No AccessAmerican Journal of Speech-Language PathologyResearch Article27 May 2019

Auditory-Perceptual Rating of Connected Speech in Aphasia

    Purpose

    Auditory-perceptual assessment, in which trained listeners rate a large number of perceptual features of speech samples, is the gold standard for the differential diagnosis of motor speech disorders. The goal of this study was to investigate the feasibility of applying a similar, formalized auditory-perceptual approach to the assessment of language deficits in connected speech samples from individuals with aphasia.

    Method

    Twenty-seven common features of connected speech in aphasia were defined, each of which was rated on a 5-point scale. Three experienced researchers evaluated 24 connected speech samples from the AphasiaBank database, and 12 student clinicians evaluated subsets of 8 speech samples each. We calculated interrater reliability for each group of raters and investigated the validity of the auditory-perceptual approach by comparing feature ratings to related quantitative measures derived from transcripts and clinical measures, and by examining patterns of feature co-occurrence.

    Results

    Most features were rated with good-to-excellent interrater reliability by researchers and student clinicians. Most features demonstrated strong concurrent validity with respect to quantitative connected speech measures computed from AphasiaBank transcripts and/or clinical aphasia battery subscores. Factor analysis showed that 4 underlying factors, which we labeled Paraphasia, Logopenia, Agrammatism, and Motor Speech, accounted for 79% of the variance in connected speech profiles. Examination of individual patients' factor scores revealed striking diversity among individuals classified with a given aphasia type.

    Conclusion

    Auditory-perceptual rating of connected speech in aphasia shows potential to be a comprehensive, efficient, reliable, and valid approach for characterizing connected speech in aphasia.

    References

    • Armstrong, E. (2000). Aphasic discourse analysis: The story so far.Aphasiology, 14, 875–892.
    • Bastiaanse, R. (1995). Broca's aphasia: A syntactic and/or a morphological disorder? A case study.Brain and Language, 48, 1–32.
    • Bastiaanse, R., Edwards, S., & Kiss, K. (1996). Fluent aphasia in three languages: Aspects of spontaneous speech.Aphasiology, 10, 561–575.
    • Benson, D. F. (1967). Fluency in aphasia: Correlation with radioactive scan localization.Cortex, 3, 373–394.
    • Boles, L., & Bombard, T. (1998). Conversational discourse analysis: Appropriate and useful sample sizes.Aphasiology, 12, 547–560.
    • Boyle, M. (2014). Test–retest stability of word retrieval in aphasic discourse.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57, 966–978.
    • Boyle, M. (2015). Stability of word-retrieval errors with the AphasiaBank stimuli.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 24, S953–S960.
    • Bunton, K., Kent, R. D., Duffy, J. R., Rosenbek, J. C., & Kent, J. F. (2007). Listener agreement for auditory-perceptual ratings of dysarthria.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1481–1495.
    • Butler, R. A., Lambon Ralph, M. A., & Woollams, A. M. (2014). Capturing multidimensionality in stroke aphasia: Mapping principal behavioural components to neural structures.Brain, 137, 3248–3266.
    • Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology.Psychological Assessment, 6, 284–290.
    • Darley, F. L., Aronson, A. E., & Brown, J. R. (1969a). Differential diagnostic patterns of dysarthria.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 12, 246–269.
    • Darley, F. L., Aronson, A. E., & Brown, J. R. (1969b). Clusters of deviant speech dimensions in the dysarthrias.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 12, 462–496.
    • Darley, F. L., Aronson, A. E., & Brown, J. R. (1975). Motor speech disorders. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
    • Doyle, P. J., Goda, A. J., & Spencer, K. A. (1995). The communicative informativeness and efficiency of connected discourse by adults with aphasia under structured and conversational sampling conditions.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 4, 130–134.
    • Duffy, J. R. (2013). Motor speech disorders: Substrates, differential diagnosis, and management (3rd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier/Mosby.
    • Fergadiotis, G., & Wright, H. H. (2011). Lexical diversity for adults with and without aphasia across discourse elicitation tasks.Aphasiology, 25, 1414–1430.
    • Goodglass, H. (1993). Understanding aphasia. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    • Goodglass, H., & Kaplan, E. (1972). The assessment of aphasia and related disorders. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
    • Goodglass, H., Kaplan, E., & Barresi, B. (2001). The Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination–Third Edition (BDAE-3). Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
    • Goodglass, H., Quadfasel, F. A., & Timberlake, W. H. (1964). Phrase length and the type of severity of aphasia.Cortex, 1, 133–153.
    • Gordon, J. K. (1998). The fluency dimension in aphasia.Aphasiology, 12, 673–688.
    • Gordon, J. K. (2006). A quantitative production analysis of picture description.Aphasiology, 20, 188–204.
    • Grande, M., Hussmann, K., Bay, E., Christoph, S., Piefke, M., Willmes, K., & Huber, W. (2008). Basic parameters of spontaneous speech as a sensitive method for measuring change during the course of aphasia.International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 43, 408–426.
    • Greenwald, M. L., Nadeau, S. E., & Gonzalez Rothi, L. J. (2000). Fluency.In L. J. Gonzalez Rothi, B. Crosson, & S. E. Nadeau (Eds.), Aphasia and language: Theory to practice (pp. 31–39). New York, NY: Guilford.
    • Hancock, A. B., Stutts, H. W., & Bass, A. (2015). Perceptions of gender and femininity based on language: Implications for transgender communication therapy.Language and Speech, 58, 315–333.
    • Haravon, A., Obler, L., & Sarno, M. (1994). A method for microanalysis of discourse in brain-damaged patients.In R. Bloom, L. Obler, S. De Santi, & J. Ehrlich (Eds.), Discourse analysis and applications: Studies in adult clinical populations (pp. 47–80). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    • Howes, D. (1967). Some experimental investigations of language in aphasia.In K. Salzinger & S. Salzinger (Eds.), Research in verbal behaviour and some neurophysiological implications. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    • Huber, W., Poeck, K., & Willmes, K. (1984). The Aachen Aphasia Test.Advances in Neurology, 42, 291–303.
    • Kent, R. D., Kent, J. F., Duffy, J., & Weismer, G. (1998). The dysarthrias: Speech-voice profiles, related dysfunctions, and neuropathology.Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology, 6, 165–211.
    • Kerschensteiner, M., Poeck, K., & Brunner, E. (1972). The fluency–nonfluency dimension in the classification of aphasic speech.Cortex, 8, 233–247.
    • Kertesz, A. (1979). Aphasia and associated disorders: Taxonomy, localization, and recovery. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.
    • Kertesz, A. (2007). Western Aphasia Battery–Revised. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.
    • Linnik, A., Bastiaanse, R., & Höhle, B. (2016). Discourse production in aphasia: A current review of theoretical and methodological challenges.Aphasiology, 30, 765–800.
    • MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    • MacWhinney, B., Fromm, D., Forbes, M., & Holland, A. (2011). AphasiaBank: Methods for studying discourse.Aphasiology, 25, 1286–1307.
    • Marini, A., Andreetta, S., del Tin, S., & Carlomagno, S. (2011). A multi-level approach to the analysis of narrative language in aphasia.Aphasiology, 25, 1372–1392.
    • McCarron, A., Chavez, A., Babiak, M., Berger, M. S., Chang, E. F., & Wilson, S. M. (2017). Connected speech in transient aphasias after left hemisphere resective surgery.Aphasiology, 31, 1266–1281.
    • McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients.Psychological Methods, 1, 30–46.
    • Miceli, G., Mazzucchi, A., Menn, L., & Goodglass, H. (1983). Contrasting cases of Italian agrammatic aphasia without comprehension disorder.Brain and Language, 19, 65–97.
    • Miller, J. F., Andriacchi, K., & Nockerts, A. (2015). Assessing language production using SALT software: A clinician's guide to language sample analysis (2nd ed.). Middleton, WI: SALT Software.
    • Mirman, D., Chen, Q., Zhang, Y., Wang, Z., Faseyitan, O. K., Coslett, H. B., & Schwartz, M. F. (2015). Neural organization of spoken language revealed by lesion-symptom mapping.Nature Communications, 6, 6762.
    • Nicholas, L. E., & Brookshire, R. H. (1993). A system for quantifying the informativeness and efficiency of the connected speech of adults with aphasia.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 338–350.
    • Prins, R., & Bastiaanse, R. (2004). Analysing the spontaneous speech of aphasic speakers.Aphasiology, 18, 1075–1091.
    • Richardson, J. D., & Dalton, S. G. (2016). Main concepts for three different discourse tasks in a large non-clinical sample.Aphasiology, 30, 45–73.
    • Rochon, E., Saffran, E. M., Berndt, R. S., & Schwartz, M. F. (2000). Quantitative analysis of aphasic sentence production: Further development and new data.Brain and Language, 72, 193–218.
    • Saffran, E. M., Berndt, R. S., & Schwartz, M. F. (1989). The quantitative analysis of agrammatic production: Procedure and data.Brain and Language, 37, 440–479.
    • Shewan, C. M. (1988). The Shewan Spontaneous Language Analysis (SSLA) system for aphasic adults: Description, reliability, and validity.Journal of Communication Disorders, 21, 103–138.
    • Strand, E. A., Duffy, J. R., Clark, H. M., & Josephs, K. (2014). The Apraxia of Speech Rating Scale: A tool for diagnosis and description of apraxia of speech.Journal of Communication Disorders, 51, 43–50.
    • Swinburn, K., Porter, G., & Howard, D. (2014). Comprehensive Aphasia Test, Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
    • Thompson, C. K., Ballard, K. J., Tait, M. E., Weintraub, S., & Mesulam, M. (1997). Patterns of language decline in non-fluent primary progressive aphasia.Aphasiology, 11, 297–321.
    • Thompson, C. K., Cho, S., Hsu, C.-J., Wieneke, C., Rademaker, A., Weitner, B. B., … Weintraub, S. (2012). Dissociations between fluency and agrammatism in primary progressive aphasia.Aphasiology, 26, 20–43.
    • Trupe, E. H. (1984). Reliability of rating spontaneous speech in the Western Aphasia Battery: Implications for classification.In R. Brookshire (Ed.), Clinical aphasiology: Proceedings of the conference (pp. 55–69). Minneapolis, MN: BRK Publisher.
    • Vermeulen, J., Bastiaanse, R., & Van Wageningen, B. (1989). Spontaneous speech in aphasia: A correlational study.Brain and Language, 36, 252–274.
    • Wagenaar, E., Snow, C., & Prins, R. (1975). Spontaneous speech of aphasic patients: A psycholinguistic analysis.Brain and Language, 2, 281–303.
    • Wilson, S. M., Henry, M. L., Besbris, M., Ogar, J. M., Dronkers, N. F., Jarrold, W., … Gorno-Tempini, M. L. (2010). Connected speech production in three variants of primary progressive aphasia.Brain, 133, 2069–2088.
    • Yagata, S. A., Yen, M., McCarron, A., Bautista, A., Lamair-Orosco, G., & Wilson, S. M. (2017). Rapid recovery from aphasia after infarction of Wernicke's area.Aphasiology, 31, 951–980.
    • Yorkston, K. M., & Beukelman, D. R. (1980). An analysis of connected speech samples of aphasic and normal speakers.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 45, 27–36.

    Additional Resources