Trial Outcomes & Findings for Perceptual Training to Improve Listeners' Ability to Understand Speech Produced by Individuals With Dysarthria (NCT NCT04897711)

Last Updated: 2024-09-19

Results Overview

A percentage words correct (PWC) score is tabulated for each listener at pretest. A higher score reflects greater speaker intelligibility (i.e., understanding).

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Study phase

Target enrollment

217 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

All outcomes were collected during a single data collection session, that lasted no more than 90 minutes. Pretest transcription accuracy is assessed at the pretest, immediately before a single session of perceptual training.

Results posted on

2024-09-19

Participant Flow

Due to COVID-19 limitations at the time of recruitment, initial efforts were focused on recruiting participants 18-50 years. We recruited participants from the Tallahassee, FL and Logan, UT communities. In the later stages of this project, we focused recruitment efforts on older participants aged 55-80 years from the Tallahassee community.

Participant milestones

Participant milestones
Measure	Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 1 To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with dysarthria are utilized for all three phases. Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Participants in this condition were assigned to receive perceptual training with a single speaker with ALS (Speaker 1). Pretest/posttest transcription data are used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement.	Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 2 To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with dysarthria are utilized for all three phases. Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Participants in this condition were assigned to receive perceptual training with a single speaker with ataxic dysarthria (Speaker 2). Pretest/posttest transcription data are used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement.	Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 3 To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with dysarthria are utilized for all three phases. Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Participants in this condition were assigned to receive perceptual training with a single speaker with Parkinson's disease (Speaker 2). Pretest/posttest transcription data are used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement.	Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 4 To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with dysarthria are utilized for all three phases. Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Participants in this condition were assigned to receive perceptual training with a single speaker with ALS (Speaker 4). Pretest/posttest transcription data are used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement.	Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 5 To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with dysarthria are utilized for all three phases. Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Participants in this condition were assigned to receive perceptual training with a single speaker with PD (Speaker 5). Pretest/posttest transcription data are used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement.
Overall Study STARTED	49	54	53	32	27
Overall Study COMPLETED	49	54	53	32	27
Overall Study NOT COMPLETED	0	0	0	0	0

Reasons for withdrawal

Withdrawal data not reported

Baseline Characteristics

Two participants did not indicate their sex on intake forms.

Baseline characteristics by cohort

Baseline characteristics by cohort
Measure	Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 1 n=49 Participants To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with mixed flaccid-spastic dysarthria due to ALS (Speaker 1) are utilized for all three phases. Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Pretest/posttest transcription data will be used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement.	Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 2 n=54 Participants To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with ataxic dysarthria due to cerebellar degeneration (Speaker 2) are utilized for all three phases. Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Pretest/posttest transcription data will be used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement.	Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 3 n=53 Participants To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with hypokinetic dysarthria due to Parkinson's disease (Speaker 3) are utilized for all three phases. Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Pretest/posttest transcription data will be used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement.	Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 4 n=32 Participants To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with ataxic dysarthria due to cerebellar degeneration (Speaker 4) are utilized for all three phases. Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Pretest/posttest transcription data will be used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement.	Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 5 n=27 Participants To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with hypokinetic dysarthria due to Parkinson's disease (Speaker 5) are utilized for all three phases. Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Pretest/posttest transcription data will be used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement.	Total n=215 Participants Total of all reporting groups
Age, Categorical <=18 years	0 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=7 Participants	0 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=4 Participants	0 Participants n=21 Participants	0 Participants n=8 Participants
Age, Categorical Between 18 and 65 years	49 Participants n=5 Participants	54 Participants n=7 Participants	53 Participants n=5 Participants	7 Participants n=4 Participants	2 Participants n=21 Participants	165 Participants n=8 Participants
Age, Categorical >=65 years	0 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=7 Participants	0 Participants n=5 Participants	25 Participants n=4 Participants	25 Participants n=21 Participants	50 Participants n=8 Participants
Age, Continuous	22.3 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.3 • n=5 Participants	22.9 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.3 • n=7 Participants	21.5 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.9 • n=5 Participants	69.28 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.95 • n=4 Participants	70.22 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.93 • n=21 Participants	35 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 22 • n=8 Participants
Sex: Female, Male Female	37 Participants n=5 Participants • Two participants did not indicate their sex on intake forms.	43 Participants n=7 Participants • Two participants did not indicate their sex on intake forms.	43 Participants n=5 Participants • Two participants did not indicate their sex on intake forms.	20 Participants n=4 Participants • Two participants did not indicate their sex on intake forms.	20 Participants n=21 Participants • Two participants did not indicate their sex on intake forms.	163 Participants n=8 Participants • Two participants did not indicate their sex on intake forms.
Sex: Female, Male Male	12 Participants n=5 Participants • Two participants did not indicate their sex on intake forms.	11 Participants n=7 Participants • Two participants did not indicate their sex on intake forms.	10 Participants n=5 Participants • Two participants did not indicate their sex on intake forms.	12 Participants n=4 Participants • Two participants did not indicate their sex on intake forms.	7 Participants n=21 Participants • Two participants did not indicate their sex on intake forms.	52 Participants n=8 Participants • Two participants did not indicate their sex on intake forms.
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino	10 Participants n=5 Participants	8 Participants n=7 Participants	12 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=4 Participants	0 Participants n=21 Participants	30 Participants n=8 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino	39 Participants n=5 Participants	46 Participants n=7 Participants	41 Participants n=5 Participants	32 Participants n=4 Participants	27 Participants n=21 Participants	185 Participants n=8 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported	0 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=7 Participants	0 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=4 Participants	0 Participants n=21 Participants	0 Participants n=8 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native	0 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=7 Participants	0 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=4 Participants	0 Participants n=21 Participants	0 Participants n=8 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) Asian	4 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=7 Participants	0 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=4 Participants	0 Participants n=21 Participants	4 Participants n=8 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=7 Participants	0 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=4 Participants	0 Participants n=21 Participants	0 Participants n=8 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American	1 Participants n=5 Participants	4 Participants n=7 Participants	3 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=4 Participants	3 Participants n=21 Participants	11 Participants n=8 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) White	44 Participants n=5 Participants	49 Participants n=7 Participants	49 Participants n=5 Participants	32 Participants n=4 Participants	23 Participants n=21 Participants	197 Participants n=8 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race	0 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=7 Participants	0 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=4 Participants	0 Participants n=21 Participants	0 Participants n=8 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported	0 Participants n=5 Participants	1 Participants n=7 Participants	1 Participants n=5 Participants	0 Participants n=4 Participants	1 Participants n=21 Participants	3 Participants n=8 Participants
Working memory	104 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 12 • n=5 Participants	104 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 10 • n=7 Participants	102 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 13 • n=5 Participants	104 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 15 • n=4 Participants	109 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 17 • n=21 Participants	104 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 13 • n=8 Participants
Words-in-Noise	5.6 decibels STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.7 • n=5 Participants	5.28 decibels STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.5 • n=7 Participants	4.8 decibels STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.1 • n=5 Participants	7.9 decibels STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.3 • n=4 Participants	8.2 decibels STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.2 • n=21 Participants	6.4 decibels STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.3 • n=8 Participants
Inhibitory control	93 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 14 • n=5 Participants	94 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 15 • n=7 Participants	90 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 17 • n=5 Participants	98 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 11 • n=4 Participants	96 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 13 • n=21 Participants	94 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 15 • n=8 Participants
Processing speed	111 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 21 • n=5 Participants	115 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 19 • n=7 Participants	114 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 19 • n=5 Participants	100 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 19 • n=4 Participants	100 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 20 • n=21 Participants	110 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 20 • n=8 Participants
Vocabulary Knowledge	105 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 14 • n=5 Participants	108 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 12 • n=7 Participants	110 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 12 • n=5 Participants	112 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 10 • n=4 Participants	112 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 12 • n=21 Participants	109 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 13 • n=8 Participants
Cognitive flexibility	104 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 15 • n=5 Participants	107 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 15 • n=7 Participants	104 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 17 • n=5 Participants	113 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 17 • n=4 Participants	114 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 17 • n=21 Participants	107 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 16 • n=8 Participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: All outcomes were collected during a single data collection session, that lasted no more than 90 minutes. Pretest transcription accuracy is assessed at the pretest, immediately before a single session of perceptual training.

A percentage words correct (PWC) score is tabulated for each listener at pretest. A higher score reflects greater speaker intelligibility (i.e., understanding).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 1 n=49 Participants To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with dysarthria are utilized for all three phases. Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Pretest/posttest transcription data will be used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement.	Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 2 n=54 Participants To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with dysarthria are utilized for all three phases. Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Pretest/posttest transcription data will be used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement.	Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 3 n=53 Participants To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with dysarthria are utilized for all three phases. Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Pretest/posttest transcription data will be used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement.	Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 4 n=32 Participants To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with dysarthria are utilized for all three phases. Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Pretest/posttest transcription data will be used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement.	Perceptual Training With Dysarthric Speaker 5 n=27 Participants To examine the effect of perceptual training with speakers with dysarthria, we use a standard three-phase perceptual training protocol involving pretest, training, and posttest phases, in which speech samples from a single speaker with dysarthria are utilized for all three phases. Perceptual Training: Each listener is familiarized/trained with a single speaker with dysarthria. Pretest/posttest transcription data will be used to build explanatory models of intelligibility improvement.
Pretest Transcription Accuracy	77.8 percentage of words correct Standard Deviation 5.4	35.3 percentage of words correct Standard Deviation 7.7	52.9 percentage of words correct Standard Deviation 7.1	30 percentage of words correct Standard Deviation 10.6	49.2 percentage of words correct Standard Deviation 15.4

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: All outcomes were collected during a single data collection session, lasting no longer than 90 minutes. Transcription accuracy at posttest was assessed at posttest, immediately after perceptual training.

A percentage words correct (PWC) score is tabulated for each listener at posttest. Higher scores reflect greater speaker intelligibility (i.e., understanding).