Machulda, Mary M.

Purpose This study summarizes 2 illustrative cases of a neurodegenerative speech disorder, primary progressive apraxia of speech (AOS), as a vehicle for providing an overview of the disorder and an approach to describing and quantifying its perceptual features and some of its temporal acoustic attributes. Method Two individuals with primary progressive AOS underwent speech-language and neurologic evaluations on 2 occasions, ranging from 2.0 to 7.5 years postonset. Performance on several tests, tasks, and rating scales, as well as several acoustic measures, were compared over time within and between cases. Acoustic measures were compared with performance of control speakers. Results Both patients initially presented with AOS as the only or predominant sign of disease and without aphasia or dysarthria. The presenting features and temporal progression were captured in an AOS Rating Scale, an Articulation Error Score, and temporal acoustic measures of utterance duration, syllable rates per second, rates of speechlike alternating motion and sequential motion, and a pairwise variability index measure. Conclusions AOS can be the predominant manifestation of neurodegenerative disease. Clinical ratings of its attributes and acoustic measures of some of its temporal characteristics can support its diagnosis and help quantify its salient characteristics and progression over time.

ABSTRACTPURPOSETo determine interobserver spatial variability in language area localization using three commonly employed language tasks.MATERIALS AND METHODSWith institutional review board approval, 125 fMRI time series from 50 different clinical language cases were retrospectively reviewed by three blinded readers who selected 3‐dimensional points representing the perceived center of Wernicke's and Broca's areas using three language tasks (semantic decision, SD; sentence comprehension, SC; and silent word generation, WG). Point dispersion values were then calculated using the perimeter of the 3‐dimensional triangle defined by the three readers’ selections.RESULTSAfter resolving interobserver laterality disagreements, there was no difference in spatial variability between the three tasks (P = .069). The SD task had the fewest interobserver laterality disagreements (P = .028) and the SC task had fewer failed localizations for Broca's area (P = .050) and Wernicke's area (P = .013).CONCLUSIONWhile there were no differences between interobserver spatial variability in language area localization between the three tasks, language task choice impacts the accuracy of fMRI language area identification because tasks vary in their rates of interobserver laterality disagreements and failed localizations. A combination of tasks including one with low laterality disagreements (eg, SD) and one with few failed localizations (eg, SC) may offer the best combination.

AbstractBackgroundInexpensive, non‐invasive tools for assessing Alzheimer‐type pathophysiologies are needed. Computerized cognitive assessments are prime candidates.MethodsCognitively normal participants, aged 51–71, with magnetic resonance imaging, fluorodeoxyglucose‐positron emission tomography (FDG‐PET), amyloid PET, CogState computerized cognitive assessment, and standard neuropsychological tests were included. We first examined the association between the CogState battery and neuroimaging measures. We then compared that association to the one between standard neuropsychological z‐scores and neuroimaging.ResultsSlower reaction times for CogState Identification and One Back, and lower memory and attention z‐scores, were associated (P < .05) with FDG‐PET hypometabolism. Slower time on the Groton Maze Learning Task and worse One Card Learning accuracy were associated (P < .05) with smaller hippocampal volumes. There were no associations with amyloid PET. Associations of CogState and neuropsychological Z‐scores with neuroimaging were small and of a similar magnitude.ConclusionsCogState subtests were cross‐sectionally comparable to standard neuropsychological tests in their relatively weak associations with neurodegeneration imaging markers.