Apraxia of Speech: An overview

Ogar, Jennifer M.; Slama, Hilary; Dronkers, Nina F.; Amici, Serena; Gorno‐Tempini, Maria Luisa

doi:10.1080/13554790500263529

Cited by 172 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The neuroanatomical correlate of AOS type 1 is, however, unclear, requiring further investigation. In general, our localization is not incompatible with results regarding the crude localization of AOS in the stroke literature, 28 although it is noteworthy that the superior premotor cortex localization for AOS type 2 is not generally associated with reports of stroke-induced AOS. This suggests that superior premotor cortex (including supplementary motor area) may have some special role in planning and programming speech, perhaps one not generally recognized through studies of stroke-induced AOS.…”

contrasting

confidence: 51%

Syndromes dominated by apraxia of speech show distinct characteristics from agrammatic PPA

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: We assessed whether clinical and imaging features of subjects with apraxia of speech (AOS) more severe than aphasia (dominant AOS) are more similar to agrammatic primary progressive aphasia (agPPA) or to primary progressive AOS (PPAOS).Methods: Sixty-seven subjects (PPAOS 5 18, dominant AOS 5 10, agPPA 5 9, age-matched controls 5 30) who all had volumetric MRI, diffusion tensor imaging, F18-fluorodeoxyglucose and C11-labeled Pittsburgh compound B (PiB)-PET scanning, as well as neurologic and speech and language assessments, were included in this case-control study. AOS was classified as either type 1, predominated by sound distortions and distorted sound substitutions, or type 2, predominated by syllabically segmented prosodic speech patterns. Results:The dominant AOS subjects most often had AOS type 2, similar to PPAOS. In contrast, agPPA subjects most often had type 1 (p 5 0.01). Both dominant AOS and PPAOS showed focal imaging abnormalities in premotor cortex, whereas agPPA showed widespread involvement affecting premotor, prefrontal, temporal and parietal lobes, caudate, and insula. Only the dominant AOS and PPAOS groups showed midbrain atrophy compared with controls. No differences were observed in PiB binding across all 3 groups, with the majority being PiB negative. Conclusion:These results suggest that dominant AOS is more similar to PPAOS than agPPA, with dominant AOS and PPAOS exhibiting a clinically distinguishable subtype of progressive AOS compared with agPPA. Neurology â 2013;81:337-345 GLOSSARY agPPA 5 agrammatic primary progressive aphasia; AOS 5 apraxia of speech; ASRS 5 Apraxia of Speech Rating Scale; DTI 5 diffusion tensor imaging; FA 5 fractional anisotropy; FDG 5 F18-fluorodeoxyglucose; MD 5 mean diffusivity; NOS 5 not otherwise specified; PiB 5 Pittsburgh compound B; PPA 5 primary progressive aphasia; PPAOS 5 primary progressive apraxia of speech; PSPS 5 progressive supranuclear palsy syndrome; TDP-43 5 TAR DNA binding protein of 43 kDa; WAB 5 Western Aphasia Battery.The term apraxia of speech (AOS) is used to denote a motor speech disorder in which abnormalities reflect deficits in the programming of movements for speech production.1,2 Although usually caused by left hemisphere stroke, AOS can also be associated with neurodegenerative disease, and when it is the only sign or symptom, it is labeled primary progressive AOS (PPAOS).3,4 Unlike PPAOS, the term primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is reserved for a neurodegenerative disorder in which the most salient feature is language dysfunction. 5-7 Agrammatic PPA (agPPA) is one subtype of PPA, characterized by specific abnormalities that affect grammar and syntax in verbal or written expression. 8,9 Although it is recognized that many subjects with agPPA may have AOS, the most salient feature of agPPA is aphasia. In fact, to be diagnosed with any variant of PPA, 8 language difficulty must be the most prominent clinical feature at symptom onset and for the initial phases of the disease; deficits cannot be due to "disruption o...

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 51%

Syndromes dominated by apraxia of speech show distinct characteristics from agrammatic PPA

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…40 These patients present with speech sound errors and distortions in articulation, especially in longer words. 41 AoS must be distinguished from dysarthria, a condition characterized by motor execution deficits in the context of spared motor planning. Patients with dysarthria present with consistent distortions across words, irrespective of length, and have difficulties with different aspects of movement (strength, amplitude) of oral and laryngeal organs.…”

Section: Executing the Output Of The Stimulus'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuroanatomical foundations of naming impairments across different neurologic conditions

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to name objects or abstract entities is an essential feature of speech and language, being commonly considered a central component of normal neurologic function. For this reason, the bedside testing of naming performance is part of the neurologic examination, especially since naming impairments can signify the early onset of a progressive disease or the occurrence of a more established problem. Modern neuroscience research suggests that naming relies on specific and distributed networks that operate in concert to support various processing stages, spanning from object recognition to spoken words. Likewise, studies evaluating the types of naming impairments in patients with neurologic conditions have contributed to the understanding of acquired forms of naming impairments and the underlying stages during normal language processing. In this article, we review the neurobiological mechanisms supporting naming, with a focus on the clinical application of these concepts. We provide an overview of the stages of cognitive processing that are hypothesized to support naming. For each stage, we explore the evidence revealing its neural basis, drawing parallels to clinical syndromes that commonly disrupt each stage. We review the patterns of naming impairment across various neurologic conditions, including classic language disorders, such as poststroke aphasia or primary progressive aphasia, as well as other diseases where language impairments may be subtle but helpful for the appropriate diagnosis. In this context, we provide a structured and practical guide for the bedside naming assessments rooted in modern neuroscience, aimed at supporting the evaluation and diagnosis of neurologic conditions that affect language. Neurology ® 2015;85:284-292 GLOSSARY AD 5 Alzheimer disease; AoS 5 apraxia of speech; FTLD 5 frontotemporal lobar degeneration; PCA 5 posterior cortical atrophy; PPA-L 5 logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia; PPA-S 5 semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia; TLE 5 temporal lobe epilepsy; TOT 5 tip of the tongue.The ability to name objects or abstract entities is essential in everyday speech production. Retrieving the correct word that denotes a specific something relies on an orchestrated sequence of brain processes, ranging from perception of a stimulus to the physical articulation of the sounds used to speak its name. While intimately related, each stage of this complex process relies on the activation of distinct neural circuits. Accordingly, naming impairments may emerge following disruption of one or more of the stages thought to support naming.The process of naming most commonly occurs during discourse, when we are constantly required to retrieve abstract concepts to either understand or deliver a message, or by our need to identify an object perceived in the environment. Thus, naming can relate to an object that was seen, smelled, touched, heard, tasted, or any combination of these modalities. Stimulus processing results in the recognition of the stimulus as a famil...

show abstract

“…25 This sample was recorded and subsequently analyzed for the number of agrammatic errors (either morphologic or syntax errors) per minute and for the presence or absence of AOS, defined as a motor-speech disorder with the features of hesitancy, effortfulness with articulatory groping, speech production errors, and dysprosody, 26,27 all of which were required to be present. Speech was analyzed using a number of quantitative measures (details in appendix e-1 on the Neurology ® Web site at www.neurology.org) including number of words produced per minute, number of speech production errors per minute, length of word-finding pauses, and range of nouns and verbs used (noun and verb frequency 28 ).…”

Section: Spontaneous Speech Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%