Dataset Information

Nonverbal oral apraxia in primary progressive aphasia and apraxia of speech.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The goal of this study was to explore the prevalence of nonverbal oral apraxia (NVOA), its association with other forms of apraxia, and associated imaging findings in patients with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and progressive apraxia of speech (PAOS).

Methods

Patients with a degenerative speech or language disorder were prospectively recruited and diagnosed with a subtype of PPA or with PAOS. All patients had comprehensive speech and language examinations. Voxel-based morphometry was performed to determine whether atrophy of a specific region correlated with the presence of NVOA.

Results

Eighty-nine patients were identified, of which 34 had PAOS, 9 had agrammatic PPA, 41 had logopenic aphasia, and 5 had semantic dementia. NVOA was very common among patients with PAOS but was found in patients with PPA as well. Several patients exhibited only one of NVOA or apraxia of speech. Among patients with apraxia of speech, the severity of the apraxia of speech was predictive of NVOA, whereas ideomotor apraxia severity was predictive of the presence of NVOA in those without apraxia of speech. Bilateral atrophy of the prefrontal cortex anterior to the premotor area and supplementary motor area was associated with NVOA.

Conclusions

Apraxia of speech, NVOA, and ideomotor apraxia are at least partially separable disorders. The association of NVOA and apraxia of speech likely results from the proximity of the area reported here and the premotor area, which has been implicated in apraxia of speech. The association of ideomotor apraxia and NVOA among patients without apraxia of speech could represent disruption of modules shared by nonverbal oral movements and limb movements.

SUBMITTER: Botha H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4032207 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nonverbal oral apraxia in primary progressive aphasia and apraxia of speech.

Botha Hugo H Duffy Joseph R JR Strand Edythe A EA Machulda Mary M MM Whitwell Jennifer L JL Josephs Keith A KA

Neurology 20140411 19

<h4>Objective</h4>The goal of this study was to explore the prevalence of nonverbal oral apraxia (NVOA), its association with other forms of apraxia, and associated imaging findings in patients with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and progressive apraxia of speech (PAOS).<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with a degenerative speech or language disorder were prospectively recruited and diagnosed with a subtype of PPA or with PAOS. All patients had comprehensive speech and language examinations. Voxel-bas ...[more]

PMID: 24727315

Similar Datasets

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: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:Apraxia of speech is a disorder of speech motor planning and/or programming that is distinguishable from aphasia and dysarthria. It most commonly results from vascular insults but can occur in degenerative diseases where it has typically been subsumed under aphasia, or it occurs in the context of more widespread neurodegeneration. The aim of this study was to determine whether apraxia of speech can present as an isolated sign of neurodegenerative disease. Between July 2010 and July 2011, 37 subjects with a neurodegenerative speech and language disorder were prospectively recruited and underwent detailed speech and language, neurological, neuropsychological and neuroimaging testing. The neuroimaging battery included 3.0 tesla volumetric head magnetic resonance imaging, [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and [(11)C] Pittsburg compound B positron emission tomography scanning. Twelve subjects were identified as having apraxia of speech without any signs of aphasia based on a comprehensive battery of language tests; hence, none met criteria for primary progressive aphasia. These subjects with primary progressive apraxia of speech included eight females and four males, with a mean age of onset of 73 years (range: 49-82). There were no specific additional shared patterns of neurological or neuropsychological impairment in the subjects with primary progressive apraxia of speech, but there was individual variability. Some subjects, for example, had mild features of behavioural change, executive dysfunction, limb apraxia or Parkinsonism. Voxel-based morphometry of grey matter revealed focal atrophy of superior lateral premotor cortex and supplementary motor area. Voxel-based morphometry of white matter showed volume loss in these same regions but with extension of loss involving the inferior premotor cortex and body of the corpus callosum. These same areas of white matter loss were observed with diffusion tensor imaging analysis, which also demonstrated reduced fractional anisotropy and increased mean diffusivity of the superior longitudinal fasciculus, particularly the premotor components. Statistical parametric mapping of the [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scans revealed focal hypometabolism of superior lateral premotor cortex and supplementary motor area, although there was some variability across subjects noted with CortexID analysis. [(11)C]-Pittsburg compound B positron emission tomography binding was increased in only one of the 12 subjects, although it was unclear whether the increase was actually related to the primary progressive apraxia of speech. A syndrome characterized by progressive pure apraxia of speech clearly exists, with a neuroanatomic correlate of superior lateral premotor and supplementary motor atrophy, making this syndrome distinct from primary progressive aphasia.

Project description:Purpose Individuals with primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS) have apraxia of speech (AOS) in which disruptions in articulation or prosody predominate the speech pattern, referred to, respectively, as phonetic or prosodic subtypes. Many develop aphasia and/or dysarthria. Past research has demonstrated that simple temporal acoustic measures are sensitive to the presence of AOS. The aim of this study was to describe the change in temporal acoustic measures over time and assess if specific patterns of AOS or co-occurring aphasia or dysarthria impact the rate of change over time. Method Durations for multiple productions of the words cat, catnip, catapult, and catastrophe, in an imitative speech task, were recorded for 73 patients, with two to six visits each. A linear mixed-effects model was used to assess the cross-sectional differences and longitudinal influence of AOS subtype and presence of aphasia/dysarthria on speech rate. Pearson correlations were calculated between rate measures and performance on other clinical measures. Results Cross-sectionally, patients with prosodic-predominant PPAOS produced words more slowly than those with phonetic-predominant PPAOS. Patients with either aphasia or dysarthria produced words more slowly than those without. Longitudinally, the speech rate of patients with phonetic-predominant PPAOS had a reduction of 0.5 syllables per second per year. Patients with prosodic-predominant AOS changed less quickly, as did those who developed aphasia. Dysarthria did not impact rate of change. There were strong associations between speech rate measures and other clinical indices of speech and language functioning. Conclusion Simple temporal acoustic measures may reflect the subtype of AOS (phonetic or prosodic predominant), serve as an index of progression of AOS, and inform prognostication relative to the presenting combination of speech and language features. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.13564724.

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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo automatically extract and quantify specific disease biomarkers of prosody from the acoustic properties of speech in patients with primary progressive aphasia.MethodsWe analyzed speech samples from 59 progressive aphasic patients (non-fluent/agrammatic = 15, semantic = 21, logopenic = 23; ages 50-85 years) and 31 matched healthy controls (ages 54-89 years). Using a novel, automated speech analysis protocol, we extracted acoustic measurements of prosody, including fundamental frequency and speech and silent pause durations, and compared these between groups. We then examined their relationships with clinical tests, gray matter atrophy, and cerebrospinal fluid analytes.ResultsWe found a narrowed range of fundamental frequency in patients with non-fluent/agrammatic variant aphasia (mean 3.86 ± 1.15 semitones) compared with healthy controls (6.06 ± 1.95 semitones; P < 0.001) and patients with semantic variant aphasia (6.12 ± 1.77 semitones; P = 0.001). Mean pause rate was significantly increased in the non-fluent/agrammatic group (mean 61.4 ± 20.8 pauses per minute) and the logopenic group (58.7 ± 16.4 pauses per minute) compared to controls. In an exploratory analysis, narrowed fundamental frequency range was associated with atrophy in the left inferior frontal cortex. Cerebrospinal level of phosphorylated tau was associated with an acoustic classifier combining fundamental frequency range and pause rate (r = 0.58, P = 0.007). Receiver operating characteristic analysis with this combined classifier distinguished non-fluent/agrammatic speakers from healthy controls (AUC = 0.94) and from semantic variant patients (AUC = 0.86).InterpretationRestricted fundamental frequency range and increased pause rate are characteristic markers of speech in non-fluent/agrammatic primary progressive aphasia. These can be extracted with automated speech analysis and are associated with left inferior frontal atrophy and cerebrospinal phosphorylated tau level.

Dataset Information

Nonverbal oral apraxia in primary progressive aphasia and apraxia of speech.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Nonverbal oral apraxia in primary progressive aphasia and apraxia of speech.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets