Skip to main content
Frontiers in Neurology logoLink to Frontiers in Neurology
. 2019 Feb 19;10:106. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00106

Clinical Measures of Bulbar Dysfunction in ALS

Yana Yunusova 1,2,3,*, Emily K Plowman 4, Jordan R Green 5,6, Carolina Barnett 7,8, Peter Bede 9
PMCID: PMC6389633  PMID: 30837936

Abstract

Bulbar impairment represents a hallmark feature of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) that significantly impacts survival and quality of life. Speech and swallowing dysfunction are key contributors to the clinical heterogeneity of ALS and require well-timed and carefully coordinated interventions. The accurate clinical, radiological and electrophysiological assessment of bulbar dysfunction in ALS is one of the most multidisciplinary aspects of ALS care, requiring expert input from speech-language pathologists (SLPs), neurologists, otolaryngologists, augmentative alternative communication (AAC) specialists, dieticians, and electrophysiologists—each with their own evaluation strategies and assessment tools. The need to systematically evaluate the comparative advantages and drawbacks of various bulbar assessment instruments and to develop integrated assessment protocols is increasingly recognized. In this review, we provide a comprehensive appraisal of the most commonly utilized clinical tools for assessing and monitoring bulbar dysfunction in ALS based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) evaluation framework. Despite a plethora of assessment tools, considerable geographical differences exist in bulbar assessment practices and individual instruments exhibit considerable limitations. The gaps identified in the literature offer unique opportunities for the optimization of existing and development of new tools both for clinical and research applications. The multicenter validation and standardization of these instruments will be essential for guideline development and best practice recommendations.

Keywords: amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Bulbar ALS, outcome assessment (Health Care), dysphagia, dysarthria, COSMIN

Introduction

ALS is a relentlessly progressive neurodegenerative disease with considerable clinical heterogeneity compared to other neurodegenerative conditions. Bulbar impairment (oro-motor, dysarthria and dysphagia) is a hallmark feature of the disease and has been associated with the condition since its earliest descriptions (1). While only approximately 30% of patients exhibit bulbar symptoms at onset, the majority of patients develop speech and swallowing difficulties with disease progression. Bulbar signs and symptoms play an important role in the diagnosis of ALS and pose unique management challenges. Bulbar presentation has been associated with shorter survival (2, 3), faster functional decline (4), reduced quality of life (57) and increased multidisciplinary support needs (8, 9). Dysarthria has been consistently associated with low mood, withdrawal from activities and social isolation (10, 11). Dysphagia in ALS may lead to weight loss, malnutrition, dehydration, aspiration pneumonia, hospitalization and reduced quality of life (12, 13). Despite these important sequelae, bulbar impairment in ALS is relatively understudied, and the research literature is sparse (14). Proxies of bulbar impairment are underrepresented among outcome measures in clinical trials (15). Validated diagnostic, monitoring and prognostic markers of bulbar dysfunction are lacking and clinical assessment practices vary considerably across various centers (16).

Assessment measures are broadly classified as “diagnostic” when their primary purpose is to confirm the diagnosis, exclude mimics, or classify individual patient according to disease-onset. Some measures have been optimized to characterize symptom severity, while other indices are primarily used to monitor longitudinal change. Depending on the primary purpose of a measure, it is subject to a specific set of requirements defined by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines (17). These require that, in order to reliably integrate assessment tools into clinical practice, their measurement properties need to be firmly established relative to their primary purpose. All tests need to be assessed for validity and reliability (reproducibility). Diagnostic and screening tests should also be evaluated for their detection abilities (i.e., sensitivity/specificity). Discriminative measures need to be able to detect group differences and measures proposed to track longitudinal change need to be assessed for their ability to capture progressive changes.

The objective of this paper is to provide a review of established bulbar measures in ALS from a diagnostic, screening and disease monitoring perspective. This work is not intended as an exhaustive review of all available measures of bulbar impairment in ALS but as a summary of the current state of the field and its most pressing needs.

Tools for Diagnosing and Screening for Bulbar ALS

Table 1 provides a summary of tools primarily used for the diagnosis of bulbar dysfunction in ALS highlighting their main advantages and limitations.

Table 1.

Tools for diagnosis of bulbar signs or ALS.

Tool Description Advantages Limitations Recommendations
1. Cranial Nerve Examination Bulbar motor UMN and LMN signs: weakness, fasciculations, atrophy, tone, reflexes Well established; (18) easy to perform; reliability of items established in stroke, (19) structural disorders (20) and mixed neurological populations; (21) validated with respect to detection of dysphagia with VFSE Not sufficiently standardized, subjective; measurement properties have not been evaluated in ALS Individual items and the test as a whole require further standardization and better testing of measurement properties
2. Needle EMG, Genioglossus, Sternocleidomastoid (SCM), Trapezius Indicates acute and chronic denervation in selected muscles, LMN changes Well established, helpful in the exclusion of mimics able to detect subclinical involvement; can be quantitative Invasive, not well standardized across clinics, requires substantial training, low sensitivity due to difficulty with relaxation (tongue < SCM < trapezius); (22) commonly qualitative Requires further standardization and establishment of quantitative measures
3. Clinical MRI of bulbar regions (e.g., brainstem, bulbar region of the PMC) The clinical role of MRI is to rule out neurological mimics, tongue and pharyngeal pathology Widely available, noninvasive, potentially sensitive to prodromal stages of bulbar disease Qualitative, not formally assessed with respect to clinical utility in the diagnosis of early stages of bulbar disease Requires further research effort in establishing clinical utility
4. Auditory perceptual assessment of dysarthria types Detection of UMN vs. LMN signs in speech/ voice tasks; rating specified dimensions of voice/ speech quality on a Likert scale Well-established method in dysarthria assessment in SLP Specific set of ALS-relevant items is not established; (23, 24) may not be equally sensitive to all dysarthria severities; requires specialized training; not well utilized in neurology; lengthy; low reliability for some items (25) Items require further identification and standardization in ALS as well as better testing of measurement properties
5. Frenchay Dysarthria Assessment Comprehensive assessment of bulbar structure and function (goals and item overlap with #1 and #4) Well-established method in dysarthria assessment in SLP; reliability is established (26) Relatively lengthy; not specific to ALS; validation is limited Items require further identification and standardization as well as better testing of measurement properties
6. Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Exam (VFSE) “Gold standard” dysphagia assessment to directly visualize swallow safety and efficiency Well established in ALS; showed sensitivity to prodromal stage of dysphagia and sensitivity to change (2729) Requires expensive instrumentation and highly trained personnel; involves radiation exposure (minimal); need for a separate and additional test Recommended clinically in patients demonstrated high risk of dysphagia to diagnose and test impact of strategies for treatment planning
7. EAT-10 Screening tool for dysphagia; 10 items; self-administered, symptom-based Validated and reliability assessed in a large non-ALS cohort; differentiated safe vs. unsafe swallowers in ALS; cut-off of 8 or higher indicates high likelihood of dysphagia (3.1 times); sensitivity 86%, specificity 76%; (30) quick and easy, low administrative burden for scoring Subjective; may not be sensitive to early disease stages Recommended for use in clinic as a screener for the presence of dysphagia in ALS.
8.3oz Swallow Test Screening tool for dysphagia; 3oz of water given to patient in a cup; Pass / Fail; fail includes inability to drink without stopping, cough or throat clear, “wet” voice Validated in general patient populations with very high sensitivity but poor specificity; quick and easy to use Not validated in ALS; may miss patients with sensory deficits (silent aspirators) and early signs of dysphagia, (31) could also overestimate dysphagia risk due to “maximum performance” nature of test Requires further standardization as well as better testing of measurement properties
9. Voluntary Cough Screening tool for airway defense physiologic capacity using airflow spirometry or peak cough flow meter Objective, instrumental; validity, reliability, sensitivity (up to 90%) and specificity (up to 82%), depending on the measure, relative to VFS, have been established in ALS (32) Requires instrumentation and a trained examiner; voluntary cough is mediated differently neurologically to a reflexive cough; effort dependent Recommended for use in clinic as a screener to index airway defense capacity to expel tracheal aspirate or secretions in ALS

Cranial Nerve Exam (CNE)

Clinical evidence of upper motor neuron (UMN) and lower motor neuron (LMN) degeneration is required for the diagnosis of ALS. With regards to bulbar impairment, clinical UMN signs include pathological reflexes (e.g., brisk jaw jerk, gag, and other facial reflexes) (18) and LMN signs encompass muscle weakness, atrophy and fasciculations in the jaw, face, tongue and palate (33). Although the clinical neurological examination remains “the best way to localize neurodegeneration in vivo and to follow the process in real time,” (34) and the reliability of CNE has been evaluated in various neurologic populations (21, 35), the quantitative psychometric profile of CNE i.e., inter and intra-later reliability, sensitivity, specificity, and responsiveness, have not been systematically evaluated in ALS to date. This represents a research priority for the standardization of assessments.

Needle EMG

The role of electromyography (EMG) in ALS is the confirmation of acute and chronic denervation. The former may be evidenced by fibrillations, positive sharp waves and fasciculation potentials, which in the tongue are not readily detectable since complete relaxation is difficult to achieve (22). Polyphasic motor unit potentials (MUPs) with prolonged duration, increased amplitude and decreased recruitment are suggestive of chronic denervation. Quantitative motor unit action potential analysis in subclinical bulbar involvement is thought to be superior to peak ratio interference pattern analysis (36). Depending on local protocols, the genioglossus is the most commonly assessed muscle (37), but the evaluation of the sternocleidomastoid (38), masseter, temporalis, frontalis (39), mentalis (40), and trapezius (22) muscles have also been proposed to resolve diagnostic uncertainty. While Motor Unit Number Estimation (MUNE) techniques (41, 42), such as MUNIX (43) have been extensively utilized to quantify motor neuron loss in the limbs, they have only been relatively recently adopted to assess the denervation of the tongue (44) and further development is required for their acceptance to clinical practice.

Clinical Neuroimaging

While brain imaging is not required to establish the diagnosis of ALS, MRI is commonly used as part of the diagnostic work-up to rule out alternative neurological conditions which may mimic ALS (45, 46). In bulbar onset patients the careful evaluation of the brain stem for structural, neoplastic, vascular, inflammatory and infiltrative processes is particularly important. Pathological processes superior to the brainstem; demyelination, neurovascular syndromes, neurosarcoidosis, leukodystrophies, malignancies, and neurodegenerative conditions may also manifest in bulbar symptoms if involving the corticobulbar tracts or the bulbar segments of the motor cortex. A number of extrapyramidal and cerebellar conditions may also present with localization-specific (ataxic, hypokinetic, hyperkinetic) dysarthria and imaging has a role to rule out gross striatal, nigral and cerebellar pathologies. The incidental identification of tongue tumors on MRI in patients with suspected ALS has also been reported (47). A number of radiological cues have been associated with ALS, such as high signal along the pyramidal tracts on T2 weighted or FLAIR imaging, low signal in the precentral gyrus on GRE/SWI, isolated motor cortex atrophy on T1W, but these qualitative visual cues are not specific to ALS and are not sensitive for diagnostic or monitoring purposes (48). Quantitative imaging studies of ALS on the other hand have successfully captured the cortical (UMN) components of bulbar dysfunction in a somatotopic distribution (49, 50) and characterized the pathological substrate of pseudobulbar affect (51, 52). With relentless methodological (53) and conceptual advances in neuroimaging (54), the establishment of multicenter data repositories (55) and the increasing availability of 7 Tesla systems (56), the anatomical underpinnings of bulbar dysfunction are likely to be characterized in further detail.

Auditory-Perceptual Dysarthria Evaluation and Frenchay Dysarthria Assessment

“The Mayo Clinic” method of dysarthria categorization involves auditory-perceptual evaluation of specific voice and speech features during a passage reading, phonation of /a/, and oral dysdiadochokinesis (DDK) with /pa, /ta/, /ka/, and /pataka/ (5759). The identification of “harsh,” “strained,” or “strangled” voice quality, slow speaking rate and “excess and equal” stress pattern during passage reading and DDK are typically linked to UMN dysfunction and “spastic dysarthria.” “Breathy” or weak voice, hypernasality, nasal emissions, and articulatory imprecision without changes in speaking rate are classically associated with LMN dysfunction and “flaccid dysarthria.” ALS is typically characterized by mixed spastic-flaccid dysarthria presenting with articulatory imprecision, hypernasality, harshness, slow rate and prosodic abnormalities. Although the reliability of observational assessments have been repeatedly questioned (10), protocol standardization, assessor training, and reference samples are thought to improve assessment reliability (60). Despite these efforts, auditory-perceptual assessment remains surprisingly underutilized, requiring standardization of practices, psychometric evaluation and multi-center validation in ALS.

Tools like the Frenchay Dysarthria Assessment (FDA) (26) are particularly well-suited for diagnostic purposes as they can comprehensively assess both structure and function of the bulbar musculature through a combination of CNE items and the auditory-perceptual dysarthria assessment. However, FDA was not specifically developed for ALS, and the evaluation of its measurement properties in ALS is lacking. DDK, which is included in CNE, FDA and perceptual dysarthria assessments, is commonly used to track disease progression, and has shown high sensitivity but low specificity for detecting bulbar signs in the prodromal phase of bulbar ALS (61, 62). With further optimization, DDK may have a diagnostic potential, particularly if certain performance constrains are imposed or its complexity is increased (63, 64).

Dysphagia Diagnosis and Screening

Videofluoroscopic swallowing evaluation (VFSE) remains the gold standard of dysphagia assessment in most neurological conditions allowing the direct visualization of swallowing safety and efficiency i.e., aspiration and the presence of residue, respectively. In ALS however, VFSE is underutilized (16) due to a number of factors such as the presumed lack of therapeutic relevance, lack of access to equipment or perceived patient burden etc. A number of screening tools have been recently evaluated for the early identification of those at risk for dysphagia in ALS. Currently, the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10) demonstrated good sensitivity and adequate specificity for detecting aspiration in ALS (30), while instrumental measures of airflow during voluntary cough showed excellent sensitivity and specificity to detect aspiration (32). The bedside 3oz water swallow test is also extensively utilized, but its measurement properties in ALS are still unknown. There is a general consensus among SLPs that patients who fail dysphagia screening should be further evaluated by instrumental techniques to directly visualize the swallowing process using VFSE or fiberoptic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) techniques (65). This is an important consideration given the high incidence of “silent” aspiration in this patient population. Instrumental assessments, not only confirm the diagnosis of dysphagia, but inform on swallowing safety, help to identify the specific etiology of dysphagia, and guide therapeutic strategies that can be tested during the instrumental exam by directly visualizing their impact.

Tools for Disease Monitoring—Staging and Longitudinal Tracking

Certain bulbar measures have been optimized to track the decline of bulbar function in individual patients and entire cohorts. Table 2 summarizes proposed bulbar monitoring tools in ALS.

Table 2.

Tools to measure bulbar dysfunction severity and disease progression.

Tool Description Advantages Limitations Recommendations
1. ALSFRS-R, bulbar sub-score Tracks bulbar disease progression; 3 “bulbar” questions; 0 (no function)−4 (normal function) Quick and easy to perform; patient and caregiver versions available; well validated as a total score; (66) recent studies suggest using “domain-specific” subscores instead of a total score; (67, 68) declines linearly; an accepted end point in clinical trials Limited assessment of bulbar dysfunction; symptom report; may underestimate sisease severity; (69) changes relatively late in the disease; skewed to detection of the LMN impairment (70) Recommended for use in clinic and clinical trials but caution due to limited nature of bulbar assessment
2. Center for Neurologic Study-Bulbar Function Scale (CNS-BFS) Reports solely on bulbar symptoms, 21 questions regarding speech, swallowing and salivation Validated-high criterion and construct validity, (71) good reliability, responsive to change over time and improved in a clinical trial (72) Symptom report; potentially not sensitive to early phases of the disease; need further validation against VFSE Recommended for bulbar evaluation in clinic and clinical trials
3. Appel scale Includes 5-point ratings of functional status of speech and swallowing (scores 6–30) and bulbar disease progression Reliable; responsive to disease progression (linear decline); the composite score distinguishes slow from fast progressors, predicts survival, provides bases for clinical classification with management recommendations depending on severity (73) Validation is limited to date; includes only 2 questions related to bulbar function-−1 speech and 1 swallowing Requires further evaluation of measurement properties; limited for the assessment of bulbar dysfunction
4. Norris scale 34-item ranking system; (74) 6 items in the “bulbar” category (i.e., chew, swallow, speak, jaw jerk, atrophy face/ tongue, lability) on a 3-point scale for each item Quick and easy to administer; includes a range of bulbar items; has been used in clinical trials (75) All items (functional and non-functional) rated equally; 3-point scale might be too coarse to detect change; limited information on the development and validation of the tool; responsiveness not established Requires further evaluation of measurement properties; limited for the assessment of bulbar dysfunction
5. ALS Severity Scale (ALSSS) 10-point staging scale; was designed to supports management/rehabilitation practices in ALS; includes 1 speech and 1 swallowing item (0 to 10) Easy to perform; clear description of each stage; adequate reliability; sig correlations with timed tests and speech intelligibility; responsive to change over time (76) Ordinal scale; includes only 1 speech and 1 swallowing item Requires further evaluation of measurement properties
6. Neuromuscular Disease Clinical Status Scale (NdSSS) 8-stage dysphagia severity scale to track the development of symptoms of dysphagia over time Quick and easy to administer by a trained clinician; reliability, concurrent validity relative to other scales and responsiveness reported (77) and adequate Focused predominantly on description of intake/ diet; not validated against VFSE Although promising, requires further evaluation of measurement properties in other cultures
7. Oral Secretion Scale (OSS) 5-point scale to evaluate the severity of sialorrhea in ALS Quick and easy to administer; validated against ALSFRS-R bulbar subscore and SSS; adequate reliability; can be used by different professions (78) Floor effect in the more severely involved individuals; responsiveness not assessed; not linked to dysphagia outcomes Recommended for evaluation of severity of sialorrhea in clinic and in clinical trials
8. Sialorrhea Scoring Scale (SSS) 9-point scale to evaluate the severity of sialorrhea Quick and easy to administer; validated against ALSFRS-R bulbar subscore and OSS; adequate reliability; can be used by different professions; better spread of scores across the severity range compared to OSS (78) Responsiveness not assessed; reliability was somewhat lower than for OSS; not linked to dysphagia outcomes Recommended for evaluation of severity of sialorrhea in clinic and in clinical trials
9. Sentence Intelligibility Test—Speech Intelligibility and Speaking rate % of words understood by a listener during a sentence transcription task, and number of words produced per minute (WPM) Easy to perform; supported by software; validated in multiple studies with respect to ALSSS (79) and ALSFRS-R; decline in rate to 125 WPM predicts intelligibility drop and is used to time AAC interventions; WPM changes linearly with disease progression (80, 81) Requires a trained SLP; requires a trained transcriber; low sensitivity to early bulbar disease; (61) declines over 12% in sentence intelligibility and 37 WPM are outside of measurement error (82) Speaking rate is recommended to be tracked during clinic in order to plan AAC interventions for those at risk for loss of speech intelligibility
10. Timed tests: Speech and pause durations in a passage* A passage reading task (e.g., Bamboo) (83) allows a separation between speaking and pause events; gives a detailed picture of the components of speaking rate Easy to perform; allows practice to minimize reading errors; distinguished patients with ALS with bulbar and respiratory signs; (84) showed sensitivity to change in a drug trial (85) Currently requires time consuming, by-hand measurements; requires training; measurement properties (e.g., responsiveness, measurement error) are not well established; bulbar effects need further differentiation from respiratory and cognitive effects Requires further standardization as well as better testing of measurement properties; subsequently would benefit from automation
11. Times tests: DDK* A syllable repetition task (pa; ta; ka; pa-ta-ka) in syllables per second (syl/sec) that is used to detect slowing of the oral movements Easy to perform; clinicians are familiar with the task; easily measured instrumentally; free of cognitive-linguistic effects; distinguishes slow from fast progressors; (86) cut off 4.6 syl/s 91% sensitivity and 54% specificity in detecting bulbar signs in pre-symptomatic patients (61) Requires training/ modeling and maximum effort from patients; measurement properties are not fully established (e.g., responsiveness; error of measurement) Requires further standardization as well as better testing of measurement properties; subsequently would benefit from automation
12. Maximum Tongue Pressure (MTP)* A measure of tongue strength using a commercially available devices Affordable easy to use clinical tool; validated against ALSFRS-R bulbar subscore and VFSE; cut off < 21 KPa has sensitivity 80% and specificity 100% for detecting bulbar dysfunction on ALSFRS-R (87) and oral dysphagia; adequate reliability; independent prognostic factor of survival (88) Requires training of the clinician and patient prior to measurement—results are placement dependent; (89) requires max effort; insufficient data on responsiveness; (90) not associated with dysarthria and speech intelligibility loss Requires further standardization as well as testing of measurement properties
*

May be used for diagnostic purposes.

Bulbar Monitoring (Overall)

A recent clinical practice survey of ALS care in the United States revealed that the Revised ALS—Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R) bulbar sub-score, clinician or patient administered, represented the only measure routinely used to evaluate bulbar dysfunction in the clinical setting (16). It contains only 3 questions to address changes in speech, swallowing and salivation that are each merely rated on a four-point ordinal scale. While the total ALSFRS-R score is thought to have excellent reliability, the measurement properties of the individual sub-scores (e.g., bulbar) have not been specifically evaluated to date (66, 67, 91, 92). The Center for Neurologic Study-Bulbar Function Scale (CNS-BFS) is a 15-item questionnaire of bulbar involvement which has recently been validated against the ALSFRS-R and “timed” speech and swallowing tasks, and has already been successfully utilized in a clinical trial (71, 72). However, the CNS-BFS still needs to be validated against VFSE.

The Appel scale is one of the best characterized tools to track ALS-associated impairment and functional decline (73). Other clinician-administered instruments include the Norris (74), Tuffs (93), and Charing Cross (94) scales, but their original development, optimization and validation studies can be difficult to acquire and subsequently, their performance is relatively difficult to judge. The ability of these instruments to represent specific stages and their potential to track progressive bulbar impairment is largely unknown. A number of global ALS staging systems have been developed recently, such as the King's clinical staging system, the Milano-Torino (MiToS) functional staging, the Fine'til 9 (FT9) framework (95, 96), but bulbar impairment is just a small component of these instruments. Among the staging tools, the ALS Severity Scale (ALSSS) is particularly noteworthy, as it uses a 10-point scale for two bulbar functions, speech and swallowing. It was designed to guide rehabilitation efforts in ALS and, and pending formal psychometric evaluation, it may prove to be particularly useful (97).

Functional Monitoring of Dysphagia and Oral Secretion Scales

The Neuromuscular Disease Clinical Status Scale (NdSSS), which focuses solely on dysphagia, underwent one of the most rigorous psychometric evaluations to date. This tool exhibited excellent inter- and intra- rater reliability and correlated well with the functional oral intake scale (77). It has not been validated against VFSE yet, and given the potential for considerable geographical differences in oral intake, it is unclear how this tool may be validated around the world. While there are several tools to assess sialorrhea in ALS, such as the Oral Secretion Scale (OSS) and Sialorrhea Scoring Scale (SSS) available (78), these also need comprehensive psychometric evaluation and validation.

Functional Monitoring of Dysarthria

“Speech intelligibility” refers to the degree to which a speaker is understood by a listener, and “speaking rate” refers to speaking speed. Although both of these measures can be assessed on a 5 or 7-point Likert scale (49), the Sentence Intelligibility Test (SIT) is often preferred by SLPs, as it provides a more fine-grained estimate of speech intelligibility (i.e., percent of words transcribed correctly) and speaking rate (i.e., number of words produced per minute) (98). Speech intelligibility is considered abnormal when it falls below 97%, and speaking rate is considered abnormal below 160 words-per-minute (WPM) (99, 100). Speech intelligibility is a general indicator of the severity of dysarthria and it declines relatively late in the course of the disease (101). Speaking rate typically declines prior to significant changes in speech intelligibility, and it changes more linearly with symptom duration than speech intelligibility. Therefore, speaking rate is particularly useful in monitoring bulbar impairment longitudinally (102, 103). A speaking rate of 125 WPM or less is the recommended cut off for to trigger referral to the augmentative and alternative communication services (99).

Digital speech recordings and automated analyses can provide new opportunities for in-depth, observer-independent evaluations, especially during a passage reading and syllable repetition (DDK) tasks. In passage reading tasks, such as the Bamboo Passage, which has been specifically developed to support automatic analyses, certain phrases are semi-automatically identified, and speech duration and pause intervals can be accurately quantified (83). The measures derived from this analysis e.g., percentage pause time, mean phrase duration etc. have been identified to be sensitive to the prodromal stages of bulbar dysfunction (61) and also showed to detect response to pharmaceutical interventions such as dextromethorphan/quinidine (Nuedexta) therapy (85). A recent longitudinal study suggested that the main advantage of the DDK tasks may be in their ability to reliably distinguish slow- and fast-progressors (86).

Physiological Monitoring

Muscle strength testing in ALS has been initially performed using force transducers (strain gauges) (104, 105) and later with pressure bulbs via the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument (IOPI) (IOPI Medical LLC) or TPM-01 (JMS, Hiroshima). Lingual pressure testing using the IOPI revealed adequate reliability of a maximum tongue pressure estimate (MTP, or maximum anterior isometric pressure, MAIP) but not for the measure of endurance (89). Only one study assessed longitudinal changes in MTP in ALS to date (90) and reported its decline in patients with bulbar onset within 3 months and for those with spinal onset within 6 months. Tongue strength has also been shown to be an independent predictor of survival (88); however, formal psychometric evaluation is awaited to determine the MTP's utility to measure progressive changes over time.

Discussion

In order to firmly establish the clinical utility of specific bulbar instruments and their potential as outcome measures in clinical trials, their measurement properties need to be comprehensively characterized. Among the diagnostic dysphagia instruments, screening tools, such as EAT-10 and voluntary cough (30, 32) have been well evaluated. Among speech measures, only DDK rate came close to demonstrating diagnostic utility (61). The remaining tools require extensive evaluation with regards to their diagnostic accuracy. While a large number of novel assessment tools have been proposed to track the progression of bulbar impairment, only the ALSFRS-R, the CNS-BFS and some bulbar staging systems (e.g., NdSSS, OSS, SSS) meet at least basic measurement requirements. Most existing disease monitoring tools lack the ability to capture subtle progressive changes, which is indispensable for disease tracking tools. Robust systematic psychometric evaluation is needed to improve the currently available clinical, academic and pharmacological-trial assessment tools.

Despite the gaps in the current literature and the limitations of current clinical trial designs, we are likely to witness considerable advances in standardized bulbar assessments and the emergence of purpose-designed, disease-specific, well-validated bulbar assessment tools. Emerging technologies such as quantitative neuroimaging, muscle ultrasound, electrical impedance myography (EIM), high-resolution manometry, videomanofluoroscopy, and speech acoustic monitoring are likely to soon complement our armamentarium of clinical tools. A number of promising imaging techniques have already been utilized to characterize the pathological substrate of bulbar impairment in ALS including diffusion tensor imaging (106, 107), cortical thickness measurements (50, 108, 109), morphometry-type analyses (49, 110), magnetization transfer ratio imaging (106), MR spectroscopy (111), MRI intensitometry (112), and task-based functional MRI (113, 114). Despite these advances, MRI-derived metrics remain underutilized in the clinical setting and as outcome measures in pharmacological trials. This is in sharp contrast with clinical trials in Multiple Sclerosis, where MRI plays an established role as a key outcome measure in phase III clinical trials (115). Muscle ultrasound may capture tongue fasciculations in the absence of fasciculation potentials on EMG and the combination of ultrasound and EMG may help the detection of early denervation (116). Likewise, EIM shows promise in detecting changes in the structural composition of the tongue in ALS and may evolve into an important tool to detect early bulbar involvement (117, 118). High-resolution manometry and videomanofluoroscopy may provide unique insights into the dynamics of bolus movement and swallowing pressures enabling early detection of bulbar dysfunction and thus, timely interventions (119, 120). Acoustic analysis of speech has been proposed as a means for the objective assessment of bulbar impairment for over two decades, but until recently extracting these measure has been extremely time consuming. Recent developments in automatic audio and video analysis methods and smart phone technologies make speech analysis technologically feasible, enabling observer-independent multiparametric analyses (121123). These emerging methodologies will need careful development, optimization and evaluation according to established methodological guidelines (e.g., COSMIN framework).

Conclusions

Recent advances in neuroimaging, development of staging systems, patient-reported outcome measures and the emergence of novel instrumental speech and swallowing assessment techniques promise novel insights into bulbar dysfunction in ALS. However, in order for these methods to be integrated into routine clinical practice and pharmacological trials, they have to be rigorously evaluated with respect to their measurement properties, diagnostic performance and longitudinal tracking abilities. The establishment of large international collaborations and relentless biomarker research efforts give cause for optimism for the development of validated bulbar assessments, which in turn will contribute to best practice recommendations, enable well-timed clinical interventions and facilitate accurate patient stratification in clinical trials.

Author Contributions

YY and PB reviewed references, drafted the manuscript, and generated the tables. EP provided expert opinion on dysphagia assessments and edited the drafts of the manuscript. JG provided expert opinion on dysarthria assessments and edited the drafts of the manuscript. CB provided expert opinion on measurement development and edited the drafts of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Nicholas Wasylyk for his help with literature search and data extraction.

Glossary

Abbreviations

AAC

augmentative alternative communication

ALS

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

ALSFRS-R

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis—Functional Rating Scale—Revised

ALSSS

ALS Severity Scale

CNS-BFS

Center for Neurologic Study-Bulbar Function Scale

COSMIN

COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments

CNE

Cranial nerve exam

DDK

dysdiadochokinesis

EAT-10

Eating Assessment Tool-10

EIM

electrical impedance myography

EMG

electromyography

FLAIR

Fluid-attenuated inversion recovery

FDA

Frenchay Dysarthria Assessment

FEES

fiberoptic evaluation of swallowing

FSE

Videofluoroscopic swallowing evaluation

FT9

Fine'til 9

GRE/SWI

gradient recalled echo/susceptibility weighted imaging

IOPI

Iowa Oral Performance Instrument

KPa

kilopascal

LMN

lower motor neuron

MAIP

maximum anterior isometric pressure

MiToS

Milano-Torino staging

MR

magnetic resonance

MRI

magnetic resonance imaging

MUNE

Motor Unit Number Estimation

MTP

maximum tongue pressure

MUNIX

Motor unit number index

MUPs

motor unit potentials

NdSSS

Neuromuscular Disease Clinical Status Scale

OSS

Oral Secretion Scale

SCM

sternocleidomastoid

SLPs

speech-language pathologists

SSS

Sialorrhea Scoring Scale

SIT

Sentence Intelligibility Test

syl/sec

syllables per second

T1 W

T1 weighted

UMN

upper motor neuron

WPM

words-per-minute.

Footnotes

Funding. This work was supported by NIH R01DC01729 grant. Peter Bede is supported by the Health Research Board (HRB–Ireland; HRB EIA-2017-019), the Irish Institute of Clinical Neuroscience IICN–Novartis Ireland Research Grant, the Iris O'Brien Foundation, and the Research Motor Neuron (RMN-Ireland) Foundation.

References

  • 1.Clarke JL, Jackson JH. On a case of muscular atrophy, with disease of the spinal cord and medulla oblongata. Med Chirurg Transac. (1867) 50:489–98.1. 10.1177/095952876705000122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chio A, Logroscino G, Hardiman O, Swingler R, Mitchell D, Beghi E, et al. Prognostic factors in ALS: a critical review. Amyotroph Lateral Scler. (2009) 10:310–23. 10.3109/17482960802566824 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Elamin M, Bede P, Montuschi A, Pender N, Chio A, Hardiman O. Predicting prognosis in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a simple algorithm. J Neurol. (2015) 262:1447–54. 10.1007/s00415-015-7731-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Daghlas I, Lever TE, Leary E. A retrospective investigation of the relationship between baseline covariates and rate of ALSFRS-R decline in ALS clinical trials. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. (2018) 19:206–11. 10.1080/21678421.2017.1418001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hecht M, Hillemacher T, Grasel E, Tigges S, Winterholler M, Heuss D, et al. Subjective experience and coping in ALS. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Other Motor Neuron Disord. (2002) 3:225–31. 10.1080/146608202760839009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mitsumoto H, Del Bene M. Improving the quality of life for people with ALS: the challenge ahead. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Other Motor Neuron Disord. (2000) 1:329–36. 10.1080/146608200300079464 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bach JR. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Communication status and survival with ventilatory support. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. (1993) 72:343–9. 10.1097/00002060-199312000-00002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rooney J, Byrne S, Heverin M, Tobin K, Dick A, Donaghy C, et al. A multidisciplinary clinic approach improves survival in ALS: a comparative study of ALS in Ireland and Northern Ireland. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry (2014) 86:496–501. 10.1136/jnnp-2014-309601 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Van den Berg JP, Kalmijn S, Lindeman E, Veldink JH, de Visser M, Van der Graaff MM, et al. Multidisciplinary ALS care improves quality of life in patients with ALS. Neurology (2005) 65:1264–7. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000180717.29273.12 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tomik B, Guiloff RJ. Dysarthria in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a review. Amyotroph Lateral Scler. (2010) 11:4–15. 10.3109/17482960802379004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Watts CR, Vanryckeghem M. Laryngeal dysfunction in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: a review and case report. BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord. (2001) 1:1. 10.1186/1472-6815-1-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hardiman O, Al-Chalabi A, Chio A, Corr EM, Logroscino G, Robberecht W, et al. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Nat Rev Dis Primers (2017) 3:17071 10.1038/nrdp.2017.72 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tabor L, Gaziano J, Watts S, Robison R, Plowman EK. Defining swallowing-related quality of life profiles in individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Dysphagia (2016) 31:376–82. 10.1007/s00455-015-9686-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Waito AA, Valenzano TJ, Peladeau-Pigeon M, Steele CM. Trends in research literature describing dysphagia in motor neuron diseases (MND): a scoping review. Dysphagia (2017) 32:734–47. 10.1007/s00455-017-9819-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Miller RG, Munsat TL, Swash M, Brooks BR. Consensus guidelines for the design and implementation of clinical trials in ALS. World Federation of Neurology committee on Research. J Neurol Sci. (1999) 169:2–12. 10.1016/S0022-510X(99)00209-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Plowman EK, Tabor LC, Wymer J, Pattee G. The evaluation of bulbar dysfunction in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: survey of clinical practice patterns in the United States. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. (2017) 18:351–7. 10.1080/21678421.2017.1313868 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Q Life Res. (2010) 19:539–49. 10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tremolizzo L, Susani E, Lunetta C, Corbo M, Ferrarese C, Appollonio I. Primitive reflexes in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: prevalence and correlates. J Neurol. (2014) 261:1196–202. 10.1007/s00415-014-7342-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.McCullough GH, Wertz RT, Rosenbek JC, Mills RH, Ross KB, Ashford JR. Inter- and intrajudge reliability of a clinical examination of swallowing in adults. Dysphagia (2000) 15:58–67. 10.1007/s004550010002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chow W, Brandt M, Dworschak-Stokan A, Doyle P, Matic D, Husein M. Validation of the mirror-fogging test as a screening tool for velopharyngeal insufficiency. Open Otorhinolaryngol J. (2015) 8:15–21. 10.2174/1874428101508010015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Koch I, Ferrazzi A, Busatto C, Ventura L, Palmer K. Cranial nerve examination for neurogenic dysphagia patients. Otolaryngology (2017) 7:4 10.4172/2161-119X.1000319 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sonoo M, Kuwabara S, Shimizu T, Komori T, Hirashima F, Inaba A, et al. Utility of trapezius EMG for diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Muscle Nerve (2009) 39:63–70. 10.1002/mus.21196 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Van der Graaff M, Kuiper T, Zwinderman A, Van de Warrenburg B, Poels P, Offeringa A, et al. Clinical identification of dysarthria types among neurologists, residents in neurology and speech therapists. Eur Neurol. (2009) 61:295–300. 10.1159/000206855 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kearns KP, Simmons NN. Interobserver reliability and perceptual ratings: More than meets the ear. J Speech Lang Hear Res. (1988) 31:131–6. 10.1044/jshr.3101.131 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bunton K, Kent RD, Duffy JR, Rosenbek JC, Kent JF. Listener agreement for auditory-perceptual ratings of dysarthria. J Speech Lang Hear Res. (2007) 50:1481–95. 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/102) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Enderby P. Frenchay dysarthria assessment. Br J Disord Commun. (1980) 15:165–73. 10.3109/13682828009112541 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Briani C, Marcon M, Ermani M, Costantini M, Bottin R, Iurilli V, et al. Radiological evidence of subclinical dysphagia in motor neuron disease. J Neurol. (1998) 245:211–6. 10.1007/s004150050207 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wright R, Jordan C. Videofluoroscopic evaluation of dysphagia in motor neurone disease with modified barium swallow. Palliat Med. (1997) 11:44–8. 10.1177/026921639701100105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Higo R, Tayama N, Nito T. Longitudinal analysis of progression of dysphagia in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Auris Nasus Larynx (2004) 31:247–54. 10.1016/j.anl.2004.05.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Plowman EK, Tabor LC, Robison R, Gaziano J, Dion C, Watts SA, et al. Discriminant ability of the Eating Assessment Tool-10 to detect aspiration in individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurogastroenterol Motility (2016) 28:85–90. 10.1111/nmo.12700 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mari F, Matei M, Ceravolo MG, Pisani A, Montesi A, Provinciali L. Predictive value of clinical indices in detecting aspiration in patients with neurological disorders. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry (1997) 63:456–60. 10.1136/jnnp.63.4.456 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Plowman EK, Watts SA, Robison R, Tabor L, Dion C, Gaziano J, et al. Voluntary cough airflow differentiates safe versus unsafe swallowing in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Dysphagia (2016) 31:383–90. 10.1007/s00455-015-9687-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Brooks BR, Miller RG, Swash M, Munsat TL. El escorial revisited: revised criteria for the diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Other Motor Neuron Disord. (2000) 1:293–9. 10.1080/146608200300079536 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ravits JM, La Spada AR. ALS motor phenotype heterogeneity, focality, and spread: deconstructing motor neuron degeneration. Neurology (2009) 73:805–11. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181b6bbbd [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.McCullough GH, Rosenbek JC, Wertz RT, McCoy S, Mann G, McCullough K. Utility of clinical swallowing examination measures for detecting aspiration post-stroke. J Speech Lang Hear Res. (2005) 48:1280–93. 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/089) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Finsterer J, Erdorf M, Mamoli B, Fuglsang-Frederiksen A. Needle electromyography of bulbar muscles in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: evidence of subclinical involvement. Neurology (1998) 51:1417–22. 10.1212/WNL.51.5.1417 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Tankisi H, Otto M, Pugdahl K, Fuglsang-Frederiksen A. Spontaneous electromyographic activity of the tongue in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Muscle Nerve (2013) 48:296–8. 10.1002/mus.23781 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Li J, Petajan J, Smith G, Bromberg M. Electromyography of sternocleidomastoid muscle in ALS: a prospective study. Muscle Nerve (2002) 25:725–8. 10.1002/mus.10115 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Pan H, Jian F, Lin J, Chen N, Zhang Z, Wang Y, et al. Needle electromyography of the frontalis muscle in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Muscle Nerve (2016) 54:1093–6. 10.1002/mus.25236 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Preston DC, Shapiro BE, Raynor EM, Kothari MJ. The relative value of facial, glossal, and masticatory muscles in the electrodiagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Muscle Nerve (1997) 20:370–2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Gooch CL, Pullman SL, Shungu DC, Ulug AM, Chane S, Gordon PH, et al. Motor unit number estimation (MUNE) in diseases of the motor neuron: utility and comparative analysis in a multimodal biomarker study. Suppl Clin Neurophysiol. (2009) 60:153–62. 10.1016/S1567-424X(08)00015-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.de Carvalho M, Barkhaus PE, Nandedkar SD, Swash M. Motor unit number estimation (MUNE): where are we now? Clin Neurophysiol. (2018) 129:1507–16. 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.04.748 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Neuwirth C, Barkhaus PE, Burkhardt C, Castro J, Czell D, de Carvalho M, et al. Tracking motor neuron loss in a set of six muscles in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis using the Motor Unit Number Index (MUNIX): a 15-month longitudinal multicentre trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry (2015) 86:1172–9. 10.1136/jnnp-2015-310509 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.McIlduff C, Boegle A, Qi K, Rutkove S. Motor unit number estimation recording from the tongue: a pilot study. Neurology (2017) 88(Suppl. 16):P4.113. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Traynor BJ, Codd MB, Corr B, Forde C, Frost E, Hardiman O. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis mimic syndromes: a population-based study. Arch Neurol. (2000) 57:109–13. 10.1001/archneur.57.1.109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Turner MR, Talbot K. Mimics and chameleons in motor neurone disease. Pract Neurol. (2013) 13:153–64. 10.1136/practneurol-2013-000557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Volanti P, Mannino M, Piccoli T, La Bella V. Carcinoma of the tongue and bulbar-onset amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: unusual differential diagnosis. Neurol Sci. (2007) 28:151–3. 10.1007/s10072-007-0809-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Bede P, Hardiman O. Lessons of ALS imaging: Pitfalls and future directions—a critical review. NeuroImage Clin. (2014) 4:436–43. 10.1016/j.nicl.2014.02.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Bede P, Bokde A, Elamin M, Byrne S, McLaughlin RL, Jordan N, et al. Grey matter correlates of clinical variables in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS): a neuroimaging study of ALS motor phenotype heterogeneity and cortical focality. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. (2013) 84:766–73. 10.1136/jnnp-2012-302674 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Schuster C, Kasper E, Machts J, Bittner D, Kaufmann J, Benecke R, et al. Focal thinning of the motor cortex mirrors clinical features of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and their phenotypes: a neuroimaging study. J Neurol. (2013) 260:2856–64. 10.1007/s00415-013-7083-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Christidi F, Karavasilis E, Ferentinos P, Xirou S, Velonakis G, Rentzos M, et al. Investigating the neuroanatomical substrate of pathological laughing and crying in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis with multimodal neuroimaging techniques. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. (2018) 19:12–20. 10.1080/21678421.2017.1386689 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bede P, Finegan E. Revisiting the pathoanatomy of pseudobulbar affect: mechanisms beyond corticobulbar dysfunction. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. (2018) 19:4–6. 10.1080/21678421.2017.1392578 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Querin G, El Mendili MM, Bede P, Delphine S, Lenglet T, Marchand-Pauvert V, et al. Multimodal spinal cord MRI offers accurate diagnostic classification in ALS. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry (2018) 89:1220–1. 10.1136/jnnp-2017-317214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Bede P, Querin G, Pradat PF. The changing landscape of motor neuron disease imaging: the transition from descriptive studies to precision clinical tools. Curr Opin Neurol. (2018) 31:431–8. 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000569 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Muller HP, Turner MR, Grosskreutz J, Abrahams S, Bede P, Govind V, et al. A large-scale multicentre cerebral diffusion tensor imaging study in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. (2016) 87:570–9. 10.1136/jnnp-2015-311952 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Atassi N, Xu M, Triantafyllou C, Keil B, Lawson R, Cernasov P, et al. Ultra high-field (7tesla) magnetic resonance spectroscopy in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. PLoS ONE (2017) 12:e0177680. 10.1371/journal.pone.0177680 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Darley FL, Aronson AE, Brown JR. Clusters of deviant speech dimensions in the dysarthrias. J Speech Lang Hear Res. (1969) 12:462–96. 10.1044/jshr.1203.462 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Darley FL, Aronson AE, Brown JR. Differential diagnostic patterns of dysarthria. J Speech Lang Hear Res. (1969) 12:246–69. 10.1044/jshr.1202.246 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Duffy J. Motor Speech Disorders: Substrates, Differential Diagnosis, and Management. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier; (2013). [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Kent RD. Hearing and believing: some limits to the auditory-perceptual assessment of speech and voice disorders. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. (1996) 5:7–23. 10.1044/1058-0360.0503.07 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Allison KM, Yunusova Y, Campbell TF, Wang J, Berry JD, Green JR. The diagnostic utility of patient-report and speech-language pathologists' ratings for detecting the early onset of bulbar symptoms due to ALS. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. (2017) 18:358–66. 10.1080/21678421.2017.1303515 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Rong P, Yunusova Y, Richburg B, Green JR. Automatic extraction of abnormal lip movement features from the alternating motion rate task in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. (2018). 10.1080/17549507.2018.1485739. [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Mefferd AS, Green JR, Pattee G. A novel fixed-target task to determine articulatory speed constraints in persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Commun Disord. (2012) 45:35–45. 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2011.09.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Goonetilleke A, Guiloff RJ. Accuracy, reproducibility and variability of quantitative assessments of bulbar and respiratory function in motor neurone disease. J Neurol Sci. (1994) 124(Suppl.):64–6. 10.1016/0022-510X(94)90181-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Onesti E, Schettino I, Gori MC, Frasca V, Ceccanti M, Cambieri C, et al. Dysphagia in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: impact on patient behavior, diet adaptation, and riluzole management. Front Neurol. (2017) 8:94. 10.3389/fneur.2017.00094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Cedarbaum JM, Stambler N, Malta E, Fuller C, Hilt D, Thurmond B, et al. The ALSFRS-R: a revised ALS functional rating scale that incorporates assessments of respiratory function. J Neurol Sci. (1999) 169:13–21. 10.1016/S0022-510X(99)00210-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Franchignoni F, Mora G, Giordano A, Volanti P, Chio A. Evidence of multidimensionality in the ALSFRS-R Scale: a critical appraisal on its measurement properties using Rasch analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry (2013) 84:1340–5. 10.1136/jnnp-2012-304701 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Rooney J, Burke T, Vajda A, Heverin M, Hardiman O. What does the ALSFRS-R really measure? A longitudinal and survival analysis of functional dimension subscores in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry (2017) 88:381–5. 10.1136/jnnp-2016-314661 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Voustianiouk A, Seidel G, Panchal J, Sivak M, Czaplinski A, Yen A, et al. ALSFRS and appel ALS scores: discordance with disease progression. Muscle Nerve (2008) 37:668–72. 10.1002/mus.20977 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Gordon PH, Cheng B, Katz IB, Mitsumoto H, Rowland LP. Clinical features that distinguish PLS, upper motor neuron–dominant ALS, and typical ALS. Neurology (2009) 72:1948–52. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181a8269b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Smith RA, Macklin EA, Myers KJ, Pattee GL, Goslin KL, Meekins GD, et al. Assessment of bulbar function in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: Validation of a self-report scale (Center for Neurologic Study Bulbar Function Scale). Eur J Neurol. (2018) 25:907–e66. 10.1111/ene.13638 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Smith R, Pioro E, Myers K, Sirdofsky M, Goslin K, Meekins G, et al. Enhanced bulbar function in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: the Nuedexta treatment trial. Neurotherapeutics (2017) 14:762–72. 10.1007/s13311-016-0508-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Appel V, Stewart S, Smith G, Appel SH. A rating scale for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: description and preliminary experience. Ann Neurol. (1987) 22:328–33. 10.1002/ana.410220308 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Norris FH, Calanchini PR, Fallat RJ, Panchari S, Jewett B. The administration of guanidine in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurology (1974) 24:721–8. 10.1212/WNL.24.8.721 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Lacomblez L, Bouche P, Bensimon G, Meininger V. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of high doses of gangliosides in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurology (1989) 39:1635–7. 10.1212/WNL.39.12.1635 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Haverkamp LJ, Appel V, Appel SH. Natural history of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in a database population. Validation of a scoring system and a model for survival prediction. Brain (1995) 118:707–19. 10.1093/brain/118.3.707 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Wada A, Kawakami M, Liu M, Otaka E, Nishimura A, Liu F, et al. Development of a new scale for dysphagia in patients with progressive neuromuscular diseases: the Neuromuscular Disease Swallowing Status Scale (NdSSS). J Neurol. (2015) 262:2225–31. 10.1007/s00415-015-7836-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Abdelnour-Mallet M, Tezenas Du Montcel S, Cazzolli PA, Assouline A, Pointon C, Leveque N, et al. Validation of robust tools to measure sialorrhea in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a study in a large French cohort. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. (2013) 14:302–7. 10.3109/21678421.2012.735238 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Ball LJ, Willis A, Beukelman DR, Pattee GL. A protocol for identification of early bulbar signs in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. (2001) 191:43–53. 10.1016/S0022-510X(01)00623-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Makkonen T, Ruottinen H, Puhto R, Helminen M, Palmio J. Speech deterioration in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) after manifestation of bulbar symptoms. Int J Lang Commun Disord. (2018) 53:385–92. 10.1111/1460-6984.12357 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Nishio M, Niimi S. Changes over time in dysarthric patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS): A study of changes in speaking rate and maximum repetition rate (MRR). Clin Linguist Phonet. (2009) 14:485–97. 10.1080/026992000750020323 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Stipancic KL, Yunusova Y, Berry JD, Green JR. Minimally detectable change and minimal clinically important difference of a decline in sentence intelligibility and speaking rate for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Speech Lang Hear Res. (2018) 61:2757–71. 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-17-0366 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Green JR, Beukelman DR, Ball LJ. Algorithmic estimation of pauses in extended speech samples of dysarthric and typical speech. J Med Speech Lang Pathol. (2004) 12:149–54. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Yunusova Y, Graham NL, Shellikeri S, Phuong K, Kulkarni M, Rochon E, et al. Profiling speech and pausing in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (als) and frontotemporal dementia (ftd). PLoS ONE (2016) 11:e0147573. 10.1371/journal.pone.0147573 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Green JR, Allison KM, Cordella C, Richburg BD, Pattee GL, Berry JD, et al. Additional evidence for a therapeutic effect of dextromethorphan/quinidine on bulbar motor function in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a quantitative speech analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol. (2018) 84:2849–56. 10.1111/bcp.13745 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Rong P, Yunusova Y, Green JR (eds) Speech intelligibility decline in individuals with fast and slow rates of ALS progression. In: INTERSPEECH. Dresden (2015). [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Hiraoka A, Yoshikawa M, Nakamori M, Hosomi N, Nagasaki T, Mori T, et al. Maximum tongue pressure is associated with swallowing dysfunction in ALS patients. Dysphagia (2017) 32:542–7. 10.1007/s00455-017-9797-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Weikamp JG, Schelhaas HJ, Hendriks JC, de Swart BJ, Geurts AC. Prognostic value of decreased tongue strength on survival time in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Neurol. (2012) 259:2360–5. 10.1007/s00415-012-6503-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Adams V, Mathisen B, Baines S, Lazarus C, Callister R. Reliability of measurements of tongue and hand strength and endurance using the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument with elderly adults. Disabil Rehabil. (2015) 37:389–95. 10.3109/09638288.2014.921245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Easterling C, Antinoja J, Cashin S, Barkhaus PE. Changes in tongue pressure, pulmonary function, and salivary flow in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Dysphagia (2013) 28:217–25. 10.1007/s00455-012-9436-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Kaufmann P, Levy G, Montes J, Buchsbaum R, Barsdorf AI, Battista V, et al. Excellent inter-rater, intra-rater, and telephone-administered reliability of the ALSFRS-R in a multicenter clinical trial. Amyotroph Lateral Scler. (2007) 8:42–6. 10.1080/17482960600888156 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Gordon PH, Miller RG, Moore DH. ALSFRS-R. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Other Motor Neuron Disord. (2004) 5(Suppl 1):90–3. 10.1080/17434470410019906 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Smith RA, Melmed S, Sherman B, Frane J, Munsat TL, Festoff BW. Recombinant growth hormone treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Muscle Nerve (1993) 16:624–33. 10.1002/mus.880160608 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Guiloff RJ, Goonetilleke A. Natural history of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Observations with the charing cross amyotrophic lateral sclerosis rating scales. Adv Neurol. (1995) 68:185–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Fang T, Al Khleifat A, Stahl DR, Lazo La Torre C, Murphy C, Young C, et al. Comparison of the King's and MiToS staging systems for ALS. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. (2017) 18:227–32. 10.1080/21678421.2016.1265565 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Thakore NJ, Lapin BR, Kinzy TG, Pioro EP. Deconstructing progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in stages: a Markov modeling approach. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. (2018) 19:483–94. 10.1080/21678421.2018.1484925 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Hillel AD, Miller RM, Yorkston K, McDonald E, Norris FH, Konikow N. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis severity scale. Neuroepidemiology (1989) 8:142–50. 10.1159/000110176 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Beukelman D, Yorkston K, Hakel M, Dorsey M. Speech Intelligibility Test. Lincoln, NE: Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital; (2007). [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Beukelman D, Fager S, Nordness A. Communication support for people with ALS. Neurol Res Int. (2011) 2011:714693. 10.1155/2011/714693 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Yorkston KM, Hammen VL, Beukelman DR, Traynor CD. The effect of rate control on the intelligibility and naturalness of dysarthric speech. J Speech Hear Disord. (1990) 55:550–60. 10.1044/jshd.5503.550 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Yorkston K, Strande E, Miller R, Hillel A, Smith K. Speech deterioration in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: Implications for the timing of intervention. J Med Speech Lang Pathol. (1993) 1:35–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Ball LJ, Beukelman DR, Pattee GL. Timing of speech deterioration in people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Med Speech Lang Pathol. (2002) 10:231–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Rong P, Yunusova Y, Wang J, Green JR. Predicting early bulbar decline in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a speech subsystem approach. Behav Neurol. (2015) 2015:183027. 10.1155/2015/183027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Langmore SE, Lehman ME. Physiologic deficits in the orofacial system underlying dysarthria in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Speech Lang Hear Res. (1994) 37:28–37. 10.1044/jshr.3701.28 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.DePaul R, Brooks BR. Multiple orofacial indices in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Speech Lang Hear Res. (1993) 36:1158–67. 10.1044/jshr.3606.1158 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Borsodi F, Culea V, Langkammer C, Khalil M, Pirpamer L, Quasthoff S, et al. Multimodal assessment of white matter tracts in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. PLoS ONE (2017) 12:e0178371. 10.1371/journal.pone.0178371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Schuster C, Elamin M, Hardiman O, Bede P. The segmental diffusivity profile of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis associated white matter degeneration. Eur J Neurol. (2016) 23:1361–71. 10.1111/ene.13038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Chen ZY, Liu MQ, Ma L. Cortical thinning pattern of bulbar- and spinal-onset amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a surface-based morphometry study. Chin Med Sci J. (2018) 33:100–6. 10.24920/11812 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Walhout R, Westeneng HJ, Verstraete E, Hendrikse J, Veldink JH, van den Heuvel MP, et al. Cortical thickness in ALS: towards a marker for upper motor neuron involvement. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry (2014) 86:288–94. 10.1136/jnnp-2013-306839 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Chen ZY, Liu MQ, Ma L. Gray matter volume changes over the whole brain in the bulbar- and spinal-onset amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a voxel-based morphometry study. Chin Med Sci J. (2018) 33:20–8. 10.24920/11804 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Vora M, Kumar S, Sharma S, Sharma S, Makhaik S, Sood RG. Advanced magnetic resonance neuroimaging in bulbar and limb onset early amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Neurosci Rural Pract. (2016) 7:102–8. 10.4103/0976-3147.165423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Hartung V, Prell T, Gaser C, Turner MR, Tietz F, Ilse B, et al. Voxel-based MRI intensitometry reveals extent of cerebral white matter pathology in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. PLoS ONE (2014) 9:e104894. 10.1371/journal.pone.0104894 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Kollewe K, Munte TF, Samii A, Dengler R, Petri S, Mohammadi B. Patterns of cortical activity differ in ALS patients with limb and/or bulbar involvement depending on motor tasks. J Neurol. (2011) 258:804–10. 10.1007/s00415-010-5842-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Mohammadi B, Kollewe K, Samii A, Krampfl K, Dengler R, Munte TF. Decreased brain activation to tongue movements in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis with bulbar involvement but not Kennedy syndrome. J Neurol. (2009) 256:1263–9. 10.1007/s00415-009-5112-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Filippi M, Horsfield MA, Ader HJ, Barkhof F, Bruzzi P, Evans A, et al. Guidelines for using quantitative measures of brain magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities in monitoring the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. (1998) 43:499–506. 10.1002/ana.410430414 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Misawa S, Noto Y, Shibuya K, Isose S, Sekiguchi Y, Nasu S, et al. Ultrasonographic detection of fasciculations markedly increases diagnostic sensitivity of ALS. Neurology (2011) 77:1532–7. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318233b36a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Shellikeri S, Yunusova Y, Green JR, Pattee GL, Berry JD, Rutkove SB, et al. Electrical impedance myography in the evaluation of the tongue musculature in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Muscle Nerve (2016) 52:584–91. 10.1002/mus.24565 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.McIlduff CE, Yim SJ, Pacheck AK, Rutkove SB. Optimizing electrical impedance myography of the tongue in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Muscle Nerve (2017) 55:539–43. 10.1002/mus.25375 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Noh EJ, Park MI, Park SJ, Moon W, Jung HJ. A case of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis presented as oropharyngeal dysphagia. J Neurogastroenterol Motility (2010) 16:319–22. 10.5056/jnm.2010.16.3.319 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Takasaki K, Umeki H, Enatsu K, Kumagami H, Takahashi H. Evaluation of swallowing pressure in a patient with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis before and after cricopharyngeal myotomy using high-resolution manometry system. Auris Nasus Larynx (2010) 37:644–7. 10.1016/j.anl.2010.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Norel R, Pietrowicz M, Agurto C, Rishoni S, Cecchi G. Detection of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) via acoustic analysis. bioRxiv [preprint] (2018). 10.21437/Interspeech.2018-2389 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Wang J, Kothalkar PV, Cao B, Heitzman D. (eds). Towards automatic detection of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis from speech acoustic and articulatory samples. In: INTERSPEECH. San Francisco, CA (2016). 10.21437/Interspeech.2016-1542 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Bandini A, Green JR, Taati B, Orlandi S, Zinman L, Yunusova Y. Automatic detection of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) from video-based analysis of facial movements: speech and non-speech tasks. In: 13th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition (FG 2018). X'ian (2018). 10.1109/FG.2018.00031 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Frontiers in Neurology are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES