Apraxia of Speech: Comparison of EPG Treatment (Tx) and Sound Production Treatment (SPT) (EPG&SPT)

The purpose of the proposed research is to examine the effects of two treatment approaches on speech production involving speakers with chronic apraxia of speech (AOS) and aphasia. The planned investigation is designed to examine the acquisition, maintenance and generalization effects of each treatment. One approach, electropalatography (EPG) uses visual biofeedback in conjunction with articulatory-kinematic treatment and the other approach, sound production treatment (SPT) is one of the most systematically studied articulatory-kinematic treatments for AOS.

EPG has been used to treat apraxia of speech (AOS) as well as other speech production disorders (i.e., articulation disorders & cleft palate). SPT is one of the most systematically studied treatment approaches for AOS. Both treatment approaches are considered clinical treatment approaches/standards of care for AOS. The pseudopalate used in conjunction with EPG treatment is an acceptable device for treating speech production disorders including AOS. The pseudopalate is custom-fit for each patient and is similar to a dental retainer and is considered minimally invasive. The purpose of this research is to systematically examine the effects of treatment on speech production using EPG treatment vs. an SPT approach. The planned investigation is intended to explicate the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization effects of each treatment approach. The specific experimental questions to be addressed are as follows: Will treatment using an EPG approach or an SPT approach result in greater accuracy of articulation of trained speech sounds produced in words? Will treatment using an EPG approach or an SPT approach result in greater accuracy of articulation of untrained exemplars of trained speech sounds produced in words (i.e., response generalization)? Will treatment using an EPG approach or an SPT approach result in greater long term maintenance effects for trained speech sounds? Do different treatment approaches result in distinct ratings of functional communication skills via the Aphasia Communication Outcome Measure (ACOM; Doyle et al., 2012) and an outcome measure of speech intelligibility using the Assessment of Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech (AIDS; Yorkston & Beukelman, 1981)?

An articulatory-kinematic treatment in conjunction with visual biofeedback specifically tongue to palate contact to improve speech production

Change in accuracy of articulation of treated items measured by percent increase in accuracy above the highest baseline measurement; production of words designated for treatment was measured repeatedly in non-treatment probes prior to treatment, throughout all study phases and immediately post treatment with percent accuracy calculated for each probe (0% to 100% correct). The highest percentage accuracy achieved in baseline probes was subtracted from the percentage accuracy achieved at the conclusion of treatment to obtain change in accuracy value - this reflects change from maximum correct performance in baseline (baseline). e.g., if in baseline probes, performance ranged from 10% to 30% accuracy and at post treatment performance was 90% accuracy, the change value would be 60% (90% minus 30%). A greater value indicates greater change in articulation/production of words. Change could be positive (improved articulation) or negative (poorer articulation)

Change in articulatory accuracy of untreated items, but related items as measured by percent increase in accuracy above the highest baseline measurement; production of words designated for non-treatment was measured repeatedly in non-treatment probes prior to treatment, throughout all study phases and immediately post treatment with percent accuracy calculated for each probe (0% to 100% correct). The highest percentage accuracy achieved in baseline probes was subtracted from the percentage accuracy achieved at the conclusion of treatment to obtain change in accuracy value - this reflects change from maximum correct performance in baseline. e.g., if in baseline probes, performance ranged from 10% to 30% accuracy and at post treatment performance was 90% accuracy, the change value would be 60% (90% minus 30%). A greater change value indicates greater change in articulation/production of words. Change could be positive (improved articulation) or negative (poorer articulation)

Change in articulatory accuracy of treated items as measured by percent increase in accuracy above the highest baseline measurement; production of words designated for treatment was measured repeatedly in non-treatment probes prior to treatment, throughout all study phases, and at 7 weeks immediately after each treatment with percent accuracy calculated for each probe (0% to 100% correct). The highest percentage accuracy achieved in baseline probes was subtracted from the percentage accuracy achieved at 7 weeks immediately after the conclusion of each treatment to obtain change in accuracy value - this reflects change from maximum correct performance in baseline (pre-treatment). e.g., if in baseline probes, performance ranged from 10% to 30% accuracy and at post treatment performance was 90% accuracy, the change value would be 60% (90% minus 30%). A greater change value indicates greater change in articulation/production of words.

Measurement of functional every day communication skills using the Aphasia Communication Outcome Measure (ACOM) with a T-score computed at each administration which was at baseline and then 10 weeks after the completion of all treatment. This outcome measure was only completed at baseline and at the completion on all treatment [not measured after the completion of each treatment]. The rating scale for functional communication skills was completed by the patient (or a spouse if patient's auditory comprehension was significantly impaired) (T-Scores range from 0 to 100; Higher T-scores indicate greater functional communication skills)

Baseline vs. 10 weeks after the completion of all treatment [measured at pre-treatment and post-treatment; conclusion of all treatment]

Measurement of speech intelligibility for a set of fifty words (non-treatment words) from the Assessment of Speech Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech as judge by an unfamiliar listener that was measured at baseline and then at 10 weeks post all treatment with a percentage of speech intelligibility (0% to 100% intelligible).This measurement was only conducted at pre-treatment and at the conclusion of all treatment [not measured after each treatment].

Baseline vs. 10 weeks post all treatment [measured at pre-treatment and post-treatment; conclusion of all treatment]

Inclusion Criteria: Veterans or non Veterans with apraxia of speech who reside in the Salt Lake City region (commutable), 6 months or more post stroke or other focal brain injury, no other neurological conditions native English speakers, hearing adequate for experimental task (e.g., pass puretone screening at 35dB at 500, 1K, 2K Hz or adequate aided hearing) non linguistic cognition within normal limits Exclusion Criteria: less than 6 months post stroke insufficient hearing, insufficient non linguistic cognitive skills neurological conditions other than stroke unable to attend treatment in the Salt Lake City vicinity

Mauszycki SC, Wambaugh JL. Acquired Apraxia of Speech: Comparison of Electropalatography Treatment and Sound Production Treatment. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2020 Feb 21;29(1S):511-529. doi: 10.1044/2019_AJSLP-CAC48-18-0223. Epub 2019 Nov 6.