Dysarthria, Intelligibility, Speech
Conditions
Keywords
dysarthria, motor speech disorders, intelligibility, perceptual training
Brief summary
There exist very few effective treatments that ease the intelligibility burden of dysarthria. Perceptual training offers a promising avenue for improving intelligibility of dysarthric speech by offsetting the communicative burden from the speaker with dysarthria on to their primary communication partners-family, friends, and caregivers. This project, utilizing advanced explanatory models, will permit identification of speaker and listener parameters, and their interactions, that allow perceptual training paradigms to be optimized for intelligibility outcomes in dysarthria rehabilitation. This work addresses this critical gap in clinical practice and sets the stage for extension of dysarthria management to listener-targeted remediation-advancing clinical practice and enhanced communication and quality of life outcomes for this population.
Detailed description
There exist very few effective treatments that ease the intelligibility burden of dysarthria, and all of these require cognitive and physical effort on the part of the speaker to achieve and maintain gains. Therefore, individuals with intelligibility deficits whose cognitive and physical impairments limit their ability to modify their speech are currently not viable treatment candidates. This constitutes a significant health disparity that disproportionately affects those clinical populations with developmental, cognitive, and/or significant neuromuscular impairment. To address this critical gap in current dysarthria management, the weight of behavioral change is shifted from the speaker to the listener. While a novel concept for dysarthria management, the idea is firmly rooted in the field of psycholinguistics and supported by a programmatic body of research showing that listener-targeted perceptual training paradigms (wherein listeners are familiarized with the degraded speech signal and provided with an orthographic transcription of what the speaker is saying) result in statistically and clinically significant intelligibility gains in dysarthria. Further, preliminary evidence suggests that these intelligibility outcomes may be influenced by hypothesis-driven speaker parameters, such as acoustic predictability of speech rhythm cues, and listener parameters, such as expertise in rhythm perception. A requisite next step to bringing listener-targeted perceptual training closer to clinical implementation, and the overarching goal of this clinical trial, is the systematic and rigorous analysis of the speaker and listener parameters, and their interactions, that modulate, and in some cases optimize, perceptual training benefits of intelligibility improvement. To achieve this aim, an existing database of dysarthric speech (20 speakers with dysarthria) and a large cohort of listeners (n = 400) across two well-established testing sites, Utah State University and Florida State University are utilized. Thus, the key deliverable resulting from this work will be explanatory models that account for the unique and joint contributions of speaker and listener parameters on the magnitude of intelligibility improvement following perceptual training with dysarthric speech.
Interventions
Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Pretest/posttest transcription data will be used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement.
Sponsors
Study design
Intervention model description
300 listeners will be recruited and enrolled. Each participant will be randomly assigned to receive perceptual training with one of 5 speakers with dysarthria, such that 30-50 listeners will be assigned to each speaker with dysarthria. All listener participants will receive the perceptual training intervention.
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
\*Native speakers of American English
Exclusion criteria
* No self-reported history of speech impairment * No self-reported history of language impairment * No self-reported history of cognitive impairment
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Pretest Transcription Accuracy | All outcomes were collected during a single data collection session, that lasted no more than 90 minutes. Pretest transcription accuracy is assessed at the pretest, immediately before a single session of perceptual training. | A percentage words correct (PWC) score is tabulated for each listener at pretest. A higher score reflects greater speaker intelligibility (i.e., understanding). |
| Posttest Transcription Accuracy | All outcomes were collected during a single data collection session, lasting no longer than 90 minutes. Transcription accuracy at posttest was assessed at posttest, immediately after perceptual training. | A percentage words correct (PWC) score is tabulated for each listener at posttest. Higher scores reflect greater speaker intelligibility (i.e., understanding). |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Recruitment details
Due to COVID-19 limitations at the time of recruitment, initial efforts were focused on recruiting participants 18-50 years. We recruited participants from the Tallahassee, FL and Logan, UT communities. In the later stages of this project, we focused recruitment efforts on older participants aged 55-80 years from the Tallahassee community.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 1 To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with mixed flaccid-spastic dysarthria due to ALS (Speaker 1) are utilized for all three phases.
Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Pretest/posttest transcription data will be used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement. | 49 |
| Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 2 To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with ataxic dysarthria due to cerebellar degeneration (Speaker 2) are utilized for all three phases.
Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Pretest/posttest transcription data will be used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement. | 54 |
| Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 3 To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with hypokinetic dysarthria due to Parkinson's disease (Speaker 3) are utilized for all three phases.
Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Pretest/posttest transcription data will be used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement. | 53 |
| Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 4 To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with ataxic dysarthria due to cerebellar degeneration (Speaker 4) are utilized for all three phases.
Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Pretest/posttest transcription data will be used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement. | 32 |
| Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 5 To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with hypokinetic dysarthria due to Parkinson's disease (Speaker 5) are utilized for all three phases.
Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Pretest/posttest transcription data will be used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement. | 27 |
| Total | 215 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 2 | Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 3 | Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 4 | Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 1 | Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 5 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical <=18 years | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical >=65 years | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 25 Participants | 0 Participants | 25 Participants | 50 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Between 18 and 65 years | 54 Participants | 53 Participants | 7 Participants | 49 Participants | 2 Participants | 165 Participants |
| Age, Continuous | 22.9 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.3 | 21.5 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.9 | 69.28 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.95 | 22.3 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.3 | 70.22 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.93 | 35 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 22 |
| Cognitive flexibility | 107 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 15 | 104 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 17 | 113 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 17 | 104 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 15 | 114 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 17 | 107 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 16 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 8 Participants | 12 Participants | 0 Participants | 10 Participants | 0 Participants | 30 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 46 Participants | 41 Participants | 32 Participants | 39 Participants | 27 Participants | 185 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Inhibitory control | 94 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 15 | 90 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 17 | 98 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 11 | 93 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 14 | 96 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 13 | 94 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 15 |
| Processing speed | 115 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 19 | 114 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 19 | 100 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 19 | 111 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 21 | 100 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 20 | 110 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 20 |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 4 Participants | 0 Participants | 4 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 4 Participants | 3 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 3 Participants | 11 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 1 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 49 Participants | 49 Participants | 32 Participants | 44 Participants | 23 Participants | 197 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 43 Participants | 43 Participants | 20 Participants | 37 Participants | 20 Participants | 163 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 11 Participants | 10 Participants | 12 Participants | 12 Participants | 7 Participants | 52 Participants |
| Vocabulary Knowledge | 108 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 12 | 110 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 12 | 112 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 10 | 105 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 14 | 112 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 12 | 109 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 13 |
| Words-in-Noise | 5.28 decibels STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.5 | 4.8 decibels STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.1 | 7.9 decibels STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.3 | 5.6 decibels STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.7 | 8.2 decibels STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.2 | 6.4 decibels STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.3 |
| Working memory | 104 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 10 | 102 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 13 | 104 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 15 | 104 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 12 | 109 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 17 | 104 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 13 |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk | EG003 affected / at risk | EG004 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 49 | 0 / 54 | 0 / 53 | 0 / 32 | 0 / 27 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 49 | 0 / 54 | 0 / 53 | 0 / 32 | 0 / 27 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 49 | 0 / 54 | 0 / 53 | 0 / 32 | 0 / 27 |
Outcome results
Posttest Transcription Accuracy
A percentage words correct (PWC) score is tabulated for each listener at posttest. Higher scores reflect greater speaker intelligibility (i.e., understanding).
Time frame: All outcomes were collected during a single data collection session, lasting no longer than 90 minutes. Transcription accuracy at posttest was assessed at posttest, immediately after perceptual training.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 1 | Posttest Transcription Accuracy | 84.4 percentage of words correct | Standard Deviation 3.6 |
| Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 2 | Posttest Transcription Accuracy | 50 percentage of words correct | Standard Deviation 7.1 |
| Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 3 | Posttest Transcription Accuracy | 57.8 percentage of words correct | Standard Deviation 7.8 |
| Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 4 | Posttest Transcription Accuracy | 42.2 percentage of words correct | Standard Deviation 12.7 |
| Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 5 | Posttest Transcription Accuracy | 51.2 percentage of words correct | Standard Deviation 14.8 |
Pretest Transcription Accuracy
A percentage words correct (PWC) score is tabulated for each listener at pretest. A higher score reflects greater speaker intelligibility (i.e., understanding).
Time frame: All outcomes were collected during a single data collection session, that lasted no more than 90 minutes. Pretest transcription accuracy is assessed at the pretest, immediately before a single session of perceptual training.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 1 | Pretest Transcription Accuracy | 77.8 percentage of words correct | Standard Deviation 5.4 |
| Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 2 | Pretest Transcription Accuracy | 35.3 percentage of words correct | Standard Deviation 7.7 |
| Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 3 | Pretest Transcription Accuracy | 52.9 percentage of words correct | Standard Deviation 7.1 |
| Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 4 | Pretest Transcription Accuracy | 30 percentage of words correct | Standard Deviation 10.6 |
| Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 5 | Pretest Transcription Accuracy | 49.2 percentage of words correct | Standard Deviation 15.4 |