Abstract
Connected speech samples elicited by a picture description task are widely used in the assessment of aphasias, but it is not clear what their interpretation should focus on. Although such samples are easy to collect, analyses of them tend to be time-consuming, inconsistently conducted, and impractical for non-specialist settings. Here, we analysed connected speech samples from patients with the three variants of primary progressive aphasia (semantic, svPPA N = 9; logopenic, lvPPA N = 9; non-fluent, nfvPPA N = 9), progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP Richardson’s syndrome N = 10), corticobasal syndrome (CBS N = 13), and age-matched healthy controls. There were three principal aims: (i) to determine the differences in quantitative language output and psycholinguistic properties of words produced by patients and controls; (ii) to identify the neural correlates of connected speech measures; and (iii) to develop a simple clinical measurement tool. Using data-driven methods, we optimised a 15-word checklist for use with the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination ‘cookie theft’ and Mini Linguistic State Examination ‘beach scene’ pictures and tested the predictive validity of outputs from Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) models using an independent clinical sample from a second site. The total language output was significantly reduced in patients with nfvPPA, PSP and CBS relative to those with svPPA and controls. The speech of patients with lvPPA and svPPA contained a disproportionately greater number of words of both high frequency and high semantic diversity. Results from our exploratory voxel-based morphometry analyses across the whole group revealed correlations between grey matter volume in (i) bilateral frontal lobes with overall language output, (ii) the left frontal and superior temporal regions with speech complexity, (iii) bilateral frontotemporal regions with phonology, and (iv) bilateral cingulate and subcortical regions with age of acquisition. With the 15-word checklists, the LASSO models showed excellent accuracy for within-sample k-fold classification (over 93%) and out-of-sample validation between patients and controls (over 90%), and moderately good (59% - 74%) differentiation between the motor disorders (nfvPPA, PSP, CBS) and lexico-semantic groups (svPPA, lvPPA). In conclusion, we propose that a simple 15-word checklist provides a suitable screening test to identify people with progressive aphasia, while further specialist assessment is needed to differentiate accurately some groups (e.g., svPPA versus lvPPA and PSP versus nfvPPA).
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work and the corresponding author (SKH) were supported and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, and Gates Cambridge Trust (Grant Number: OPP1144). This study was supported by the Cambridge Centre for Parkinson-Plus; the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00030/14; MR/P01271X/1; MR/T033371/1); the Wellcome Trust (220258); the National Institute for Health and Care Research Cambridge Clinical Research Facility and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014; NIHR203312); an intramural award (MC_UU_00005/18) to the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit; and MRC Career Development Award (MR/V031481/1). For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Seventy-four people (24 healthy controls, nine svPPA, nine lvPPA, nine nfvPPA, 10 PSP, 13 CBS) from the Mini Linguistic State Examination (MLSE) study were included in the development dataset. Controls were recruited through the National Institute for Health Research Join Dementia Research register and via local advertisement; other participants were recruited from tertiary referral services at Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge (N = 46), and Manchester Royal Infirmary and its associated clinical providers (N = 4). Patients from a second site in the MLSE Study at St. George's Hospital, London made an out-of-sample test set with svPPA (N = 7), lvPPA (N = 13), nfvPPA (N = 5), PSP (N = 2), and CBS (N = 6). All participants provided written informed consent. Study ethics approval was obtained from the London-Chelsea Research Ethics Committee (REC#16/LO/1735). The Universities of London (St. George's), Cambridge, and Manchester sponsored this study.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵† Joint senior authors.
For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.
This version of the manuscript has been revised based on the Reviewer comments during the peer review process.
