Strand, Edythe A.

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

This study compared orofacial muscle strength between normal and dysarthric speakers and across types of dysarthria, and examined correlations between strength and dysarthria severity. Participants included 79 speakers with flaccid, spastic, mixed spastic–flaccid, ataxic, or hypokinetic dysarthria and 33 healthy controls. Maximum pressure generation (Pmax) by the tongue, lips, and cheeks represented strength. Pmax was lower for speakers with mixed spastic–flaccid dysarthria for all tongue and lip measures, as well as for speakers with flaccid or spastic dysarthria for anterior tongue elevation and lip compression. Anterior tongue elevation and cheek compression tended to be lower than normal for the hypokinetic group. Pmax did not differ significantly between controls and speakers with ataxic dysarthria on any measure. Correlations were generally weak between dysarthria severity and orofacial weakness but were stronger in the dysarthria groups with more prominent orofacial weakness. The results generally support predictions that orofacial weakness accompanies flaccid and/or spastic dysarthria but not ataxic dysarthria. The findings support including type of dysarthria as a variable of interest when examining orofacial weakness in motor speech disorders.

Purpose This study compared performance on three-word fluency measures among individuals with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS), and examined the relationship between word fluency and other measures of language and speech. Method This study included 106 adults with PPA and 30 adults with PPAOS. PPA participants were divided into three clinical subgroups: semantic (svPPA), logopenic (lvPPA), and nonfluent/agrammatic with or without apraxia of speech (nfPPA). Category fluency, letter fluency, and action/verb fluency tasks were administered to all participants. Results The four clinical groups performed abnormally on the word fluency measures, although not to a degree that represented high sensitivity to their PPA or PPAOS diagnosis. All PPA subgroups produced fewer words compared to individuals with PPAOS on all word fluency measures. Moderate correlations were found between word fluency and aphasia severity and naming performance in some of the clinical groups. Conclusions Word fluency measures are often challenging for individuals with PPA and PPAOS, but they are not of equal difficulty, with letter fluency being the most difficult. Differences among word fluency tests also vary to some degree as a function of the clinical group in question, with least impairment in PPAOS. However, the findings of this study do not support statistically significant differences in word fluency task performance among the PPA subgroups. Correlations suggest that word fluency performance in PPA is at least partly related to aphasia severity.

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to describe clinical features, [18F]‐fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)‐positron emission tomography (PET) metabolism and digital pathology in patients with logopenic progressive aphasia (LPA) and pathologic diagnosis of diffuse Lewy body disease (DLBD) and compare to patients with LPA with other pathologies, as well as patients with classical features of probable dementia with Lewy bodies (pDLB).MethodsThis is a clinicopathologic case‐control study of 45 patients, including 20 prospectively recruited patients with LPA among whom 6 were diagnosed with LPA‐DLBD. We analyzed clinical features and compared FDG‐PET metabolism in LPA‐DLBD to an independent group of patients with clinical pDLB and regional α‐synuclein burden on digital pathology to a second independent group of autopsied patients with DLBD pathology and antemortem pDLB (DLB‐DLBD).ResultsAll patients with LPA‐DLBD were men. Neurological, speech, and neuropsychological characteristics were similar across LPA‐DLBD, LPA‐Alzheimer's disease (LPA‐AD), and LPA‐frontotemporal lobar degeneration (LPA‐FTLD). Genetic screening of AD, DLBD, and FTLD linked genes were negative with the exception of APOE ε4 allele present in 83% of LPA‐DLBD patients. Seventy‐five percent of the patients with LPA‐DLBD showed a parietal‐dominant pattern of hy pometabolism; LPA‐FTLD – temporal‐dominant pattern, whereas LPA‐AD showed heterogeneous patterns of hypometabolism. LPA‐DLBD had more asymmetrical hypometabolism affecting frontal lobes, with relatively spared occipital lobe in the nondominantly affected hemisphere, compared to pDLB. LPA‐DLBD had minimal atrophy on gross brain examination, higher cortical Lewy body counts, and higher α‐synuclein burden in the middle frontal and inferior parietal cortices compared to DLB‐DLBD.InterpretationWhereas AD is the most frequent underlying pathology of LPA, DLBD can also be present and may contribute to the LPA phenotype possibly due to α‐synuclein‐associated functional impairment of the dominant parietal lobe. ANN NEUROL 2021;89:520–533

Purpose The purpose of this article is to describe a treatment approach, Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cueing (DTTC), and to provide clinicians and clinical researchers a clear understanding of the theory and principles that contributed to the design of the treatment as well as the clinical decisions that must be made when implementing it. While brief descriptions of DTTC have been provided in textbooks, a complete summary of the rationale, essential elements, method, and procedures has not yet been published. Such a summary is important so that clinicians can gain a better understanding of and more confidence in using the method for appropriate children. Furthermore, this article provides clinicians and clinical researchers essential information for measurement of fidelity. Method The important elements of the DTTC method with rationale for their inclusion are described. The temporal hierarchy of DTTC is depicted, and the dynamic procedure is described in detail, with suggestions for fidelity measurement. Finally, a discussion of important decisions clinicians must make when implementing DTTC is presented. Conclusions The goal of DTTC is to improve the efficiency of neural processing for the development and refinement of sensorimotor planning and programming. The rationale for DTTC in general, as well as the key elements important to its administration, are supported by models of speech production and theories of motor learning. Important clinical decisions regarding stimuli, organization of practice, and feedback are based on principles of motor learning in order to facilitate acquisition, retention, and continued improvement of motor speech skills.

Purpose The primary aim was to examine the utility of the Western Aphasia Battery–Revised (WAB-R; Kertesz, 2007 ) for classifying variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA). Traditional WAB-R metrics of Aphasia Quotient (AQ), subtest scores, WAB-R classification, and several novel metrics were examined. A secondary aim was to examine these same WAB-R metrics in individuals with primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS). Method A retrospective analysis of WAB-R records from 169 participants enrolled in a study of neurodegenerative speech and language disorders was conducted. PPA/PPAOS classification was determined by consensus review of speech, language, and cognitive profiles. Scores on each of the WAB-R subtests were obtained to derive AQ, WAB-R aphasia profile, and 3 ratios reflecting relative performance on subtests. Results Mean AQ was significantly higher in the PPAOS group compared to all PPA variants except primary fluent aphasia. AQ above the normal cutoff was observed for 20% of participants with PPA. Significant main effects of group were noted for each of the subtests. Follow-up comparisons most frequently discriminated PPAOS, primary agrammatic aphasia (PAA), and logopenic progressive aphasia. Primary fluent aphasia and semantic dementia (SD) subtest scores were less distinctive, with the exception of Naming for SD, which was significantly lower than for PAA and PPAOS. When the WAB-R AQ detected aphasia, a classification of anomic aphasia was most frequently observed; this pattern held true for each of the PPA variants. The mean Information Content:Naming ratio was highest for SD, and the mean Comprehension:Fluency ratio was highest for PAA. Conclusions In the current study, AQ underestimated the presence of PPA and WAB-R classification did not distinguish among PPA classification determined by consensus. Performance on individual subtests and relative performance across subtests demonstrated inconsistent alignment with PPA classification. We conclude the WAB-R in isolation is inadequate to detect or characterize PPA. We instead suggest utilizing the WAB-R as 1 component of a comprehensive language and motor speech assessment when PPA is suspected.