Citations

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.

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

Abstract Background Progressive apraxia of speech (PAOS) is characterized by difficulties with motor speech programming and planning. PAOS targets gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM) microstructure that can be assessed using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and multishell applications, such as neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI). In this study, we aimed to apply DTI and NODDI to add further insight into PAOS tissue microstructure. Methods Twenty‐two PAOS patients and 26 age‐ and sex‐matched controls, recruited by the Neurodegenerative Research Group (NRG) at Mayo Clinic, underwent diffusion MRI on 3T MRI. Brain maps of fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD) from DTI and intracellular volume fraction (ICVF) and isotropic volume fraction (IsoVF) from NODDI were generated. Global WM and GM, and specific WM tracts were identified using tractography and lobar GM regions. Results Global WM differences between PAOS and controls were greatest for ICVF, and global GM differences were greatest for MD and IsoVF. Abnormalities in key WM tracts involved in PAOS, including the body of the corpus callosum and frontal aslant tract, were identified with FA, MD, and ICVF, with excellent differentiation of PAOS from controls (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves >.90). MD and ICVF identified abnormalities in arcuate fasciculus, thalamic radiations, and corticostriatal tracts. Significant correlations were identified between an index of articulatory errors and DTI and NODDI metrics from the arcuate fasciculus, frontal aslant tract, and inferior longitudinal fasciculus. Conclusions DTI and NODDI represent different aspects of brain tissue microstructure, increasing the number of potential biomarkers for PAOS.

AbstractBackgroundPatients with a yes‐no reversal verbally and non‐verbally respond “yes” when they mean “no” and vice versa. They are typically aware of the error and able to correct it given additional time. This symptom commonly, but not exclusively, occurs in patients with primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS). PPAOS is a form of frontotemporal dementia associated with hypometabolism in the supplementary motor area (SMA; e.g., Utianski et al., 2018); as the disease progresses, a wider network of frontal and subcortical regions become implicated. Behaviorally, this symptom seems to reflect poor response inhibition, but the specific anatomical underpinning is not yet understood. Given the brain regions known to be involved in PPAOS, we hypothesized that yes‐no reversals emerge due to degeneration of regions near the SMA and/or frontostriatal regions.MethodWe conducted an exploratory retrospective study of 28 patients who presented with PPAOS and had an FDG‐PET scan; 14 (50%) endorsed yes‐no reversals (see Table 1 for group characteristics). Clinically, AOS severity was measured using clinician ratings (0 = absent, 4 = severe) and frontal dysfunction was captured by the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) and the Frontal Behavioral Inventory (FBI). We also measured median standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) in the SMA and pre‐SMA, as well as the head and body of the caudate with automated, in‐house software. The caudate ROI was selected based on visual comparison of the FDG‐PET scans between groups and the association between this region and inhibition during response interference (e.g., Schmidt et al., 2020).ResultNeither AOS severity nor hypometabolism in the pre‐SMA/SMA regions differed significantly between groups. In contrast, patients with a yes‐no reversal demonstrated significantly lower scores on the FAB and greater hypometabolism in the caudate body relative to patients without (see Figure 1).ConclusionResults suggest that yes‐no reversals relate to frontostriatal dysfunction rather than AOS severity or SMA activity in these patients. Further research is needed to address why a disproportionate number of patients with PPAOS develop this symptom.