Segmental and prosodic variability on repeated polysyllabic word production in acquired apraxia of speech plus aphasia
Segmental and prosodic variability on repeated polysyllabic word production in acquired apraxia of speech plus aphasia
复制标题
获得性言语失用症加失语症中重复多音节词产生的片段和韵律变异性
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
K. Ballard
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Scholl;P. Mccabe;R. Heard;K. Ballard
摘要背景：McNeil和他的同事们认为，与传导性失语患者相比，单纯言语失用症(AOS)患者在重复多音节单词中的语音错误类型和错误位置的变异性较低。虽然这一概念受到了挑战，但随后的研究在刺激和任务使用方面有所不同。目的：我们的目标是使用与McNeil和他的同事相同的刺激和任务，重新检查节段错误和词汇韵律错误的可变性，这些刺激和任务与McNeil和他的同事在AOS加失语症或失语症患者样本中使用的相同。考虑到这些疾病的高伴生性，这个样本被认为是临床相关的。方法和程序：研究对象为20名卒中相关AOS合并失语症患者和21名单纯性失语患者(APH)，他们的诊断基于专家的判断，采用已发表的标准。对10个复音词进行三次连续重复，并测量错误类型、错误位置和持续重音对比的变异性。结果与结果：与APH组相比，AOS组的错误在类型上的可变性更大，在Word中的位置更一致。AOS组总体上表现出更多的错误，在三次重复试验中提高音量的可能性较小，并且在前两个音节的元音持续时间上没有明显的差异(即，持续重音对比)。持续时间压力对比的测量比误差变异性的测量更能预测AOS的存在。结论：我们的发现与以前的工作不同，可能反映了当前研究中AOS合并失语症病例的更复杂的特征。虽然持续压力对比足以预测诊断组，但误差变异性测量与AOS显著相关，并有助于制定有针对性的干预目标。
ABSTRACT Background: McNeil and colleagues argued that individuals with pure apraxia of speech (AOS) have low variability of speech error type and error location within repeated multisyllabic words, compared to individuals with conduction aphasia. While this concept has been challenged, subsequent studies have varied in the stimuli and tasks used. Aims: Our aim was to re-examine the variability of segmental errors, as well as lexical prosodic errors, using the same stimuli and tasks as used by McNeil and colleagues in a sample of individuals with AOS plus aphasia or aphasia alone. This sample is considered to be clinically relevant given the high concomitance of these disorders. Methods & Procedures: Participants were 20 individuals with stroke-related AOS plus aphasia and 21 with aphasia alone (APH), with diagnosis based on expert judgments using published criteria. Three consecutive repetitions of 10 polysyllabic words were elicited and variability of error type, error location, and durational stress contrast was measured. Outcome & Results: Errors were significantly more variable in type and more consistent in location within word for the AOS group than the APH group. The AOS group showed a greater number of errors overall, were less likely to improve production over the three repetition trials, and produced no clear difference in vowel duration across the first two syllables (i.e., durational stress contrast) across repetitions. The measure of durational stress contrast was a stronger predictor of AOS presence than the measures of error variability. Conclusions: The divergence of our findings from previous work likely reflects the more complex profile of the AOS plus aphasia cases in the current study. While durational stress contrast was sufficient to predict diagnostic group, error variability measures were significantly associated with AOS and can contribute to developing targeted intervention goals.