4.5 Article

Orofacial Muscle Strength across the Dysarthrias

Journal

BRAIN SCIENCES
Volume 12, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12030365

Keywords

dysarthria; orofacial strength; assessment

Categories

Funding

  1. Appalachian State University Off-Campus Scholarly Assignment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared orofacial muscle strength between normal and dysarthric speakers and across types of dysarthria and examined correlations between strength and dysarthria severity. The results indicated that orofacial weakness is mainly associated with flaccid and spastic dysarthria, but not with ataxic dysarthria.
This study compared orofacial muscle strength between normal and dysarthric speakers and across types of dysarthria, and examined correlations between strength and dysarthria severity. Participants included 79 speakers with flaccid, spastic, mixed spastic-flaccid, ataxic, or hypokinetic dysarthria and 33 healthy controls. Maximum pressure generation (P-max) by the tongue, lips, and cheeks represented strength. P-max was lower for speakers with mixed spastic-flaccid dysarthria for all tongue and lip measures, as well as for speakers with flaccid or spastic dysarthria for anterior tongue elevation and lip compression. Anterior tongue elevation and cheek compression tended to be lower than normal for the hypokinetic group. P-max did not differ significantly between controls and speakers with ataxic dysarthria on any measure. Correlations were generally weak between dysarthria severity and orofacial weakness but were stronger in the dysarthria groups with more prominent orofacial weakness. The results generally support predictions that orofacial weakness accompanies flaccid and/or spastic dysarthria but not ataxic dysarthria. The findings support including type of dysarthria as a variable of interest when examining orofacial weakness in motor speech disorders.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available