Clark, Heather M

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

AbstractBackground and purposePrimary lateral sclerosis (PLS) is a neurodegenerative disorder that primarily affects the central motor system. In rare cases, clinical features of PLS may overlap with those of progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP). We investigate neuroimaging features that can help distinguish PLS with overlapping features of PSP (PLS‐PSP) from PSP.MethodsSix patients with PLS‐PSP were enrolled between 2019 and 2023. We compared their clinical and neuroimaging characteristics with 18 PSP–Richardson syndrome (PSP‐RS) patients and 20 healthy controls. Magnetic resonance imaging, 18F‐flortaucipir positron emission tomography (PET), quantitative susceptibility mapping, and diffusion tensor imaging tractography (DTI) were performed to evaluate eight brain regions of interest. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated.ResultsFive of the six PLS‐PSP patients (83.3%) were male. Median age at symptom onset was 61.5 (52.5–63) years, and all had mixed features of PLS and PSP. Volumes of the pallidum, caudate, midbrain, and cerebellar dentate were smaller in PSP‐RS than PLS‐PSP, providing good discrimination (AUROC = 0.75 for all). The susceptibilities in pallidum, midbrain, and cerebellar dentate were greater in PSP‐RS compared to PLS‐PSP, providing excellent discrimination (AUROC ≥ 0.90 for all). On DTI, fractional anisotropy (FA) in the posterior limb of the internal capsule from the corticospinal tract was lower in PLS‐PSP compared to PSP‐RS (AUROC = 0.86), but FA in the superior cerebellar peduncle was lower in PSP‐RS (AUROC = 0.95). Pallidum flortaucipir PET uptake was greater in PSP‐RS compared to PLS‐PSP (AUROC = 0.74).ConclusionsRegional brain volume, tractography, and magnetic susceptibility, but not tau‐PET, are useful in distinguishing PLS‐PSP from PSP.

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: The purpose of this study was to investigate comorbidity prevalence and patterns in childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) and their relationship to severity. Method: In this retroactive cross-sectional study, medical records for 375 children with CAS ( M age = 4;9 [years;months], SD = 2;9) were examined for comorbid conditions. The total number of comorbid conditions and the number of communication-related comorbidities were regressed on CAS severity as rated by speech-language pathologists during diagnosis. The relationship between CAS severity and the presence of four common comorbid conditions was also examined using ordinal or multinomial regressions. Results: Overall, 83 children were classified with mild CAS; 35, with moderate CAS; and 257, with severe CAS. Only one child had no comorbidities. The average number of comorbid conditions was 8.4 ( SD = 3.4), and the average number of communication-related comorbidities was 5.6 ( SD = 2.2). Over 95% of children had comorbid expressive language impairment. Children with comorbid intellectual disability (78.1%), receptive language impairment (72.5%), and nonspeech apraxia (37.3%; including limb, nonspeech oromotor, and oculomotor apraxia) were significantly more likely to have severe CAS than children without these comorbidities. However, children with comorbid autism spectrum disorder (33.6%) were no more likely to have severe CAS than children without autism. Conclusions: Comorbidity appears to be the rule, rather than the exception, for children with CAS. Comorbid intellectual disability, receptive language impairment, and nonspeech apraxia confer additional risk for more severe forms of CAS. Findings are limited by being from a convenience sample of participants but inform future models of comorbidity. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22096622

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