Journal of Speech Pathology & Therapy
Open Access

Parkinson’s disease; Depression

Introduction

Parkinson’s complaint( PD) is a sluggishly progressing and largely enervating neurological complaint of the central nervous system, and further than 8 million people suffer from this complaint worldwide. exploration indicates that as numerous as 89 of cases living with PD develop speech signs( K and Lena, 2017), nominated hypokinetic dysarthria. These abnormalities are generally characterized by reduced oral loudness, poor phonation quality and reduced prosodic pitch. The base of oral product depends on the close cooperation of colorful oral organs and sub-organs, including the larynx, oral cords, oral depression and nasal depression, to laboriously help the functional collaboration of respiratory muscles. Speech is generated by the vibration of oral cords, and the frequency of their vibration determines the pitch, while the timbre of speech is nearly related to the formants produced by the air inflow through the oral tract. Formants not only constitute the decisive factor of sound quality but also reflect the physical characteristics of the sound channel (reverberative depression) The pronunciation of vowel formants is one of the foundations of speech conformation and plays a tone-apparent part in the composition of individual speech.

Auditory Abnormality

There are three main formant frequentness involved in the process of speech product F1 ranges from 270 to 730 Hz, F2 ranges from 840 to 2290 Hz, and F3 ranges from 1690 to 3010 Hz. also, in specific cases, F4 and F5 are used to classify individual vowel pronunciation features. F1 and F2 are the main determinants of vowel pronunciation, while F3, F4 and F5 are related to individual timbre [1]. In the study of speech changes in cases with Parkinson’s complaint, formants may be used as an important indicator to measure and estimate the speech characteristics of cases with PD, reflecting the relationship between speech changes and the circumstance and inflexibility of Parkinson’s complaint [2]. In this study, a syllable pronunciation test was administered to all actors, and we estimated the differences in formant frequencies between PD cases and healthy controls. These findings give a more in- depth understanding of the characteristics of PD and farther illuminate the value of changes in syllable pronunciation as a natural marker for the early webbing and vaticination of PD [3]. The clinician guided the phonation test and oversaw it for quality control. Prior to the phonation test, the clinician completely introduced each seeker to the general workflow of the test. After this briefing, all actors could cooperate sufficiently to complete the whole task easily [4-5]. There was no time limit for any item; each item continued until the inspector was satisfied with the subject’s performance. Care was taken to insure that the subject maintained a normal tone and normal loudness in a relaxed state while recording. All actors were subject to the guidance of theclinician.However, the test was broke until he she felt comfortable enough to complete the remainder of the test, If the subject felt tired [6]. Lip rounding lowers all formant frequentness by dragging the oral tract, and it also brings F3 closer to F2. PD progression can lead to increased oral cord pressure and muscle stiffness that dominates oralsub-organs (similar as the throat, pharynx, mouth, and lips). These factors lead to specific changes in vowel formants. Still, in syllable formants, because the concurrence of consonants and vowels obscures the characteristics of the simple vowel formants, there’s no egregious association with differences in H&Y grades or UPDRS scores. Thus, the correlation between syllable formants and complaint inflexibility needs to be further verified [7]. Our results revealed significant differences in the formant frequentness of different vocalized syllables between PD cases and control subjects of both relations. In general, all PD cases, manly and womanish, presented lower formant frequentness for different vocalized syllables than the control group. On the other hand, the relationship between the formants of different syllables and the inflexibility of complaint wasn’t significant. Former studies on vowel formants have shown that in cases with PD, simple vowel formants can change specifically with the inflexibility of the complaint [8]. Because formants are defined as frequentness produced by the oral tract frequentness, the smallest two vowel formant frequentness are the most applicable aural parameters for characterizing vowels. For illustration, studies have shown that the frequence of F1 is related to oral and pharyngeal condensation. The frequency of F2 is related to lingo advance movement (the length of the frontal depression) [9]. F2 values are raised by frontal lingo condensation and lowered by back lingo condensation. Increased F2 values in PD indicate unhappy or slow movement of the lingo tip or lips when being deposited for vowels, and F2 is appreciatively identified with the activation of the supplementary motor area of the brain Heavy drinking can induce BLD (benign laryngeal complaint) characterized by dysphonia Unfortunately, there was weak demarcation between the PD group and the control group in the single- syllable, double- syllable and multiple- syllable phonation tests [10-11]. set up that because of the lower dissipation, the variability of vowels was lower in the control group than in the PD group under the accentuation condition; some speech variables presented weak differences between the two groups, but the vowel space was reduced, leading to a drop in aural vowel discrepancy, which was identified with measures of gross motor impairment (UPDRS- III). In cases with PD, there was no significant coitus difference in the decaying of syllable formants, suggesting that our syllable formants can be used as pointers for assessing dysarthria in cases with PD. In addition, Cordeiro et al. demonstrated that speech signal processing ways could also be used to distinguish physiological and neuromuscular laryngeal pathologies.

Discussion

To explore the relationship between spoken syllable formant frequentness and the inflexibility of PD, a Spearman correlation analysis was performed. In the single- syllable test, F1 presented a weak positive correlation with H&Y stages in both relations, and it presented a weak positive correlation with UPDRS scores in manly PD cases but a weak negative correlation in womanish cases[12].

1. GehrigJ, Wibral M, Arnold C, Kell CA (2012) Setting Up the Speech Production Network: How Oscillations Contribute to Lateralized Information Routing. Front Psych.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Jenson D, Bowers A L, Harkrider AW, Thornton D, Cuellar M, et al. (2014) Temporal dynamics of sensorimotor integration in speech perception and production: Independent component analysis of EEG data.Front Psy.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Salmelin R, Sams M (2002) Motor cortex involvement during verbal versus non-verbal lip and tongue movements. Hum Brain Mapp16: 81-91.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Mersov AM, Jobst C, Cheyne D DeNilL(2016)SensorimotorOscillationsPriortoSpeechOnset Reflect Altered Motor Networks in Adults Who Stutter. Front Hum Neurosci 10.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Korzeczek A, Neef N E, Steinmann I, PaulusW, Sommer M (2022) Stuttering severity relates to frontotemporal low-beta synchronization during pre-speech preparation. Clin Neurophysiol 138: 84-96.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Peters HFM, Hulstijn W (1984) Stuttering and anxiety: The difference between stutterers and nonstutterers in verbal apprehension and physiologic arousal during the anticipation of speech and non-speech tasks. Journal of Fluency Disorders 9: 67–84.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Weber C M, Smith A (1990) Autonomic Correlates of Stuttering and Speech Assessed in a Range of Experimental Tasks. J Speech Hear Res 33: 690-706.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Bauerly K R, Jones RM and Miller C (2019) Effects of Social Stress on Autonomic, Behavioral, and Acoustic Parameters in Adults Who Stutter.J Speech Lang Hear Res 62: 2185-2202.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. CarusoAJ,Chodzko-ZajkoWJ, BidingerDA, SommersRK(1994)AdultsWhoStutter:Responses to Cognitive Stress. J Speech Hear Res 37: 746-754.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Alm PA(2004)Stuttering,emotions,andheartrateduringanticipatoryanxiety:Acriticalreview.JFluency Disord 29: 123-133.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

11. AlmPA(2021)Stuttering:DisorderofEnergySupplytoNeurons? Frontiers in HumanNeuroscience15:662204.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

12. ChangA, BedoinN, CanetteLH, NozaradanS, ThompsonD, CorneyllieA, et al. (2021) Atypical beta power fluctuation while listening to an isochronous sequence in dyslexia. Clinical Neurophysiology 132: 2384-2390.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref