Our findings underscore the need for future specification of the integrity of language in epilepsy, particularly with respect to discourse and high-level language abilities. Increased awareness of epilepsy-related language issues and understanding the patients' perspectives about their language concerns will allow researchers and speech-language pathologists to utilize appropriate assessments and improve quality of care.

Purpose Spoken discourse analysis is commonly employed in the assessment and treatment of people living with aphasia, yet there is no standardization in assessment, analysis, or reporting procedures, thereby precluding comparison/meta-analyses of data and hindering replication of findings. An important first step is to identify current practices in collecting and analyzing spoken discourse in aphasia. Thus, this study surveyed current practices, with the goal of working toward standardizing spoken discourse assessment first in research settings with subsequent implementation into clinical settings. Method A mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative) survey was publicized to researchers and clinicians around the globe who have collected and/or analyzed spoken discourse data in aphasia. The survey data were collected between September and November 2019. Results Of the 201 individuals who consented to participate, 189 completed all mandatory questions in the survey (with fewer completing nonmandatory response questions). The majority of respondents reported barriers to utilizing discourse including transcription, coding, and analysis. The most common barrier was time (e.g., lack of time). Respondents also indicated that there was a lack of, and a need for, psychometric properties and normative data for spoken discourse use in the assessment and treatment of persons with aphasia. Quantitative and qualitative results are described in detail. Conclusions The current survey study evaluated spoken discourse methods in aphasia across research and clinical settings. Findings from this study will be used to guide development of process standardization in spoken discourse and for the creation of a psychometric and normative property database. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.166395100

Purpose: The heterogeneous nature of measures, methods, and analyses reported in the aphasia spoken discourse literature precludes comparison of outcomes across studies (e.g., meta-analyses) and inhibits replication. Furthermore, funding and time constraints significantly hinder collecting test-retest data on spoken discourse outcomes. This research note describes the development and structure of a working group, designed to address major gaps in the spoken discourse aphasia literature, including a lack of standardization in methodology, analysis, and reporting, as well as nominal data regarding the psychometric properties of spoken discourse outcomes.Method: The initial initiatives for this working group are to: 1) propose recommendations regarding standardization of spoken discourse collection, analysis, and reporting in aphasia, based on the results of an international survey and a systematic literature review; and, 2) create a database of test-retest spoken discourse data from individuals with and without aphasia. The survey of spoken discourse collection, analysis, and interpretation procedures was distributed to clinicians and researchers involved in aphasia assessment and rehabilitation September – November 2019. We will publish survey results and recommend standards for collecting, analyzing, and reporting spoken discourse in aphasia. A multisite endeavor to collect test-retest spoken discourse data from individuals with and without aphasia will be initiated. This test-retest information will be contributed to a central site for transcription and analysis, and data will be subsequently openly curated.Conclusion: The goal of the working group is to create recommendations for field-wide standards in methods, analysis and reporting of spoken discourse outcomes, as has been done across other related disciplines (e.g., CONSORT, EQUATOR, COBIDAS). Additionally, the creation of a database through our multi-site collaboration will allow the identification of psychometrically sound outcome measures and norms that can be used by clinicians and researchers to assess spoken discourse abilities in aphasia.

Purpose The heterogeneous nature of measures, methods, and analyses reported in the aphasia spoken discourse literature precludes comparison of outcomes across studies (e.g., meta-analyses) and inhibits replication. Furthermore, funding and time constraints significantly hinder collecting test–retest data on spoken discourse outcomes. This research note describes the development and structure of a working group, designed to address major gaps in the spoken discourse aphasia literature, including a lack of standardization in methodology, analysis, and reporting, as well as nominal data regarding the psychometric properties of spoken discourse outcomes. Method The initial initiatives for this working group are to (a) propose recommendations regarding standardization of spoken discourse collection, analysis, and reporting in aphasia, based on the results of an international survey and a systematic literature review and (b) create a database of test–retest spoken discourse data from individuals with and without aphasia. The survey of spoken discourse collection, analysis, and interpretation procedures was distributed to clinicians and researchers involved in aphasia assessment and rehabilitation from September to November 2019. We will publish survey results and recommend standards for collecting, analyzing, and reporting spoken discourse in aphasia. A multisite endeavor to collect test–retest spoken discourse data from individuals with and without aphasia will be initiated. This test–retest information will be contributed to a central site for transcription and analysis, and data will be subsequently openly curated. Conclusion The goal of the working group is to create recommendations for field-wide standards in methods, analysis, and reporting of spoken discourse outcomes, as has been done across other related disciplines (e.g., Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research, Committee on Best Practice in Data Analysis and Sharing). Additionally, the creation of a database through our multisite collaboration will allow the identification of psychometrically sound outcome measures and norms that can be used by clinicians and researchers to assess spoken discourse abilities in aphasia.

Background and aim: Speech and language characteristics of connected speech provide a valuable tool for identifying, diagnosing and monitoring progression in Alzheimer's Disease (AD). Our knowledge of linguistic features of connected speech in AD is primarily derived from English speakers; very little is known regarding patterns of linguistic deficits in speakers of other languages, such as Bengali. Bengali is a highly inflected pro-drop language from the Indo-Aryan language family. It is the seventh most spoken language in the world, yet to date, no studies have investigated the profile of linguistic impairments in Bengali speakers with AD. The aim of this study was to characterize connected speech production and identify the linguistic features affected in Bengali speakers with AD.Methods: Participants were six Bengali speaking AD patients and eight matched controls from the urban metropolis, Kolkata, India. Narrative samples were elicited in Bengali using the Frog Story. Samples were analyzed using the Quantitative Production Analysis and the Correct Information Unit analyses to quantify six different aspects of speech production: speech rate, structural and syntactic measures, lexical measures, morphological and inflectional measures, semantic measures and measure of spontaneity and fluency disruptions.Results and conclusions: In line with the extant literature from English speakers, the Bengali AD participants demonstrated decreased speech rate, simplicity of sentence forms and structures, and reduced semantic content. Critically, differences with English speakers' literature emerged in the domains of Bengali specific linguistic features, such as the pro-drop nature of Bengali and its inflectional properties of nominal and verbal systems. Bengali AD participants produced fewer pronouns, which is in direct contrast with the overuse of pronouns by English AD participants. No obvious difficulty in producing nominal and verbal inflections was evident. However, differences in the type of noun inflections were evident; these were characterized by simpler inflectional features used by AD speakers. This study represents the first of its kind to characterize connected speech production in Bengali AD participants and is a significant step forward toward the development of language-specific clinical markers in AD. It also provides a framework for cross-linguistic comparisons across structurally distinct and under-explored languages.

Features of linguistic impairment in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are primarily derived from English-speaking patients. Little is known regarding such deficits in linguistically diverse speakers with AD. We aimed to detail linguistic profiles (speech rate, dysfluencies, syntactic, lexical, morphological, semantics) from two connected speech tasks–Frog Story and picture description–in Bengali-speaking AD patients. The Frog Story detected group differences on all six linguistic levels, compared to only three with picture description. Critically, Frog Story captured the language-specific differences between the groups. Careful consideration should be given to the choice of connected speech tasks for dementia diagnosis in linguistically diverse populations.

Purpose Cognition and language difficulties are frequently reported in both children and adults with epilepsy. The majority of the existing research has focused on pediatric epilepsy, documenting impairments in learning, academics, and social–emotional functioning. In comparison, language deficits in younger and older adults with epilepsy have received less empirical attention. Given recently identified limitations in the extant literature regarding assessing epilepsy-related language problems in adults ( Dutta et al., 2018 ), the current exploratory study described in this research note investigated the cognitive–linguistic abilities of adults with focal or generalized types of epilepsy. Method Twelve participants with epilepsy and 11 age- and education-matched healthy controls completed a cognitive–linguistic test battery. Event-related potential (ERP) procedures were also employed to assess the integrity of neural activity supporting psycholinguistic processing in both groups using a lexical decision task. Results No significant performance differences between epilepsy and healthy control groups were noted on basic language tasks; however, group differences were evident on the more complex language measures, including spoken discourse. Even though both groups performed the lexical decision task similarly in terms of accuracy, individuals with epilepsy demonstrated longer reaction times and some atypical ERP characteristics compared to controls. Conclusion The cognitive–linguistic assessment and ERP findings suggested that, compared to neurotypical adults, individuals with epilepsy demonstrate slower processing times and greater difficulty with high-level language and spoken discourse production, despite performing within typical limits on basic language tests. Preliminary results from this research are significant in providing new knowledge about language functioning in adults with epilepsy.

No abstract