No abstract

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. This is an author-produced manuscript that has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in the American undergone copyediting, proofreading, or other quality controls associated with final published articles. As the publisher and copyright holder, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) disclaims any liability resulting from use of inaccurate or misleading data or information contained herein. Further, the authors have disclosed that permission has been obtained for use of any copyrighted material and that, if applicable, conflicts of interest have been noted in the manuscript. Permanent repository link Journal of Speech-Language

No abstract

A variety of tDCS approaches has been used to investigate the potential of tDCS to improve language outcomes, or slow down the decay of language competences caused by Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA). The employed stimulation protocols and study designs in PPA are generally speaking similar to those deployed in post-stroke aphasic populations. These two etiologies of aphasia however differ substantially in their pathophysiology, and for both conditions the optimal stimulation paradigm still needs to be established. A systematic review was done and after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 15 articles were analyzed focusing on differences and similarities across studies especially focusing on PPA patient characteristics (age, PPA variant, language background), tDCS stimulation protocols (intensity, frequency, combined therapy, electrode configuration) and study design as recent reviews and group outcomes for individual studies suggest tDCS is an effective tool to improve language outcomes, while methodological approach and patient characteristics are mentioned as moderators that may influence treatment effects. We found that studies of tDCS in PPA have clinical and methodological and heterogeneity regarding patient populations, stimulation protocols and study design. While positive group results are usually found irrespective of these differences, the magnitude, duration and generalization of these outcomes differ when comparing stimulation locations, and when results are stratified according to the clinical variant of PPA. We interpret the results of included studies in light of patient characteristics and methodological decisions. Further, we highlight the role neuroimaging can play in study protocols and interpreting results and make recommendations for future work.

BackgroundCerebellar mutism syndrome (CMS) or posterior fossa syndrome (PFS) consists of a constellation of neuropsychiatric, neuropsychological and neurogenic speech and language deficits. It is most commonly observed in children after posterior fossa tumor surgery. The most prominent feature of CMS is mutism, which generally starts after a few days after the operation, has a limited duration and is typically followed by motor speech deficits. However, the core speech disorder subserving CMS is still unclear.Case presentationThis study investigates the speech and language symptoms following posterior fossa medulloblastoma surgery in a 12-year-old right-handed boy. An extensive battery of formal speech (DIAS = Diagnostic Instrument Apraxia of Speech) and language tests were administered during a follow-up of 6 weeks after surgery. Although the neurological and neuropsychological (affective, cognitive) symptoms of this patient are consistent with Schmahmann’s syndrome, the speech and language symptoms were markedly different from what is typically described in the literature. In-depth analyses of speech production revealed features consistent with a diagnosis of apraxia of speech (AoS) while ataxic dysarthria was completely absent. In addition, language assessments showed genuine aphasic deficits as reflected by distorted language production and perception, wordfinding difficulties, grammatical disturbances and verbal fluency deficits.ConclusionTo the best of our knowledge this case might be the first example that clearly demonstrates that a higher level motor planning disorder (apraxia) may be the origin of disrupted speech in CMS. In addition, identification of non-motor linguistic disturbances during follow-up add to the view that the cerebellum not only plays a crucial role in the planning and execution of speech but also in linguistic processing. Whether the cerebellum has a direct or indirect role in motor speech planning needs to be further investigated.