Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundVerbal fluency tests (VFTs) are widely used to assess cognitive-linguistic performance in neurological diseases. However, the influence of dysarthria on performance in tests requiring oral responses is unclear in ataxia and Parkinson's disease.ObjectivesTo determine the impact of dysarthria on VFT performance and evaluate the validity and reliability of alternative methods for analyzing VFT data.MethodTrained raters evaluated dysarthria using VFT recordings in people with ataxia (N = 61) or Parkinson's disease (PD; N = 69). Total Correct Items scores and qualitative parameters (intrusions, ambiguous verbalizations, perseverations, and interjections) were compared across semantic, phonemic, and alternating fluency tasks. Disease severity was considered as a covariate in the regression model.ResultsVFT dysarthria ratings correlated with the benchmark (ground truth) dysarthria scores derived from a monologue. Ambiguous responses resulting from unclear speech impeded the rater's ability to determine if a response was correct. Regression analysis indicated that more severe dysarthria ratings predicted diminished scores in all three tasks (semantic fluency, phonemic fluency and alternating fluency) in the ataxia group. The contribution of disease severity to semantic, phonemic and alternating fluency was reduced substantially in the ataxia group after accounting for dysarthria severity in the model in both groups.ConclusionsDysarthria severity can be estimated based on speech samples derived from VFT. Dysarthria can lead to lower total correct items and is associated with more ambiguous verbalizations in VFT. Dysarthria severity should be considered when interpreting VFT performance in common movement disorders.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.