Mailend Marja-Liisa, Maas Edwin
Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, Elkins Park, PA.
Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
Aphasiology. 2020;35(4):592-613. doi: 10.1080/02687038.2020.1836319. Epub 2020 Oct 23.
The speculation that apraxia of speech (AOS) is not a unitary diagnosis, but consists of different subtypes instead, has been around for decades. However, attempts to empirically substantiate such a notion remain few and far between.
The primary objective of this article is to consider the different bases for identifying subtypes of AOS, review existing evidence regarding subtypes under each classification basis, and provide discussion and implications for future research.
AOS subtypes have been proposed on the basis of clinical symptomatology, theoretical constructs, and an analogy to limb apraxia. Different possible subtypes of AOS are reviewed, along with their empirical support and limitations. Empirical evidence, particularly in the context of a progressive disease, supports the idea that AOS diagnosis may capture different underlying impairments of speech motor planning. Future research to advance our understanding of AOS should carefully consider the basis for subtype classification, and include large sample sizes to differentiate individual variability from possible subtypes.
Several proposed AOS subtypes have found some support in the literature. Further research is needed to determine the validity, coherence and utility of possible AOS subtypes for theoretical and clinical purposes.
关于言语失用症(AOS)并非单一诊断,而是由不同亚型组成的推测已存在数十年。然而,通过实证来证实这一概念的尝试仍然很少。
本文的主要目的是探讨识别AOS亚型的不同依据,回顾每种分类依据下有关亚型的现有证据,并为未来研究提供讨论和启示。
AOS亚型已基于临床症状学、理论结构以及与肢体失用症的类比而被提出。本文回顾了AOS的不同可能亚型,以及它们的实证支持和局限性。实证证据,尤其是在进行性疾病的背景下,支持了AOS诊断可能涵盖言语运动计划的不同潜在损伤这一观点。未来推进我们对AOS理解的研究应仔细考虑亚型分类的依据,并纳入大样本量以区分个体变异性与可能的亚型。
文献中已为几种提出的AOS亚型找到了一些支持。需要进一步研究以确定可能的AOS亚型在理论和临床目的方面的有效性、连贯性和实用性。