SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Speech acoustic indices for differential diagnosis between Parkinson's disease, multiple system atrophy and progressive supranuclear palsy.

NPJ Parkinsons Dis · 2022-10-27

DOI: 10.1038/s41531-022-00389-6PMID: 36302780

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

While speech disorder represents an early and prominent clinical feature of atypical parkinsonian syndromes such as multiple system atrophy (MSA) and progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), little is known about the sensitivity of speech assessment as a potential diagnostic tool. Speech samples were acquired from 215 subjects, including 25 MSA, 20 PSP, 20 Parkinson's disease participants, and 150 healthy controls. The accurate differential diagnosis of dysarthria subtypes was based on the quantitative acoustic analysis of 26 speech dimensions related to phonation, articulation, prosody, and timing. A semi-supervised weighting-based approach was then applied to find the best feature combinations for separation between PSP and MSA. Dysarthria was perceptible in all PSP and MSA patients and consisted of a combination of hypokinetic, spastic, and ataxic components. Speech features related to respiratory dysfunction, imprecise consonants, monopitch, slow speaking rate, and subharmonics contributed to worse performance in PSP than MSA, whereas phonatory instability, timing abnormalities, and articulatory decay were more distinctive for MSA compared to PSP. The combination of distinct speech patterns via objective acoustic evaluation was able to discriminate between PSP and MSA with very high accuracy of up to 89% as well as between PSP/MSA and PD with up to 87%. Dysarthria severity in MSA/PSP was related to overall disease severity. Speech disorders reflect the differing underlying pathophysiology of tauopathy in PSP and α-synucleinopathy in MSA. Vocal assessment may provide a low-cost alternative screening method to existing subjective clinical assessment and imaging diagnostic approaches.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.