Speech
It involves the coordinated movements of the respiratory, phonatory, and articulatory systems to generate verbal communication.
Speech is a complex process that requires the integration of cognitive, linguistic, and motor functions.
Disorders in speech can arise from various neurological, structural, or developmental conditions, affecting an individual's ability to effectively communicate.
Understanding the mechanisms of speech production and the factors that influence it is crucial for the diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of speech-related disorders.
Ongoing research in this field aims to expand our knowledge of speech and develop innovative strategies to enhance speech capabilities and improve the quality of life for individuals with speech impairments.
Most cited protocols related to «Speech»
Acceptability was measured by the proportion of patients approached and consented and the number of sessions attended. Retention rates and reasons for drop out was documented. We aimed for a 50% recruitment rate for CB-EST to be deemed an acceptable treatment.
Feasibility and fidelity were measured by assessing whether the intervention could be delivered as planned, by a SLT with CBT training. Session content and treatment plans, recorded in patients’ notes were evaluated by a CBT expert practitioner as part of supervision, reliability and validity checking. Content analysis of sessions including a) whether a therapy goal was identified b) whether a CBT formulation was identified c) whether cognitive and/or behaviour change techniques were used. These outcomes would also indicate the acceptability of the intervention to patients.
A selection of candidate measures targeting swallowing self-report, dietary restrictions, quality of life, functioning and mood were chosen to identify appropriate tools to capture CB-EST outcomes. Acceptability to patients was monitored by percentage data completion. The measures listed below and were administered pre-, immediately following CB-EST, and at three months.
The MDADI [13 ] has twenty items, each marked using a five-point scale and summarised using a total score (range 20–100). Higher scores indicate a better outcome and a change in ≥10 points is considered a clinically significant difference [15 ].
The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30) [16 (link)] is a general quality of life questionnaire with 30 items, five functioning scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social), three symptom scales. The EORTC QLQ-H&N35 is a disease-specific module of 35 questions divided into 7 subscales about pain, swallowing, senses, speech, social eating, social contact, and sexuality. Higher scores on the functional scales refer to better health status, whereas higher scores in symptom scales and the QLQ-H&N35 represent more severe symptoms.
Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (CFQ-11) [17 (link)] measures fatigue severity. Eleven items are answered on a four-point scale (range 0–33), with high scores representing more fatigue.
Work and Social Adjustment Scale(WASA) [18 (link)] measures functional and social impairment. Five questions are answered on a nine-point scale (range 0–40) with higher scores indicating more impairment.
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) [19 (link)] has two seven item subscales measuring anxiety (HADS-A) and depression (HADS-D). Each item is scored on a four-point scale (range 0–21 for each subscale). Subscale scores 0–7 classify participants as non-cases, 8–10 indicates borderline cases, and scores ≥11 indicate clinical levels. Total HADS scores (HADS-T) ≥ 15 indicate clinically significant distress.
Performance Status Scales (PSS) Normalcy of Diet [20 (link)] measures diet texture restrictions and is clinician-rated. The scale has ten ranked categories ranging from 0 (nil by mouth) to 100 (full diet without restrictions).
The acceptability and feasibility of delivering CB-EST as-was or modifying it for a larger trial was further assessed using semi-structured interviews. Patients were purposively sampled to ensure a range of pre to post CB-EST changes in MDADI scores, a range of HNSCC treatment and time post-treatment. Patients were selected from those at the initial stages of CB-EST and at the end of CB-EST. Interviews were conducted by two independent researchers. Patients had the option of a telephone or face to face interview, at a time and place of their choice. All interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymised. Transcripts were read several times and in detail by the qualitative sub-team. Data were then discussed and coded using thematic analysis. Quotations relating to afore mentioned topics were independently selected and coded into key issues and themes.
Most recents protocols related to «Speech»
Example 3
The user 600 drives through Helsinki but deviates from the normal route and drives to streets the user 600 has never driven before. The electronic device 100 notices anomaly in the driving pattern and uses its associative memory of the travelled normal paths to compare current path with the old paths. The interaction between the electronic device 100 and the user 600 goes as follows:
-
- The electronic device 100 notices anomaly in the driving pattern of the user 600.
- The electronic device 100 provides a question to the user 600 by speech synthesis: Are you lost?
- The user 600 responds to the question: Yes.
- The electronic device 100 provides a new question to the user 600 based on the response by speech synthesis: Do you need help getting back to your known routes?
- The user 600 responds to the question: Yes.
- The electronic device 100 therefore knows that user 600 is lost and the detour is not intentional. The electronic device 100 uses a GPS program and gives the nearest location in the known path as the destination point and starts the navigation with the navigation program.
- The user 600 gets instructions from the navigation program and gets back to the familiar path.
- The electronic device 100 knows the task is completed when the user 600 is back on the known path.
Example 1
It is Tuesday evening and the user 600 is walking towards the bus stop of Ruoholahti, Finland. From previous experience it can be predicted that a user 600 might be getting into bus and might be interested in bus time tables. However, this time the user 600 is not going to the bus, but instead waiting for a taxi-ride from the bus stop. The interaction between the electronic device 100 and the user 600 go as follows:
-
- The electronic device 100 predicts that the user is not sure whether he will take the bus.
- The electronic device 100 provides a question to the user 600 by speech synthesis: Are you going to bus? The electronic device 100 provides the question because the electronic device 100 does not know the answer and would give misleading information if it relied on the prediction.
- The user 600 responds to the question: No.
- The electronic device 100 concludes that the user 600 is not going by bus and therefore does not offer a bus time table to the user 600.
Example 2
It is Tuesday evening and the user 600 is walking towards the bus stop of Ruoholahti, Finland. From previous experience and context information the electronic device 100 predicts that the user 600 might take the bus and might be interested in bus time tables. However, this is not always the case and the electronic device 100 is not sure. However, this time the user 600 is indeed going to take the bus. The interaction between the electronic device 100 and the user 600 goes on as follows:
-
- The electronic device 100 does a prediction that the user 600 will go with the bus as the likely next action of the user 600.
- The electronic device 100 provides a question to the user 600 by speech synthesis: Are you going to the bus?
- The user 600 responds to the question: Yes.
- The electronic device 100 predicts that user 600 is heading towards home when going to this particular bus stop at this time and presents information to the user 600 in a display or as speech: Bus 160K will arrive at the bus stop in one minute from now, please hurry if you are going to catch it.
The sampling followed a relatively standardized protocol for all TBI cases: samples were collected from the cortex and underlying white matter of the pre-frontal gyrus, superior and middle frontal gyri, temporal pole, parietal and occipital lobes, deep frontal white matter, hippocampus, anterior and posterior corpus callosum with the cingula, lenticular nucleus, thalamus with the posterior limb of the internal capsule, midbrain, pons, medulla, cerebellar cortex and dentate nucleus. In some cases, gross pathology (e.g. contusions) mandated further sampling along with the dura and spinal cord if available. The number of available sections for these three cases was 26 for case1, and 24 for cases 2 and 3.
For the detection of ballooned neurons, all HE or HPS sections, including contusions, were screened at 200×.
Representative sections were stained with either hematoxylin–eosin (HE) or hematoxylin-phloxin-saffron (HPS). The following histochemical stains were used: iron, Luxol-periodic acid Schiff (Luxol-PAS) and Bielschowsky. The following antibodies were used for immunohistochemistry: glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) (Leica, PA0026,ready to use), CD-68 (Leica, PA0073, ready to use), neurofilament 200 (NF200) (Leica, PA371, ready to use), beta-amyloid precursor-protein (β-APP) (Chemicon/Millipore, MAB348, 1/5000), αB-crystallin (EMD Millipore, MABN2552 1/1000), ubiquitin (Vector, 1/400), β-amyloid (Dako/Agilent, 1/100), tau protein (Thermo/Fisher, MN1020 1/2500), synaptophysin (Dako/Agilent, ready to use), TAR DNA binding protein 43 (TDP-43) ((Protein Tech, 10,782-2AP, 1/50), fused in sarcoma binding protein (FUS) (Protein tech, 60,160–1-1 g, 1/100), and p62 (BD Transduc, 1/25). In our index cases, the following were used for the evaluation of TAI: β-APP, GFAP, CD68 and NF200; for the neurodegenerative changes: αB-crystallin, NF200, ubiquitin, tau protein, synaptophysin, TDP-43, FUS were used.
For the characterization of the ballooned neurons only, two cases of fronto-temporal lobar degeneration, FTLD-Tau, were used as controls. One was a female aged 72 who presented with speech difficulties followed by neurocognitive decline and eye movement abnormalities raising the possibility of Richardson’s disorder. The other was a male aged 67 who presented with a primary non-fluent aphasia progressing to fronto-temporal demαentia. In both cases, the morphological findings were characteristic of a corticobasal degeneration.