Citations

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.

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

AbstractPrior studies have shown communication‐related participation restrictions in patients with degenerative disease do not always match clinician judgment of symptom severity. Relatedly, there is a growing body of literature documenting discrepancies between patients with dementia and care partner perception of participation restrictions. However, it is not known how care partner perceptions of communication participation restrictions match or diverge from the patient's experience, which was the topic of this study.Toward that end, 28 patients with apraxia of speech and/or dysarthria associated with primary progressive apraxia of speech, nonfluent/agrammatic primary progressive aphasia, or progressive supranuclear palsy, all types of frontotemporal dementia, were seen for speech‐language examinations. The patients and their care partners were asked to independently complete the Communication Participation Item Bank (CPIB), short form, which is a 10‐question survey about communication in different contexts; higher scores reflect less interference from their condition on communication. Care partners were instructed to complete the form with their perception of the patient's restrictions. The total CPIB score (maximum 30) and difference scores were calculated and visualized.The data (Figure) suggest mismatches exist in care partner and patient ratings of communication participation restrictions. Of 28 patients, only 1 pair had identical scores, each rating severe interference in all communication contexts. 57% of patients rated communication as less impacted (higher scores) compared to their family member, leaving 39% of family members rating communication as less impacted than their loved one's perception. This study lays the foundation for future research to include patient and care partner ratings when examining the benefit of impairment‐based therapy, utilization of compensatory speech strategies, effectiveness of such strategies, and impact of other augmentative or alternative means of communication. The CPIB may be useful to document reduced psychosocial impact of disease and diminished burden and burnout on care partners with different intervention options. Future studies will explore possible differences between FTD phenotypes and, more specifically, whether 1) the motor speech disorder (MSD) disorder is primary or secondary to other motor impairment, 2) the nature or severity of the MSD, or 3) concomitant cognitive‐communication impairment predict the existence of and/or direction of a discrepancy.

Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a neurodegenerative syndrome characterized by progressive and predominant language impairment [...]

Abstract Primary four-repeat tauopathies are characterized by depositions of the four-repeat isoform of the microtubule binding protein, tau. The two most common sporadic four-repeat tauopathies are progressive supranuclear palsy and corticobasal degeneration. Because tau PET tracers exhibit poor binding affinity to four-repeat pathology, determining how well in vivo MRI findings relate to underlying pathology is critical to evaluating their utility as surrogate markers to aid in diagnosis and as outcome measures for clinical trials. We studied the relationship of cross-sectional imaging findings, such as MRI volume loss and diffusion tensor imaging white matter tract abnormalities, to tau histopathology in four-repeat tauopathies. Forty-seven patients with antemortem 3 T MRI volumetric and diffusion tensor imaging scans plus post-mortem pathological diagnosis of a four-repeat tauopathy (28 progressive supranuclear palsy; 19 corticobasal degeneration) were included in the study. Tau lesion types (pretangles/neurofibrillary tangles, neuropil threads, coiled bodies, astrocytic lesions) were semiquantitatively graded in disease-specific cortical, subcortical and brainstem regions. Antemortem regional volumes, fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity were modelled using linear regression with post-mortem tau lesion scores considered separately, based on cellular type (neuronal versus glial), or summed (total tau). Results showed that greater total tau burden was associated with volume loss in the subthalamic nucleus (P = 0.001), midbrain (P < 0.001), substantia nigra (P = 0.03) and red nucleus (P = 0.004), with glial lesions substantially driving the associations. Decreased fractional anisotropy and increased mean diffusivity in the superior cerebellar peduncle correlated with glial tau in the cerebellar dentate (P = 0.04 and P = 0.02, respectively) and red nucleus (P < 0.001 for both). Total tau and glial pathology also correlated with increased mean diffusivity in the midbrain (P = 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively). Finally, increased subcortical white matter mean diffusivity was associated with total tau in superior frontal and precentral cortices (each, P = 0.02). Overall, results showed clear relationships between antemortem MRI changes and pathology in four-repeat tauopathies. Our findings show that brain volume could be a useful surrogate marker of tau pathology in subcortical and brainstem regions, whereas white matter integrity could be a useful marker of tau pathology in cortical regions. Our findings also suggested an important role of glial tau lesions in the pathogenesis of neurodegeneration in four-repeat tauopathies. Thus, development of tau PET tracers selectively binding to glial tau lesions could potentially uncover mechanisms of disease progression.

Purpose: Functional speech disorders (FSDs), a subtype of functional neurological disorders, are distinguishable from neurogenic motor speech disorders based on their clinical features, clinical course, and response to treatment. However, their differential diagnosis and management can be challenging. FSDs are not well understood, but growing evidence suggests a biopsychosocial basis distinct from structural lesions that cause neurogenic motor speech disorders. Method and Results: Following an overview of FSDs, four patients are described to illustrate the range of clinical manifestations, biopsychosocial contexts, and responses to treatment of FSDs. The path to differential diagnosis is discussed, with particular attention to positive features that led to the FSD diagnosis. Approaches to education, counseling, and management are discussed. Conclusions: This case series demonstrates that FSDs can present with a variety of manifestations including dysfluencies, articulation errors, dysphonia, rate and prosodic abnormalities, and combinations of disruptions in speech subsystems. FSDs may present in the context of known recent or remote physical or psychosocial trauma or, as in many cases, in the absence of an identifiable triggering event. FSDs are recognizable by positive clinical features and should not be considered a diagnosis of exclusion. With appropriate identification, counseling, and treatment, FSDs may resolve, sometimes rapidly; in some cases, treatment may be prolonged or ineffective.

The objective of this study was to characterize network-level changes in nonfluent/agrammatic Primary Progressive Aphasia (agPPA) and Primary Progressive Apraxia of Speech (PPAOS) with graph theory (GT) measures derived from scalp electroencephalography (EEG) recordings. EEGs of 15 agPPA and 7 PPAOS patients were collected during relaxed wakefulness with eyes closed (21 electrodes, 10–20 positions, 256 Hz sampling rate, 1–200 Hz bandpass filter). Eight artifact-free, non-overlapping 1024-point epochs were selected. Via Brainwave software, GT weighted connectivity and minimum spanning tree (MST) measures were calculated for theta and upper and lower alpha frequency bands. Differences in GT and MST measures between agPPA and PPAOS were assessed with Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Of greatest interest, Spearman correlations were computed between behavioral and network measures in all frequency bands across all patients. There were no statistically significant differences in GT or MST measures between agPPA and PPAOS. There were significant correlations between several network and behavioral variables. The correlations demonstrate a relationship between reduced global efficiency and clinical symptom severity (e.g., parkinsonism, AOS). This preliminary, exploratory study demonstrates potential for EEG GT measures to quantify network changes associated with degenerative speech–language disorders.