Contribution of acoustic analysis to the detection of vocoid epenthesis in apraxia of speech and other motor speech disorders.
Apraxia of speech
acoustic analysis
differential diagnosis
dysarthria
vocoid epenthesis
Journal
Aphasiology
ISSN: 0268-7038
Titre abrégé: Aphasiology
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8708531
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
entrez:
20
6
2022
pubmed:
21
6
2022
medline:
21
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Vocoid epenthesis within consonant clusters has been claimed to contribute to the diagnosis of apraxia of speech. In clinical practice, the clinicians often doubt about the correct production of clusters as the C-C transition may be minimally disrupted. To demonstrate the value of acoustic analysis in clinical practice as a reliable complement to perceptive judgment. We compared the acoustic signature and the perceptive detection of vocoid epentheses in unvoiced consonant clusters within pseudo-words produced by 40 participants presenting different subtypes of motor speech disorders (including apraxia of speech (AoS) and dysarthria) and matched neurotypical controls. The results indicate that vocoid epenthesis was acoustically visible in 3 out of 10 participants with AoS, and in one out of 30 participants with dysarthria. One-quarter of these vocoid epentheses was not detected via auditory perception by expert listeners (speech and language therapists) who also made false detections. The current results indicate that vocoid epenthesis is not systematic at least in mild AoS. Moreover, an important proportion is misdetected by ear, even by expert clinicians, meaning that visualisation of the acoustic signal can be of precious help.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Vocoid epenthesis within consonant clusters has been claimed to contribute to the diagnosis of apraxia of speech. In clinical practice, the clinicians often doubt about the correct production of clusters as the C-C transition may be minimally disrupted.
Aims
UNASSIGNED
To demonstrate the value of acoustic analysis in clinical practice as a reliable complement to perceptive judgment.
Methods & Procedures
UNASSIGNED
We compared the acoustic signature and the perceptive detection of vocoid epentheses in unvoiced consonant clusters within pseudo-words produced by 40 participants presenting different subtypes of motor speech disorders (including apraxia of speech (AoS) and dysarthria) and matched neurotypical controls.
Outcomes & Results
UNASSIGNED
The results indicate that vocoid epenthesis was acoustically visible in 3 out of 10 participants with AoS, and in one out of 30 participants with dysarthria. One-quarter of these vocoid epentheses was not detected via auditory perception by expert listeners (speech and language therapists) who also made false detections.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
The current results indicate that vocoid epenthesis is not systematic at least in mild AoS. Moreover, an important proportion is misdetected by ear, even by expert clinicians, meaning that visualisation of the acoustic signal can be of precious help.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35720256
doi: 10.1080/02687038.2021.1914815
pii: 1914815
pmc: PMC9197203
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
854-867Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Références
Brain Lang. 1980 Mar;9(2):153-70
pubmed: 7363061
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007 Dec;50(6):1481-95
pubmed: 18055769
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012 Oct;55(5):S1502-17
pubmed: 23033444
Brain Lang. 2004 Jan;88(1):148-59
pubmed: 14698739
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000 Oct;43(5):1275-89
pubmed: 11063247
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020 Sep 15;63(9):2952-2994
pubmed: 32783767
Brain. 2012 May;135(Pt 5):1522-36
pubmed: 22382356
Cortex. 2012 Sep;48(8):963-71
pubmed: 21513930
Aphasiology. 2018;32(8):902-921
pubmed: 30297975
Clin Linguist Phon. 2003 Sep;17(6):427-45
pubmed: 14564830
Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2019 Nov;54(6):875-893
pubmed: 31322824
Brain Lang. 1986 Sep;29(1):34-47
pubmed: 3756460
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2005 Oct;22(7):817-50
pubmed: 21038278
Neuropsychologia. 2015 May;71:64-83
pubmed: 25772602
Clin Linguist Phon. 2021 Nov 2;35(11):1060-1075
pubmed: 33478251
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012 Oct;55(5):S1485-501
pubmed: 23033443
Clin Linguist Phon. 2017;31(1):1-3
pubmed: 27925482
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2017 Oct - Dec;34(7-8):482-487
pubmed: 29457554
Span J Psychol. 2012 Jul;15(2):495-504
pubmed: 22774423
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003 Aug;46(4):990-1008
pubmed: 12959475
J Neurol. 2008 Oct;255(10):1545-8
pubmed: 18769860