Utianski, Rene L.

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

Background: The agrammatic variant of primary progressive aphasia (PAA), primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS), or a combination of both (AOS-PAA) are neurodegenerative disorders characterized by speech-language impairments and together compose the AOS-PAA spectrum disorders. These patients typically have an underlying 4-repeat tauopathy, although they sometimes show evidence of amyloid-β and tau deposition on PET, suggesting Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Given the growing number of pharmacologic treatment options for AD, it is important to better understand the incidence of AD pathology in these patients. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the frequency of amyloid-β and tau positivity in AOS-PAA spectrum disorders. Sixty-five patients with AOS-PAA underwent a clinical speech-language battery and PiB PET and flortaucipir PET imaging. Methods: Global PiB PET standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) and flortaucipir PET SUVRs from the temporal meta region of interest were compared between patient groups. For 19 patients who had died and undergone autopsy, their PET and pathology findings were also compared. Results: The results showed that although roughly half of the patients are positive for at least one biomarker, their clinical symptoms and biomarker status were not related, suggesting that AD is not the primary cause of their neurodegeneration. All but one patient in the autopsy subset had a Braak stage of IV or less, despite four being positive on tau PET imaging. Conclusions: Inclusion criteria for clinical trials should specify clinical presentation or adjust the evaluation of such treatments to be specific to disease diagnosis beyond the presence of certain imaging biomarkers.

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.

AbstractBackgroundThe semantic fluency task involves naming as many items as possible in a given category (e.g., animals) in one minute. It is often interpreted as a measure of word retrieval, but also draws on executive function abilities to organize responses and develop task‐specific strategies. Indeed, both language skills and dementia severity ratings have recently been found to correlate with semantic fluency performance in patients with primary progressive aphasia (Riello et al., 2022; Scheffel et al., 2021). Here, we focused instead on how performance on language and executive function measures predicts longitudinal change in semantic fluency performance in patients with progressive agrammatic aphasia and/or apraxia of speech (AOS).MethodPatients with isolated agrammatic aphasia (n = 10), isolated AOS (n = 42), or a combination of the two (n = 59) with 1‐7 visits (mean = 2.19) were included. We used Bayesian hierarchical linear models to investigate whether baseline measures of executive function or language were associated with the rate at which semantic fluency performance changes over time while accounting for baseline diagnosis group, sex, education, age at baseline, and baseline disease duration.ResultSemantic fluency performance declined over time, at a similar rate irrespective of diagnostic group (isolated or combined aphasia or AOS; Figure 1). Across all patients, higher executive function abilities at baseline, as indicated by faster Trails Making Test B completion times, predicted higher baseline semantic fluency performance and also a steeper annual rate of decline (Figure 2). Similarly, higher fluency ratings during the Western Aphasia Battery‐Revised picture description at baseline were associated with higher baseline semantic fluency performance and faster decline. Baseline performance on the Boston Naming Test and Token Test were also associated with baseline semantic fluency, but not with longitudinal change.ConclusionThese results better delineate how language and executive function abilities support performance in the semantic fluency task. Higher abilities in those areas at baseline do not appear to be protective over time. Rather, the differences in semantic fluency that are present at baseline disappear as the disease progresses.

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