Abstract
Introduction: This study examined the utility of multiple second formant (F2) slope metrics to capture differences in speech production for individuals with dysarthria and healthy controls as a function of speaking rate. In addition, the utility of F2 slope metrics for predicting severity of intelligibility impairment in dysarthria was examined. Methods: Twenty three speakers with Parkinson’s disease and mild to moderate hypokinetic dysarthria (HD), 9 speakers with various neurological diseases and mild to severe ataxic or ataxic-spastic dysarthria (AD), and 26 age-matched healthy control speakers (CON) participated in a sentence repetition task. Sentences were produced at habitual, fast, and slow speaking rate. A variety of metrics were derived from the rising F2 transition portion of the diphthong /ai/. To obtain measures of intelligibility for the two clinical speaker groups, 15 undergraduate SLP students participated in a transcription experiment. Results: Significantly shallower slopes were found for the speakers with HD compared to control speakers. Steeper F2 slopes were associated with increased speaking rate for all groups. Higher variability in F2 slope metrics was found for the speakers with AD compared to the two other speaker groups. For both clinical speaker groups, there was a negative association between intelligibility and F2 slope variability metrics, indicating lower variability in speech production was associated with higher intelligibility. Discussion: F2 slope metrics were sensitive to dysarthria presence, dysarthria type, and speaking rate. The current study provided evidence that the use of F2 slope variability measures has additional value to F2 slope averaged measures for predicting severity of intelligibility impairment in dysarthria.
Journal Section:
Research Article
References
1.
Chen H, Stevens KN. An acoustical study of the fricative/s/in the speech of individuals with dysarthria. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001;44(6):1300–14.
2.
Duffy JR. Motor speech disorders: substrates, differential diagnosis, and management. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2019.
3.
Turner GS, Tjaden K, Weismer G. The influence of speaking rate on vowel space and speech intelligibility for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Speech Hear Res. 1995;38(5):1001–13.
4.
Weismer G, Laures JS, Jeng J-Y, Kent RD, Kent JF. Effect of speaking rate manipulations on acoustic and perceptual aspects of the dysarthria in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2000;52(5):201–19.
5.
Weismer G, Martin R, Kent RD, Kent JF. Formant trajectory characteristics of males with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Acoust Soc Am. 1992 Feb;91(2):1085–98.
6.
De Bodt M, Hernández-Díaz HME, Van De Heyning P. Intelligibility as a linear combination of dimensions in dysarthric speech. J Commun Disord. 2002;35(3):283–92.
7.
Lee J, Hustad KC, Weismer G. Predicting speech intelligibility with a multiple speech subsystems approach in children with cerebral palsy. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2014;57(5):1666–78.
8.
Kim Y, Weismer G, Kent RD, Duffy JR. Statistical models of F2 slope in relation to severity of dysarthria. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2009;61(6):329–35.
9.
Tjaden K, Richards E, Kuo C, Wilding G, Sussman J. Acoustic and perceptual consequences of clear and loud speech. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2013;65(4):214–20.
10.
Weismer G, Jeng J, Laures JS, Kent R, Kent JF. Acoustic and intelligibility characteristics of sentence production in neurogenic speech disorders. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2001;53:1–18.
11.
Rowe HP, Gutz SE, Maffei MF, Green JR. Acoustic-based articulatory phenotypes of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease: towards an interpretable, hypothesis-driven framework of motor control. Interspeech; 2020. p. 4816–20.
12.
Hartelius L, Schalling E, Krull D, Lindblom B. Formant transitions in ataxic speech: the shape and speed of formant trajectories in individuals with multiple sclerosis and control speakers. J Med Speech Lang Pathol. 2010;18(4):54–60.
13.
Tjaden K, Wilding GE. Rate and loudness manipulations in dysarthria: acoustic and perceptual findings. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004 Aug;47(4):766–83.
14.
Kent JF, Kent RD, Rosenbek JC, Weismer G, Martin R, Sufit R, et al. Quantitative description of the dysarthria in women with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Speech Hear Res. 1992;35(4):723–33.
15.
Kent RD, Kent JF, Weismer G, Martin RE, Sufit RL, Brooks BR, et al. Relationships between speech intelligibility and the slope of second-formant transitions in dysarthric subjects. Clin Linguist Phon. 1989;3(4):347–58.
16.
Rowe HP, Green JR. Profiling speech motor impairments in persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: an acoustic-based approach. Interspeech; 2019. p. 4509–13.
17.
Rong P, Loucks T, Kim H, Hasegawa-Johnson M. Relationship between kinematics, F2 slope and speech intelligibility in dysarthria due to cerebral palsy. Clin Linguist Phon. 2012;26(9):806–22.
18.
Tjaden K, Martel-Sauvageau V. Consonant acoustics in Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis: comparison of clear and loud speaking conditions. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2017;26(2S):569–82.
19.
Yunusova Y, Green JR, Greenwood L, Wang J, Pattee GL, Zinman L. Tongue movements and their acoustic consequences in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2012;64(2):94–102.
20.
Rosen KM, Goozée JV, Murdoch BE. Examining the effects of multiple sclerosis on speech production: does phonetic structure matter?J Commun Disord. 2008;41(1):49–69.
21.
Cummins F, Lowit A, van Brenk F. Quantitative assessment of interutterance stability: application to dysarthria. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2014;57(1):81–9.
22.
Mefferd AS. Effects of speaking rate, loudness, and clarity modifications on kinematic endpoint variability. Clin Linguist Phon. 2019;33(6):570–85.
23.
McHenry MA. The effect of pacing strategies on the variability of speech movement sequences in dysarthria. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003;46(3):702–10.
24.
Mefferd AS, Pattee GL, Green JR. Speaking rate effects on articulatory pattern consistency in talkers with mild ALS. Clin Linguist Phon. 2014;28(11):799–811.
25.
Goozee JV, Stephenson DK, Murdoch BE, Darnell RE, Lapointe LL. Lingual kinematic strategies used to increase speech rate: comparison between younger and older adults. Clin Linguist Phon. 2005;19(4):319–34.
26.
Smith A, Goffman L, Zelaznik HN, Ying G, McGillem C. Spatiotemporal stability and patterning of speech movement sequences. Exp Brain Res. 1995;104(3):493–501.
27.
van Brenk F, Lowit A. The relationship between acoustic indices of variability of speech motor control in dysarthria and other measures of speech performance. J Med Speech Lang Pathol. 2012;20(4):24–9.
28.
Kleinow J, Smith A, Ramig LO. Speech motor stability in IPD effects of rate and loudness manipulations. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001;44(5):1041–51.
29.
Anderson A, Lowit A, Howell P. Temporal and spatial variability in speakers with Parkinson’s Disease and Friedreich’s Ataxia. J Med Speech Lang Pathol. 2008;16(4):173–80.
30.
Rong P. A novel hierarchical framework for measuring the complexity and irregularity of multimodal speech signals and its application in the assessment of speech impairment in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2021;64(8):2996–3014.
31.
Darley FL, Aronson AE, Brown JR. Clusters of deviant speech dimensions in the dysarthrias. J Speech Hear Res. 1969;12(3):462–96.
32.
Darley FL, Aronson AE, Brown JR. Differential diagnostic patterns of dysarthria. J Speech Hear Res. 1969;12(2):246–69.
33.
Blanchet PG, Snyder GJ. Speech rate deficits in individuals with Parkinson’s disease: a review of the literature. J Med Speech Lang Pathol. 2009;17(1):1–7.
34.
Giorgino T. Computing and visualizing dynamic time warping alignments in R: the dtw package. J Stat Softw. 2009;31(7):1–24.
35.
Vásquez-Correa JC, Orozco-Arroyave JR, Bocklet T, Nöth E. Towards an automatic evaluation of the dysarthria level of patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Commun Disord. 2018;76:21–36.
36.
Allison KM, Nip IS, Rong P. Use of automated kinematic diadochokinesis analysis to identify potential indicators of speech motor involvement in children with cerebral palsy. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2022;31(6):2835–46.
37.
Weismer G, Kent RD, Hodge M, Martin R. The acoustic signature for intelligibility test words. J Acoust Soc Am. 1988;84(4):1281–91.
38.
McHenry MA, Parle AM. Construction of a set of unpredictable sentences for intelligibility testing. J Med Speech Lang Pathol. 2006;14(4):269.
39.
Huckvale M. Speech filing system: tools for speech research; 2013. Available from: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/resource/sfs/.
40.
Gamer M, Lemon J, Gamer MM, Robinson A, Kendall’s W. Package “irr”. Var Coeff Interrater Reliab Agreem. 2012;22:1–32.
41.
Boersma P, Weenink D. Praat: doing phonetics by computer; 2020. Available from: http://praat.org.
42.
Hustad KC. The relationship between listener comprehension and intelligibility scores for speakers with dysarthria. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008 Jun;51(3):562–73.
43.
Tjaden K, Wilding G. Effects of speaking task on intelligibility in Parkinson’s disease. Clin Linguist Phon. 2011;25(2):155–68.
44.
R Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing; 2019. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/.
45.
Lenth R, Singmann H, Love J, Buerkner P, Herve M. Emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means; 2020.
46.
Kuo C, Tjaden K, Sussman JE. Acoustic and perceptual correlates of faster-than-habitual speech produced by speakers with Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis. J Commun Disord. 2014;52:156–69.
47.
Weismer G, Yunusova Y, Bunton K. Measures to evaluate the effects of DBS on speech production. J Neurolinguistics. 2012;25(4):74–94.
48.
Walsh B, Smith A. Basic parameters of articulatory movements and acoustics in individuals with Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2012;27(7):843–50.
49.
Spencer KA, France AA. Perceptual ratings of subgroups of ataxic dysarthria. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2016;51(4):430–41.
50.
Moore S, Rong P. Articulatory underpinnings of reduced acoustic: phonetic contrasts in individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2022;31(5):2022–44.
51.
van Brenk F, Terband H, van Lieshout P, Lowit A, Maassen B. Rate-related kinematic changes in younger and older adults. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2013;65(5):239–47.
52.
van Lieshout PHHM, Bose A, Square PA, Steele CM. Speech motor control in fluent and dysfluent speech production of an individual with apraxia of speech and Broca’s aphasia. Clin Linguist Phon. 2007;21(3):159–88.
53.
Chiu Y-F, Forrest K, Loux T. Relationship between F2 slope and intelligibility in Parkinson’s disease: lexical effects and listening environment. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2019;28(2S):887–94.
54.
Johansson I-L, Samuelsson C, Müller N. Consonant articulation acoustics and intelligibility in Swedish speakers with Parkinson’s disease: a pilot study. Clin Linguist Phon. 2022;37(9):845–65.
55.
Kim H, Gurevich N. Positional asymmetries in consonant production and intelligibility in dysarthric speech. Clin Linguist Phon. 2023;37(2):125–42.
56.
Dromey C. Spectral measures and perceptual ratings of hypokinetic dysarthria. J Med Speech Lang Pathol. 2003;11(2):85–94.
57.
Neel AT. Effects of loud and amplified speech on sentence and word intelligibility in Parkinson disease. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009;52(4):1021–33.
58.
Sadagopan N, Smith A. Developmental changes in the effects of utterance length and complexity on speech movement variability. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008;51(5):1138–51.
© 2023 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2023
You do not currently have access to this content.
