Repeated word production is inconsistent in both aphasia and apraxia of speech.

PURPOSE: There is persistent uncertainty about whether sound error consistency is a valid criterion for differentiating between apraxia of speech (AOS) and aphasia with phonemic paraphasia. The purpose of this study was to determine whether speakers with a profile of aphasia and AOS differ in error consistency from speakers with aphasia who do not have AOS. By accounting for differences in overall severity and using a sample size well over three times that of the largest study on the topic to date, our ambition was to resolve the existing controversy. METHOD: We analyzed speech samples from 171 speakers with aphasia and completed error consistency analysis for 137 of them. The experimental task was to repeat four multisyllabic words five times successively. Phonetic transcriptions were coded for four consistency indices (two at the sound-level and two at the word-level). We then used quantitative metrics to assign participants to four diagnostic groups (one aphasia plus AOS group, one aphasia only group, and two groups with intermediate speech profiles). Potential consistency differences were examined with ANCOVA, with error frequency as a continuous covariate. RESULTS: Error frequency was a strong predictor for three of the four consistency metrics. The magnitude of consistency for participants with AOS was either similar or lower compared to that of participants with aphasia only. Despite excellent transcription reliability and moderate to excellent coding reliability, three of the four consistency indices showed limited measurement reliability. DISCUSSION: People with AOS and people with aphasia often produce inconsistent variants of errors when they are asked to repeat challenging words several times sequentially. The finding that error consistency is similar or lower in aphasia with AOS than in aphasia without AOS is incompatible with recommendations that high error consistency be used as a diagnostic criterion for AOS. At the same time, group differences in the opposite direction are not sufficiently systematic to warrant use for differential diagnosis between aphasia with AOS and aphasia with phonemic paraphasia. Greater attention should be given to error propagation when estimating reliability of derived measurements.

Speech Metrics and Samples That Differentiate Between Nonfluent/Agrammatic and Logopenic Variants of Primary Progressive Aphasia.

Purpose Of the three currently recognized variants of primary progressive aphasia, behavioral differentiation between the nonfluent/agrammatic (nfvPPA) and logopenic (lvPPA) variants is particularly difficult. The challenge includes uncertainty regarding diagnosis of apraxia of speech, which is subsumed within criteria for variant classification. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which a variety of speech articulation and prosody metrics for apraxia of speech differentiate between nfvPPA and lvPPA across diverse speech samples. Method The study involved 25 participants with progressive aphasia (10 with nfvPPA, 10 with lvPPA, and five with the semantic variant). Speech samples included a word repetition task, a picture description task, and a story narrative task. We completed acoustic analyses of temporal prosody and quantitative perceptual analyses based on narrow phonetic transcription and then evaluated the degree of differentiation between nfvPPA and lvPPA participants (with the semantic variant serving as a reference point for minimal speech production impairment). Results Most, but not all, articulatory and prosodic metrics differentiated statistically between the nfvPPA and lvPPA groups. Measures of distortion frequency, syllable duration, syllable scanning, and-to a limited extent-syllable stress and phonemic accuracy showed greater impairment in the nfvPPA group. Contrary to expectations, classification was most accurate in connected speech samples. A customized connected speech metric-the narrative syllable duration-yielded excellent to perfect classification accuracy. Discussion Measures of average syllable duration in multisyllabic utterances are useful diagnostic tools for differentiating between nfvPPA and lvPPA, particularly when based on connected speech samples. As such, they are suitable candidates for automatization, large-scale study, and application to clinical practice. The observation that both speech rate and distortion frequency differentiated more effectively in connected speech than on a motor speech examination suggests that it will be important to evaluate interactions between speech and discourse production in future research.

Measuring Lexical Diversity for Discourse Analysis in Aphasia: Moving-Average Type-Token Ratio and Word Information Measure.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the utility of two automated indices of lexical diversity, the Moving-Average Type-Token Ratio (MATTR) and the Word Information Measure (WIM), in predicting aphasia diagnosis and responding to differences in severity and aphasia subtype. Method Transcripts of a single discourse task were analyzed for 478 speakers, 225 of whom had aphasia per an aphasia battery. We calculated the MATTR and the WIM for each participant. We compared the group means among speakers with aphasia, neurotypical controls, and left-hemisphere stroke survivors with mild aphasia not detected by an aphasia battery. We examined whether each measure distinguished levels of aphasia severity and subtypes of aphasia. We used each measure to classify aphasia versus neurotypical control and compared the areas under the curve. Results The WIM and the MATTR differentiated among people with aphasia, neurotypical controls, and people with mild aphasia. Both measures demonstrated moderately high predictive accuracy in classifying aphasia. The WIM demonstrated greater sensitivity to aphasia severity and subtype compared to the MATTR. Conclusions The WIM and the MATTR are promising measures that quantify lexical diversity in different and complementary ways. The WIM may be more useful for quantifying the effect of treatment or disease progression, whereas the MATTR may be more useful for discriminating discourse produced by people with very mild aphasia from discourse produced by neurotypical controls. Further validation is required.

Automating Error Frequency Analysis via the Phonemic Edit Distance Ratio.

Purpose Many communication disorders result in speech sound errors that listeners perceive as phonemic errors. Unfortunately, manual methods for calculating phonemic error frequency are prohibitively time consuming to use in large-scale research and busy clinical settings. The purpose of this study was to validate an automated analysis based on a string metric-the unweighted Levenshtein edit distance-to express phonemic error frequency after left hemisphere stroke. Method Audio-recorded speech samples from 65 speakers who repeated single words after a clinician were transcribed phonetically. By comparing these transcriptions to the target, we calculated the percent segments with a combination of phonemic substitutions, additions, and omissions and derived the phonemic edit distance ratio, which theoretically corresponds to percent segments with these phonemic errors. Results Convergent validity between the manually calculated error frequency and the automated edit distance ratio was excellent, as demonstrated by nearly perfect correlations and negligible mean differences. The results were replicated across 2 speech samples and 2 computation applications. Conclusions The phonemic edit distance ratio is well suited to estimate phonemic error rate and proves itself for immediate application to research and clinical practice. It can be calculated from any paired strings of transcription symbols and requires no additional steps, algorithms, or judgment concerning alignment between target and production. We recommend it as a valid, simple, and efficient substitute for manual calculation of error frequency.

Collaborative Goals for Communicative Life Participation in Aphasia: The FOURC Model.

Purpose Collaborative goal setting is at the heart of person-centered rehabilitation but can be challenging, particularly in the area of aphasia. The purpose of this clinical focus article is to present a step-by-step model for forming a collaborative partnership with clients to develop an intervention plan that follows the client's lead, addresses communicative participation, and integrates multiple treatment strategies. Method We introduce the rationale and core features of a 4-step and 4-pronged process (the FOURC model) and illustrate its application through 3 cases of people with aphasia who were treated in outpatient rehabilitation. Conclusions The model invites client initiative in a clinically feasible manner while supporting the clinician's role in guiding the intervention based on professional expertise and growing familiarity with the case. Outcomes observed in case studies include strengthened motivation and improved real-life communication.

Error Consistency in Acquired Apraxia of Speech With Aphasia: Effects of the Analysis Unit.

Purpose: Diagnostic recommendations for acquired apraxia of speech (AOS) have been contradictory concerning whether speech sound errors are consistent or variable. Studies have reported divergent findings that, on face value, could argue either for or against error consistency as a diagnostic criterion. The purpose of this study was to explain discrepancies in error consistency results based on the unit of analysis (segment, syllable, or word) to help determine which diagnostic recommendation is most appropriate. Method: We analyzed speech samples from 14 left-hemisphere stroke survivors with clinical diagnoses of AOS and aphasia. Each participant produced 3 multisyllabic words 5 times in succession. Broad phonetic transcriptions of these productions were coded for consistency of error location and type using the word and its constituent syllables and sound segments as units of analysis. Results: Consistency of error type varied systematically with the unit of analysis, showing progressively greater consistency as the analysis unit changed from the word to the syllable and then to the sound segment. Consistency of error location varied considerably across participants and correlated positively with error frequency. Conclusions: Low to moderate consistency of error type at the word level confirms original diagnostic accounts of speech output and sound errors in AOS as variable in form. Moderate to high error type consistency at the syllable and sound levels indicate that phonetic error patterns are present. The results are complementary and logically compatible with each other and with the literature.

Error variability and the differentiation between apraxia of speech and aphasia with phonemic paraphasia.

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to evaluate the clinical utility of error variability for differentiating between apraxia of speech (AOS) and aphasia with phonemic paraphasia. METHOD: Participants were 32 individuals with aphasia after left cerebral injury. Diagnostic groups were formed on the basis of operationalized measures of recognized articulatory and prosodic characteristics of AOS and phonemic paraphasia. Sequential repetitions of multisyllabic words were elicited as part of a motor speech evaluation and transcribed phonetically. Four metrics of variability at the syllable and word levels were derived from these transcripts. RESULTS: The measures yielded different magnitudes of variability. There were no group differences between participants who displayed speech profiles consistent with AOS and participants who displayed speech profiles indicative of aphasia with phonemic paraphasia. Rather, correlation coefficients and analyses of covariance showed that the variability metrics were significantly mediated by overall error rate. Additionally, variability scores for individuals with salient diagnoses of AOS and conduction aphasia were inconsistent with current diagnostic guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The results do not support diagnostic validity of error variability for differentiating between AOS and aphasia with phonemic paraphasia. Future research using error variability metrics should account for overall error rate in the analysis and matching of participant groups.