| Literature DB >> 30045755 |
Chris J D Hardy1, Charles R Marshall1, Rebecca L Bond1, Lucy L Russell1, Katrina Dick1, Cono Ariti1,2, David L Thomas3,4, Sonya J Ross1, Jennifer L Agustus1, Sebastian J Crutch1, Jonathan D Rohrer1, Doris-Eva Bamiou5, Jason D Warren6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Processing of degraded speech is a promising model for understanding communication under challenging listening conditions, core auditory deficits and residual capacity for perceptual learning and cerebral plasticity in major dementias.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease; Degraded speech; Dementia; Logopenic aphasia; Perceptual learning; Progressive aphasia; Progressive non-fluent aphasia; Semantic dementia; Sinewave speech; VBM
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30045755 PMCID: PMC6060531 DOI: 10.1186/s13195-018-0399-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Impact factor: 6.982
Demographic, clinical and general neuropsychological data for the participant groups
| Controls | nfvPPA | svPPA | lvPPA | tAD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic and clinical | |||||
| No. of participants, M/F | 8/9 | 3/6 | 7/3 | 6/1 | 4/6 |
| Age, years | 67.7 (5.2) | 69.6 (9.2) | 64.9 (7.6) | 66.3 (6.1) | 70.5 (8.9) |
| Handedness (R/L/A) | 16/0/1 | 8/1/0 | 10/0/0 | 7/0/0 | 9/1/0 |
| Education, years | 16.2 (2.6) | 14.9 (3.3) | 14.8 (3.3) | 15.1 (2.3) | 14.0 (1.8) |
| MMSE (total possible score of 30) | 29.7 (0.5) |
|
|
|
|
| Symptom duration, years | NA | 3.6 (1.3) | 5.3 (2.0) | 3.3 (1.3) | 6.1 (3.1) |
| PTA best ear (N/mild/moderate) | 4/11/0a | 1/6/1b | 4/6/0 | 3/2/1b | 2/5/0c |
| General intellect (IQ) | |||||
| WASI Verbal IQ | 127.6 (5.9) |
|
|
|
|
| WASI Performance IQ | 121.7 (13.7) |
| 110.1 (21.8) |
|
|
| Episodic memory | |||||
| RMT Words (total possible score of 50) | 48.4 (1.9) |
|
|
|
|
| RMT Faces (total possible score of 50) | 44.5 (4.4) | 39.1 (4.0)a |
|
|
|
| Working memory | |||||
| Digit span forward (maximum) | 7.2 (1.0) |
| 7.2 (1.2) |
|
|
| Spatial span forward (maximum) | 5.5 (0.8)a |
| 5.5 (0.9) |
| NA |
| Executive skills | |||||
| Digit span reverse (maximum) | 5.1 (1.1) |
| 5.4 (2.1) |
|
|
| Spatial span reverse (maximum) | 5.4 (0.9)a |
| 5.2 (1.2) |
| NA |
| Letter fluency (total) | 18.4 (5.1) |
|
|
|
|
| Category fluency (total) | 25.6 (5.4) |
|
|
|
|
| Trails Making Test A (seconds) | 31.8 (8.0) |
|
|
|
|
| Posterior cortical skills | |||||
| GDA Calculation (total possible score of 24) | 13.6 (4.1) |
| 15.0 (7.3)a |
|
|
| VOSP Object Decision (total possible score of 20) | 18.9 (1.0) |
|
|
|
|
| Neurolinguistic skills | |||||
| Auditory input processing | |||||
| PALPA-3 (total possible score of 36) | 35.1 (1.1)a | 34.6 (2.3) | 35.3 (1.0) |
| NA |
| Word retrieval | |||||
| GNT (total possible score of 30) | 27.1 (2.5) |
|
|
|
|
| BNT (total possible score of 30) | 29.4 (0.6)a |
|
|
| NA |
| Comprehension | |||||
| BPVS (total possible score of 51) | 48.3 (5.6) |
|
|
|
|
| Synonyms concrete (total possible score of 25) | 24.5 (0.6)a |
|
|
| NA |
| Synonyms abstract (total possible score of 25) | 24.5 (0.8)a |
|
|
| NA |
| PALPA-55 (total possible score of 24) | 23.9 (0.4)a |
| 22.3 (2.1)c |
| NA |
| Speech repetition | |||||
| Polysyllabic words (total possible score of 45) | 44.8 (0.9)a |
| 48.9 (0.6) |
| NA |
| Short sentences (total possible score of 10) | 9.7 (0.6)a |
|
|
| NA |
| Spelling | |||||
| BST (total possible score of 30) | 26.6 (1.6)a |
|
|
| NA |
Abbreviations: A Ambidextrous, BNT Boston Naming Test [52], BPVS British Picture Vocabulary Scale [53], BST Baxter Spelling Test (Baxter & Warrington, 1994), Controls healthy control group, Digit span forward/ reverse Maximum digit span recorded [54], F Female, GDA Graded Difficulty Arithmetic [55], GNT Graded Naming Test [56], IQ Intelligence Quotient, L left, lvPPA Patient group with logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia, M Male, MMSE Mini Mental State Examination [57], N Normal, NA, Not available, nfvPPA Patient group with non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia, PALPA Psycholinguistic Assessments of Language Processing in Aphasia [58], PTA Pure-tone average, R Right, RMT Recognition Memory Test [59], Spatial span forward/ reverse Maximum spatial span recorded [54], svPPA Patient group with semantic variant primary progressive aphasia, Synonyms concrete/abstract Single-word comprehension of single words [60], tAD Patient group with clinically typical Alzheimer’s disease, Trail Making Test A, Part A of the Trail Making Test [61], VOSP Visual Object Space Perception [62], WASI Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence [63]
Mean (SD) values are shown. Raw scores are presented, with the maximum value possible given in parentheses, unless otherwise indicated; significant differences from healthy controls (p < 0.05) are shown in boldface type. Reduced numbers of participants completing particular tests were as indicated: an − 2; bn − 1; cn − 3; dn − 4
eNote that tAD participants were given the short form of the RMT (maximum score of 25)
Fig. 1Broadband time-frequency spectrograms of sine-wave and natural speech. Examples of natural speech stimuli are shown in the top panels, and corresponding sine-wave replicas are shown in the bottom panels. The y-axes code frequency (kilohertz), and the x-axes code time (milliseconds). The centre frequencies of the three sine-wave contours track the centre frequencies of the formants in each of the natural stimuli. Depicted are examples of the two types of speech stimuli used in the experiment: three-digit numbers (‘nine hundred and sixty-five’; left panels) and geographical place names (‘Germany’; right panels). Sound recordings of these stimuli are available in Additional files 1, 2, 3, and 4
Performance of participant groups on experimental tasks
| Controls | nfvPPA | svPPA | lvPPA | tAD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main sine-wave effect | |||||
| Numbers (total possible score of 120) | 112.4 (6.1) |
| 107.9 (9.2) |
|
|
| Place names (total possible score of 40) | 35.4 (2.8) |
|
|
|
|
| Near − far place names | 2.4 (3.2)b |
|
|
|
|
| Numbers > places | 0.05 (0.1)c | − 0.10 (0.2) |
| − 0.02 (0.2) | 0.12 (0.1)c |
| Perceptual learning effect | |||||
| Numbers | 2.1 (3.2)b | 3.1 (3.6)b | 4.3 (3.5)b | 3.7 (3.7)b | 6.2 (6.3)b |
| Repeat − novel numbers | 0.3 (2.1) | 1.7 (3.3) | 0.3 (2.6) | − 0.1 (1.6) | − 0.3 (1.6) |
| Place names | 0.6 (1.2)e | 2.2 (2.5)e | 1.3 (3.4) | 1.9 (2.3)e | − 0.1 (2.2) |
| Control tasks | |||||
| Natural speech numbers (total possible score of 30) | 29.9 (0.2) |
| 30.0 (0.0) |
| 29.8 (0.4) |
| Natural speech place names (total possible score of 16) | 16.0 (0.0) |
| 15.9 (0.1) |
| 16.0 (0.0) |
| Geographical knowledge (total possible score of 80) | 79.9 (0.3) | 75.8 (6.4) |
| 73.1 (6.4) | 75.6 (3.2) |
| Near − far place names | 0.12 (0.3) | − 1.11 (3.4) |
| 2.57 (2.2)b | 0.2 (4.1) |
Abbreviations: Controls Healthy control group, lvPPA Patient group with logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia, Nat. Natural, nfvPPA Patient group with non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia, svPPA Patient group with semantic variant primary progressive aphasia, SW Sine wave, tAD Patient group with clinically typical Alzheimer’s disease
The table summarises participant group performance data for the key experimental tasks of interest assessing comprehension of sine-wave speech stimuli, natural speech and geographical semantic control tasks (see text for details). Perceptual learning indices were generated for each sine-wave condition by splitting the total number of trials in each condition into four trial blocks and subtracting block 1 score from block 4 score. Significant differences (p < 0.05) are coded as follows: bold, significant difference from healthy controls; asignificant difference from svPPA group; bsignificant performance advantage for near > far places; csignificant within-group advantage for sine-wave numbers relative to place names; dsignificant difference from all other participant groups; esignificant within-group improvement over time
Fig. 2Participant group performance over testing sessions. Data plots of participant group performance over the course of the testing sessions for processing sine-wave replicas of spoken numbers and geographical place names. Values represent mean group scores with SDs for each corresponding trial block (see text for details) in each condition. Controls Healthy control group, lvPPA Patient group with logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia, nfvPPA Patient group with non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia, svPPA Patient group with semantic variant primary progressive aphasia, tAD Patient group with clinically typical Alzheimer’s disease
Fig. 3Individual performance. Scatterplots of individual performance on identification of sine-wave numbers relative to sine-wave place names (left), perceptual learning of sine-wave numbers (middle) and sine-wave place names (right). Sine-wave numbers vs place names (left panel) data were generated using the formula y = (sine-wave numbers score/total score possible) − (sine-wave places score/total score possible). Higher scores therefore indicate an advantage for identifying sine-wave numbers relative to sine-wave place names and vice versa. Perceptual learning data were generated by taking performance in block 1 away from block 4 for the sine-wave number (middle) and sine-wave place name (right) conditions. Red horizontal lines indicate the upper and lower bounds of the healthy control group range. Controls Healthy control group, lvPPA Patient group with logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia, nfvPPA Patient group with non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia, svPPA Patient group with semantic variant primary progressive aphasia, tAD Patient group with typical Alzheimer’s disease
Fig. 4Statistical parametric maps showing disease-related structural neuroanatomical differences between each patient group and controls. Maps are thresholded at p < 0.001 uncorrected over the whole brain and displayed on representative sections of a group (combined patient cohort) mean T1-weighted brain magnetic resonance image; the plane of each section is indicated using Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) coordinates, and the left cerebral hemisphere is displayed on the left in coronal sections and on top in axial sections (colour bars code voxel-wise t scores for the relevant atrophy map). nfvPPA Non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia, svPPA Semantic variant primary progressive aphasia, lvPPA Logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia, tAD Typical Alzheimer’s disease
Fig. 5Voxel-based morphometry results. Statistical parametric maps of regional grey matter volume positively associated with performance on sine-wave speech processing tasks for the combined patient cohort. The top panels show grey matter correlates of sine-wave number and place name identification accuracy; the middle panels, correlates of significant performance discrepancy between the sine-wave conditions (performance advantage for sine-wave numbers or place names); the bottom panels, correlates of the perceptual learning effect over the sine-wave number session (see text for details). Maps are rendered on sections of the group mean T1-weighted brain magnetic resonance image, thresholded at p < 0.001 uncorrected for multiple voxel-wise comparisons over the whole brain for display purposes (areas shown were significant at p < 0.05FWE for multiple comparisons within a pre-specified neuroanatomical ROI; see Table 3 and Additional file 5). The left hemisphere is presented on the left for coronal sections and on top in the axial section; Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) coordinates for the plane of each section are indicated. The colour bar codes voxel-wise t scores for each map
Structural neuroanatomical associations of sine-wave speech comprehension in the patient cohort
| Contrast | Region | Cluster (voxels) | Peak (mm) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Sine-wave numbers | Angular gyrus | 12 | − 38 | − 54 | 46 | 4.63 | 0.045 |
| Sine-wave place names | Planum temporale | 377 | − 52 | − 34 | 12 | 5.19 | 0.013 |
| Angular gyrus | 25 | − 39 | − 54 | 48 | 4.74 | 0.035 | |
| Place names > numbers | Temporal pole | 383 | − 46 | 18 | − 34 | 5.03 | 0.018 |
| Numbers > place names | Inferior frontal gyrus | 84 | − 45 | 16 | 4 | 4.70 | 0.037 |
| Perceptual learning: sine-wave numbers | Post-central gyrus | 175 | − 38 | − 33 | 54 | 5.26 | 0.011 |
| Post-central gyrus | 627 | − 58 | − 20 | 38 | 4.96 | 0.021 | |
The table summarises statistically significant (positive) associations between regional grey matter volume and the relevant performance measure for the processing of sine-wave speech stimuli (see text for details), based on a voxel-based morphometric analysis of brain magnetic resonance images for the combined patient cohort. All local maxima presented are significant at p < 0.05FWE within a pre-specified left hemispheric ROI (see Additional file 5). Coordinates of local maxima are in Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) standard space