Speech patterns in responses to questions asked by an intelligent virtual agent can help to distinguish between people with early stage neurodegenerative disorders and healthy controls.
Gareth Walker, Nathan Pevy, Ronan O'Malley and 4 others
PMID 37722818WHAT IT FOUND
People with Alzheimer's disease paused for a median 67% of their response time, compared to 30% for healthy controls.
Shorter speech duration and more pausing helped distinguish groups, but the small sample size means this is not yet a clinical tool.
Key findings
01People with Alzheimer's disease paused for a median 66.89% of their response time, significantly more than people with MCI (40.78%) and healthy controls (29.95%).
02People with MCI spoke significantly fewer words (median 46) than healthy controls (median 115.5), but people with Alzheimer's disease did not differ significantly from controls on word count.
03A logistic regression model using only speech duration and answer duration correctly predicted 76.6% of cases when distinguishing healthy controls from people with neurodegenerative disorders.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample size is very small, particularly for Alzheimer's disease (n=7), which limits the reliability of the findings. Participants were recruited via convenience sampling and were all white, of British descent, and native English speakers, limiting generalisability. Diagnoses were clinical and based on cognitive testing and imaging; no protein-based biomarkers were used to confirm Alzheimer's pathology. The study used an Intelligent Virtual Agent for data collection, which may elicit different speech patterns than a human clinician. Some participants had companions present during the recording, which could have influenced responses, although interactions where the companion spoke were excluded.
Declared interests
The research was partly funded by the NIHR Sheffield Biomedical Research Centre and the NIHR Sheffield Clinical Research Facility. The authors declared no other conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the 76.6% prediction accuracy or the distinct pausing patterns as evidence that this method is ready for clinical diagnosis. The study had a very small sample size (only 7 people with Alzheimer's), and the participants were a homogeneous group (all white, British, native English speakers), so these results may not apply to your broader patient population.