Segmental and prosodic variability on repeated polysyllabic word production in acquired apraxia of speech plus aphasia

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.

KEYWORDS:

• Apraxia of speech
• phoneme distortion
• lexical stress
• pairwise variability index

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by a NHMRC Project Grant 632763 and Australian Research Council Future Fellowship to Ballard (FT120100355), and The University of Sydney’s Postgraduate Research Support Scheme to Scholl. We sincerely thank Joseph R. Duffy and Malcolm R. McNeil for providing expert diagnosis for all cases; Catherine Gregory, Penny Monroe and Donna Thomas, Hsiu Wen Chen, Amelia Corrigan, Diana Irwin, Rachel McMillan, Kendra Norman, and Shakila Sumanthasa who provided independent ratings. An earlier version of this work was presented at the Speech Pathology Australia Association conference in Hobart, Tasmania, in 2012.

Declaration of Interest

The authors report no declarations of interest.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council [FT120100355]; National Health and Medical Research Council [632763].