Dataset Information

Computer-Mediated Assessment of Intelligibility in Aphasia and Apraxia of Speech.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Previous work indicates that single word intelligibility tests developed for dysarthria are sensitive to segmental production errors in aphasic individuals with and without apraxia of speech. However, potential listener learning effects and difficulties adapting elicitation procedures to coexisting language impairments limit their applicability to left hemisphere stroke survivors. AIMS: The main purpose of this study was to examine basic psychometric properties for a new monosyllabic intelligibility test developed for individuals with aphasia and/or AOS. A related purpose was to examine clinical feasibility and potential to standardize a computer-mediated administration approach. METHODS #ENTITYSTARTX00026; PROCEDURES: A 600-item monosyllabic single word intelligibility test was constructed by assembling sets of phonetically similar words. Custom software was used to select 50 target words from this test in a pseudo-random fashion and to elicit and record production of these words by 23 speakers with aphasia and 20 neurologically healthy participants. To evaluate test-retest reliability, two identical sets of 50-word lists were elicited by requesting repetition after a live speaker model. To examine the effect of a different word set and auditory model, an additional set of 50 different words was elicited with a pre-recorded model. The recorded words were presented to normal-hearing listeners for identification via orthographic and multiple-choice response formats. To examine construct validity, production accuracy for each speaker was estimated via phonetic transcription and rating of overall articulation. OUTCOMES #ENTITYSTARTX00026; RESULTS: Recording and listening tasks were completed in less than six minutes for all speakers and listeners. Aphasic speakers were significantly less intelligible than neurologically healthy speakers and displayed a wide range of intelligibility scores. Test-retest and inter-listener reliability estimates were strong. No significant difference was found in scores based on recordings from a live model versus a pre-recorded model, but some individual speakers favored the live model. Intelligibility test scores correlated highly with segmental accuracy derived from broad phonetic transcription of the same speech sample and a motor speech evaluation. Scores correlated moderately with rated articulation difficulty. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a computerized, single-word intelligibility test that yields clinically feasible, reliable, and valid measures of segmental speech production in adults with aphasia. This tool can be used in clinical research to facilitate appropriate participant selection and to establish matching across comparison groups. For a majority of speakers, elicitation procedures can be standardized by using a pre-recorded auditory model for repetition. This assessment tool has potential utility for both clinical assessment and outcomes research.

SUBMITTER: Haley KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3246841 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Computer-Mediated Assessment of Intelligibility in Aphasia and Apraxia of Speech.

Haley Katarina L KL Roth Heidi H Grindstaff Enetta E Jacks Adam A

Aphasiology 20110101 12

BACKGROUND: Previous work indicates that single word intelligibility tests developed for dysarthria are sensitive to segmental production errors in aphasic individuals with and without apraxia of speech. However, potential listener learning effects and difficulties adapting elicitation procedures to coexisting language impairments limit their applicability to left hemisphere stroke survivors. AIMS: The main purpose of this study was to examine basic psychometric properties for a new monosyllabi ...[more]

PMID: 22215933

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose Individuals with primary progressive apraxia of speech (AOS) have AOS in which disruptions in articulation and prosody predominate the speech pattern. Many develop aphasia and/or dysarthria later in the disease course. The aim of this study was to describe the communication limitations in these patients, as measured by (a) the patient via the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) and (b) the speech-language pathologist via the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's (ASHA) Functional Communication Measures (FCMs) and an adapted motor speech disorder (MSD) severity rating. Method Speech and language evaluations were completed for 24 patients with progressive AOS (n = 7 with isolated AOS; n = 17 with a combination of AOS and aphasia). Descriptive comparisons were utilized to evaluate differences in communication measures among patients with various combinations of MSDs and aphasia. Differences associated with phonetic predominant or prosodic predominant AOS were also examined. Across the entire cohort, correlations were calculated between the participation ratings and other clinical assessment measures. Results The CPIB reflected greater limitations for those with aphasia and AOS compared to isolated AOS, but was not notably different when dysarthria occurred with AOS (n = 9/24). Across the cohort, there were statistically significant correlations between the CPIB and ASHA FCM-Motor Speech and Language Expression ratings and the MSD severity rating. The CPIB did not correlate with the ASHA FCM-Language Comprehension or other speech-language measures. Conclusions Patients with neurodegenerative AOS experience reduced participation in communication that is further exacerbated by co-occurring language deficits. The study suggests measures of severity cannot be assumed to correlate with measures of participation restrictions and offers a foundation for further research examining the day-to-day sequela of progressive speech and language disorders. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12743252.

Project description:The consensus criteria for the diagnosis and classification of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) have served as an important tool in studying this group of disorders. However, a large proportion of patients remain unclassifiable whilst others simultaneously meet criteria for multiple subtypes. We prospectively evaluated a large cohort of patients with degenerative aphasia and/or apraxia of speech using multidisciplinary clinical assessments and multimodal imaging. Blinded diagnoses were made using operational definitions with important differences compared to the consensus criteria. Of the 130 included patients, 40 were diagnosed with progressive apraxia of speech (PAOS), 12 with progressive agrammatic aphasia, 9 with semantic dementia, 52 with logopenic progressive aphasia, and 4 with progressive fluent aphasia, while 13 were unclassified. The PAOS and progressive fluent aphasia groups were least impaired. Performance on repetition and sentence comprehension was especially poor in the logopenic group. The semantic and progressive fluent aphasia groups had prominent anomia, but only semantic subjects had loss of word meaning and object knowledge. Distinct patterns of grey matter loss and white matter changes were found in all groups compared to controls. PAOS subjects had bilateral frontal grey matter loss, including the premotor and supplementary motor areas, and bilateral frontal white matter involvement. The agrammatic group had more widespread, predominantly left sided grey matter loss and white matter abnormalities. Semantic subjects had bitemporal grey matter loss and white matter changes, including the uncinate and inferior occipitofrontal fasciculi, whereas progressive fluent subjects only had left sided temporal involvement. Logopenic subjects had diffuse and bilateral grey matter loss and diffusion tensor abnormalities, maximal in the posterior temporal region. A diagnosis of logopenic aphasia was strongly associated with being amyloid positive (46/52 positive). Our findings support consideration of an alternative way of identifying and categorizing subtypes of degenerative speech and language disorders.

Project description:Beta-amyloid (A?) deposition can be observed in primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and progressive apraxia of speech (PAOS). While it is typically associated with logopenic PPA, there are exceptions that make predicting A? status challenging based on clinical diagnosis alone. We aimed to determine whether MRI regional volumes or clinical data could help predict A? deposition. One hundred and thirty-nine PPA (n = 97; 15 agrammatic, 53 logopenic, 13 semantic and 16 unclassified) and PAOS (n = 42) subjects were prospectively recruited into a cross-sectional study and underwent speech/language assessments, 3.0 T MRI and C11-Pittsburgh Compound B PET. The presence of A? was determined using a 1.5 SUVR cut-point. Atlas-based parcellation was used to calculate gray matter volumes of 42 regions-of-interest across the brain. Penalized binary logistic regression was utilized to determine what combination of MRI regions, and what combination of speech and language tests, best predicts A? (+) status. The optimal MRI model and optimal clinical model both performed comparably in their ability to accurately classify subjects according to A? status. MRI accurately classified 81% of subjects using 14 regions. Small left superior temporal and inferior parietal volumes and large left Broca's area volumes were particularly predictive of A? (+) status. Clinical scores accurately classified 83% of subjects using 12 tests. Phonological errors and repetition deficits, and absence of agrammatism and motor speech deficits were particularly predictive of A? (+) status. In comparison, clinical diagnosis was able to accurately classify 89% of subjects. However, the MRI model performed well in predicting A? deposition in unclassified PPA. Clinical diagnosis provides optimum prediction of A? status at the group level, although regional MRI measurements and speech and language testing also performed well and could have advantages in predicting A? status in unclassified PPA subjects.

Project description:Objective: Aphasia and apraxia of speech (AOS) after stroke frequently co-occur with a hand motor impairment but few studies have investigated stroke recovery across motor and speech-language domains. In this study, we set out to test the shared recovery hypothesis. We aimed to (1) describe the prevalence of AOS and aphasia in subacute stroke patients with a hand motor impairment and (2) to compare recovery across speech-language and hand motor domains. In addition, we also explored factors predicting recovery from AOS. Methods: Seventy participants with mild to severe paresis in the upper extremity were assessed; 50% of these (n = 35) had left hemisphere (LH) lesions. Aphasia, AOS and hand motor assessments and magnetic resonance imaging were conducted at 4 weeks (A1) and at 6 months (A2) after stroke onset. Recovery was characterized in 15 participants showing initial aphasia that also had complete follow-up data at 6 months. Results: All participants with AOS and/or aphasia had LH lesions. In LH lesioned, the prevalence of aphasia was 71% and of AOS 57%. All participants with AOS had aphasia; 80% of the participants with aphasia also had AOS. Recovery in aphasia (n = 15) and AOS (n = 12) followed a parallel pattern to that observed in hand motor impairment and recovery correlated positively across speech-language and motor domains. The majority of participants with severe initial aphasia and AOS showed a limited but similar amount of recovery across domains. Lesion volume did not correlate with results from behavioral assessments, nor with recovery. The initial aphasia score was the strongest predictor of AOS recovery. Conclusion: Our findings confirm the common occurrence of AOS and aphasia in left hemisphere stroke patients with a hand motor impairment. Recovery was similar across speech-language and motor domains, even in patients with severe impairment, supporting the shared recovery hypothesis and that similar brain recovery mechanisms are involved in speech-language and motor recovery post stroke. These observations contribute to the knowledge of AOS and its relation to motor and language functions and add information that may serve as a basis for future studies of post stroke recovery. Studies including neuroimaging and/or biological assays are required to gain further knowledge on shared brain recovery mechanisms.

Project description:Purpose Individuals with primary progressive apraxia of speech have apraxia of speech (AOS) as the initial and predominant symptom. Many develop aphasia and/or dysarthria later in the disease course. It was previously demonstrated that patients with neurodegenerative AOS experience reduced participation in communication that is further exacerbated by co-occurring language deficits (Utianski et al., 2020). Measures of disease severity did not necessarily correlate with measures of participation restrictions. The aim of this follow-up study was to describe changes in communication limitations in these patients, again measured by (a) the patient via the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) and (b) the speech-language pathologist via the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's (ASHA's) Functional Communication Measures (FCMs) and an adapted motor speech disorder (MSD) severity rating to determine if there are significant changes in these and other objective speech and language measures at follow-up after 1 year. Method Of the 24 patients reported in the study of Utianski et al. (2020), 17 (10 men, seven women) returned for a second visit approximately 1 year following the first visit. Identical procedures were utilized; the communication measures collected at each visit were statistically compared. Correlations were calculated between the participation ratings and other clinical assessment measures at the second visit and for the change in scores on those measures between the first and second visits. Results There were statistically significant differences in AOS and aphasia severity between visits. There were significant changes in clinical assessments, MSD severity rating, and all ASHA FCMs between visits, but not the CPIB. Correlation analyses suggest the relationships among clinical and participation measures are complex; overall, patients with more severe changes in AOS experienced greater changes in participation restrictions. Conclusions The findings of this study support the use of patient-reported outcome measures as they may better reflect the patient experience, including the influence of factors such as ongoing speech therapy and the emergence of neuropsychiatric features, and associated changes in day-to-day functioning, when other measures may simply index the progression of the disease. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16528512.

Dataset Information

Computer-Mediated Assessment of Intelligibility in Aphasia and Apraxia of Speech.

Publications

Computer-Mediated Assessment of Intelligibility in Aphasia and Apraxia of Speech.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets