SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Differentiation of Motor Speech Disorders through the Seven Deviance Scores from MonPaGe-2.0.s.

Brain Sci · 2022-10-29

DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12111471PMID: 36358397

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

For the clinical assessment of motor speech disorders (MSDs) in French, the MonPaGe-2.0.s protocol has been shown to be sensitive enough to diagnose mild MSD based on a combination of acoustic and perceptive scores. Here, we go a step further by investigating whether these scores-which capture deviance on intelligibility, articulation, voice, speech rate, maximum phonation time, prosody, diadochokinetic rate-contribute to the differential diagnosis of MSDs. To this aim, we trained decision trees for two-class automatic classification of different pairs of MSD subtypes based on seven deviance scores that are computed in MonPaGe-2.0.s against matched normative data. We included 60 speakers with mild to moderate MSD from six neuropathologies (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Wilson, Parkinson and Kennedy disease, spinocerebellar ataxia, post-stroke apraxia of speech). The two-class classifications relied mainly on deviance scores from four speech dimensions and predicted with over 85% accuracy the patient's correct clinical category for ataxic, hypokinetic and flaccid dysarthria; classification of the other groups (apraxia of speech and mixed dysarthria) was slightly lower (79% to 82%). Although not perfect and only tested on small cohorts so far, the classification with deviance scores based on clinically informed features seems promising for MSD assessment and classification.

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.