Duffy, Joseph R.

Background and Objectives: Hearing loss is relatively common in older individuals, and individuals with frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) are no exception; this can exacerbate communication difficulties stemming from speech-language impairments. The co-occurrence of these symptoms can contribute to increased frustration and isolation for patients and their communication partners. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of self-administered hearing testing. Ultimately, this could be administered remotely, which would increase access to assessment and inform management for this population. Method: Seventeen patients with underlying FTLD, clinically presenting with progressive apraxia of speech with and without agrammatic aphasia, independently completed the Home Hearing Test supervised while in office. Results: Three patients self-reported hearing loss, but results for 100% recommended formal evaluation. Eleven patients demonstrated good test accuracy. Six patients had “poor” or not computable accuracy; among them, five had evidence of cognitive impairment and/or behavioral changes, and one had known severe hearing loss, although differences between those with good and poor test accuracy were not significant. Patients with poor test accuracy had more difficulty with limb praxis. Conclusions: Most participants independently completed the test, though some had reduced test accuracy that may have been associated with cognitive impairment and/or limb apraxia. This study supports the need for hearing screenings in all patients with progressive apraxia of speech and aphasia and highlights both the feasibility and caution required in implementing self-administered testing protocols. Further work should evaluate the feasibility of in-home hearing screenings in a broader range of FTLD phenotypes and directly compare sensitivity and specificity of hearing loss detection with in-clinic administration. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28306613

AbstractBackgroundDiscussion surrounding the nomenclature of the “nonfluent/agrammatic” spectrum of progressive speech‐language disorders has largely focused on the clinical‐pathological and neuroimaging correlations, with some attention paid to the prognostication afforded by differentiating clinical phenotypes. Progressive apraxia of speech (AOS), with or without agrammatic aphasia, is generally associated with an underlying tauopathy; however, patients have offered a unique perspective on the importance of distinguishing between difficulties with speech and language that extends beyond pathological specificity. This study aimed to provide insight into the experience of patients with primary progressive AOS (PPAOS), with particular attention to their diagnostic journey.MethodA qualitative research approach was used. Structured interviews were conducted with three prosodic and one phonetic predominant PPAOS patients, judged representative of our research cohort, who were previously received other diagnoses, including primary progressive aphasia (PPA). A current PPAOS diagnosis and willingness to discuss the details of their diagnostic workup and reflect upon their experience were the inclusion criteria. One patient preferred to provide written responses. Each interview was reviewed, and the collective contents were examined using thematic analysis.ResultThe primary themes were identity, community, and planning. Patients expressed: 1) the importance of the alignment of AOS with their difficulties, specifically that they had no difficulty with thinking of words or with comprehension (i.e., no aphasia); 2) not sharing attributes with PPA patients and their observed clinical presentations; and 3) the desire to capitalize upon their retained skills for treatment, for example “I intend to retain my ‘voice’ even as I lose my speaking ability.”ConclusionUnderstanding the experiences of PPAOS patients may inform future iterations of progressive speech‐language spectrum diagnostic criteria and the consistency of their use, along with intervention recommendations. The specificity of a PPAOS diagnosis is meaningful to patients as it relates to their identity, sense of community, and approach to future planning. Further work will evaluate the experience of patients with a broader spectrum of progressive speech‐language disorders along with their care partners. More work is underway to outline the predictive value of an AOS diagnosis, relative to co‐occurring aphasia severity, to inform better prognostication.

Purpose: Speakers with primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS) have an insidious onset of motor speech planning/programming difficulties. As the disease progresses, the apraxia of speech (AOS) becomes more severe and a co-occurring dysarthria often emerges. Here, longitudinal data from speakers with phonetic- and prosodic-predominant PPAOS are used to characterize the progression of their motor speech impairment, including the development of dysarthria and mutism. Method: Data are presented from 52 speakers who had PPAOS at enrollment (i.e., progressive AOS in the absence of aphasia, cognitive, or other neurologic symptoms). Twenty-one had predominantly phonetic features, whereas 31 had primarily prosodic features. All participants underwent a comprehensive motor speech evaluation at their enrollment visit and each annual return visit, with a median of three visits per participant. Results: Almost 25% of the speakers with PPAOS presented with dysarthria at their enrollment visit (median disease duration of 3.65 years), whereas more than 70% of them had developed dysarthria by their last visit (median disease duration of 6.85 years). Neither the likelihood to develop dysarthria nor the disease duration at which it was detected differed significantly between the phonetic and prosodic groups. However, muteness emerged sooner for speakers with phonetic-predominant PPAOS; the median disease duration at which they became mute was 1.5 years shorter than for their prosodic counterparts. Conclusions: Clinically, these results facilitate more accurate prognostication of motor speech symptoms in speakers with PPAOS, allowing for timely introduction of alternative means of communication. The results also support the differentiation between progressive AOS and dysarthria as distinct motor speech disorders that often co-occur in these individuals.

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

AbstractProgressive apraxia of speech (PAOS) is a 4R tauopathy characterized by difficulties with motor speech planning. Neurodegeneration in PAOS targets the premotor cortex, particularly the supplementary motor area (SMA), with degeneration of white matter (WM) tracts connecting premotor and motor cortices and Broca's area observed on diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). We aimed to assess flortaucipir uptake across speech‐language‐related WM tracts identified using DTI tractography in PAOS. Twenty‐two patients with PAOS and 26 matched healthy controls were recruited by the Neurodegenerative Research Group (NRG) and underwent MRI and flortaucipir‐PET. The patient population included patients with primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS) and non‐fluent variant/agrammatic primary progressive aphasia (agPPA). Flortaucipir PET scans and DTI were coregistered using rigid registration with a mutual information cost function in subject space. Alignments between DTI and flortaucipir PET were inspected in all cases. Whole‐brain tractography was calculated using deterministic algorithms by a tractography reconstruction tool (DSI‐studio) and specific tracts were identified using an automatic fiber tracking atlas‐based method. Fractional anisotropy (FA) and flortaucipir standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) were averaged across the frontal aslant tract, arcuate fasciculi, inferior frontal‐occipital fasciculus, inferior and middle longitudinal fasciculi, as well as the SMA commissural fibers. Reduced FA (p < .0001) and elevated flortaucipir SUVR (p = .0012) were observed in PAOS cases compared to controls across all combined WM tracts. For flortaucipir SUVR, the greatest differentiation of PAOS from controls was achieved with the SMA commissural fibers (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve [AUROC] = 0.83), followed by the left arcuate fasciculus (AUROC = 0.75) and left frontal aslant tract (AUROC = 0.71). Our findings demonstrate that flortaucipir uptake is increased across WM tracts related to speech/language difficulties in PAOS.