Whitwell, Jennifer L

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: 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.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the interrater reliability and validity of the Apraxia of Speech Rating Scale (ASRS-3.5) as an index of the presence and severity of apraxia of speech (AOS) and the prominence of several of its important features. Method: Interrater reliability was assessed for 27 participants. Validity was examined in a cohort of 308 participants (120 with and 188 without progressive AOS) through item analysis; item-Total score correlations; correlations among ASRS Total score and component subscores and independent clinical ratings of AOS, dysarthria and aphasia severity, intelligibility, and articulatory errors, as well as years postonset and age; and regression models assessing item and Total score prediction of AOS presence. Results: Interrater reliability was good or excellent for most items and excellent for the Total score. Item and Total score analyses revealed good separation of participants with versus without AOS. Inter-item and item-Total score correlations were generally moderately high as were correlations between the ASRS Total score and independent ratings of AOS severity, intelligibility, and articulatory errors. The Total score was not meaningfully correlated with ratings of aphasia and dysarthria severity, years postonset, or age. Total scores below 7 and above 10 revealed excellent diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for AOS. The presence of eight or more abnormal features was also highly predictive of AOS presence. Conclusions: The ASRS-3.5 is a reliable and valid scale for identifying the presence and severity of AOS and its predominant features. It has excellent sensitivity to AOS presence and excellent specificity relative to aphasia and dysarthria in patients with neurodegenerative disease. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21817584