.

Abstract Background Progressive apraxia of speech (PAOS) is characterized by difficulties with motor speech programming and planning. PAOS targets gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM) microstructure that can be assessed using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and multishell applications, such as neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI). In this study, we aimed to apply DTI and NODDI to add further insight into PAOS tissue microstructure. Methods Twenty‐two PAOS patients and 26 age‐ and sex‐matched controls, recruited by the Neurodegenerative Research Group (NRG) at Mayo Clinic, underwent diffusion MRI on 3T MRI. Brain maps of fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD) from DTI and intracellular volume fraction (ICVF) and isotropic volume fraction (IsoVF) from NODDI were generated. Global WM and GM, and specific WM tracts were identified using tractography and lobar GM regions. Results Global WM differences between PAOS and controls were greatest for ICVF, and global GM differences were greatest for MD and IsoVF. Abnormalities in key WM tracts involved in PAOS, including the body of the corpus callosum and frontal aslant tract, were identified with FA, MD, and ICVF, with excellent differentiation of PAOS from controls (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves >.90). MD and ICVF identified abnormalities in arcuate fasciculus, thalamic radiations, and corticostriatal tracts. Significant correlations were identified between an index of articulatory errors and DTI and NODDI metrics from the arcuate fasciculus, frontal aslant tract, and inferior longitudinal fasciculus. Conclusions DTI and NODDI represent different aspects of brain tissue microstructure, increasing the number of potential biomarkers for PAOS.

Purpose: When nonnative speaking patterns emerge following neurologic insult or injury, it has often been referred to as foreign, or nonnative, accent syndrome (FAS). In many other cases, FAS can occur as a manifestation of a functional speech disorder (FSD). The purpose of this clinical focus article is to (a) describe the methods utilized in identifying and managing a functional communication disorder characterized by nonnative speech, language, and nonverbal communication intrusions, accompanied by a functional movement disorder and (b) describe the patient's lived experience. Method and Results: The patient is a 59-year-old monolingual English-speaking gentleman with a remote history of episodic stuttering, who later developed an abrupt onset of a nonnative speaking style that changed in quality over time. He also developed gait difficulties that, after visiting with several neurologists, were judged to reflect a functional neurological disorder. During the speech evaluation session, an “Eastern European accent” was noted, along with nonnative word use and word order. A diagnosis of FSD characterized by foreign accent was made, and intervention was undertaken as detailed in the clinical focus article and demonstrated in the accompanying video. With behavioral intervention, the patient was able to correct sound-level changes in structured tasks such as reading and repetition and then in conversation. Language dialect–like changes resolved without direct intervention. The nonspeech movement disorder was addressed with intensive occupational and physical therapy. Conclusions: The patient presented with functional FAS, which was effectively managed with symptomatic, targeted behavioral intervention. His experience demonstrates the importance of patient advocacy in acquiring an accurate diagnosis and appropriate management recommendations. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24653430

Purpose: This case study details the approach to differential diagnosis in characterizing a progressive communication difficulty in a nonnative English-speaking patient. Method: The patient is a multilingual gentleman in his late 60s with a 3-year history of progressive difficulty speaking clearly who presented for evaluation of communication difficulties. Prior to speech evaluation, he was diagnosed with stress-related speech changes by one provider, parkinsonism by another, and primary progressive aphasia by a third provider. A thorough speech and language evaluation, including a detailed case history, was conducted. Results: The patient described a progressive difficulty in enunciating, but not coming up with words; this was present across languages spoken. On exam, the patient exhibited phonetic predominant apraxia of speech, nonverbal oral apraxia, and no more than equivocal aphasia, yielding an overall shared speech and neurologic diagnosis of primary progressive apraxia of speech. Conclusion: This case demonstrates the importance of differential diagnosis of motor speech disorders and a detailed case history, particularly when speech difficulties are the first and only neurological symptom.

AbstractObjectivePrimary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS) is associated with imaging abnormalities in the lateral premotor cortex (LPC) and supplementary motor area (SMA). It is not known whether greater involvement of these regions in either hemisphere is associated with demographics, presenting, and/or longitudinal features.MethodsIn 51 prospectively recruited PPAOS patients who completed [18F]‐fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET), we classified patients as left‐dominant, right‐dominant, or symmetric, based on visual assessment of the LPC and SMA on FDG‐PET. SPM and statistical analyses of regional metabolic values were performed. Diagnosis of PPAOS was made if apraxia of speech was present and aphasia absent. Thirteen patients completed ioflupane‐123I (dopamine transporter [DAT]) scans. We compared cross‐sectional and longitudinal clinicopathological, genetic, and neuroimaging characteristics across the three groups, with area under the receiver‐operating curve (AUROC) determined as a measure of effect size.ResultsIn all, 49% of the PPAOS patients were classified as left‐dominant, 31% as right‐dominant, and 20% as symmetric, which was supported by results from the SPM and regional analyses. There were no differences in baseline characteristics. Longitudinally, right‐dominant PPAOS showed faster rates of progression of ideomotor apraxia (AUROC 0.79), behavioral disturbances (AUROC 0.84), including disinhibition symptoms (AUROC 0.82) and negative behaviors (AUROC 0.82), and parkinsonism (AUROC 0.75) compared to left‐dominant PPAOS. Symmetric PPAOS showed faster rates of dysarthria progression compared to left‐dominant (AUROC 0.89) and right‐dominant PPAOS (AUROC 0.79). Five patients showed abnormal DAT uptake. Braak neurofibrillary tangle stage differed across groups (p = 0.01).ConclusionsPatients with PPAOS and a right‐dominant pattern of hypometabolism on FDG‐PET have the fastest rates of decline of behavioral and motor features.

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.