Neuropsychological test validation of speech markers of cognitive impairment in the Framingham Cognitive Aging Cohort

Voice biomarkers as indicators of cognitive changes in middle and later adulthood

Voice prosody measures have been linked with Alzheimer's disease (AD), but it is unclear whether they are associated with normal cognitive aging. We assessed relationships between voice measures and 10-year cognitive changes in the MIDUS national sample of middle-aged and older adults ages 42-92, with a mean age of 64.09 (standard deviation = 11.23) at the second wave. Seven cognitive tests were assessed in 2003-2004 (Wave 2) and 2013-2014 (Wave 3). Voice measures were collected at Wave 3 (N = 2585) from audio recordings of the cognitive interviews. Analyses controlled for age, education, depressive symptoms, and health. As predicted, higher jitter was associated with greater declines in episodic memory, verbal fluency, and attention switching. Lower pulse was related to greater decline in episodic memory, and fewer voice breaks were related to greater declines in episodic memory and verbal fluency, although the direction of these effects was contrary to hypotheses. Findings suggest that voice biomarkers may offer a promising approach for early detection of risk factors for cognitive impairment or AD.

Speech and language characteristics differentiate Alzheimer's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies

Introduction

Early differential diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is important, but it remains challenging. Different profiles of speech and language impairments between AD and DLB have been suggested, but direct comparisons have not been investigated.

Methods

We collected speech responses from 121 older adults comprising AD, DLB, and cognitively normal (CN) groups and investigated their acoustic, prosodic, and linguistic features.

Results

The AD group showed larger differences from the CN group than the DLB group in linguistic features, while the DLB group showed larger differences in prosodic and acoustic features. Machine-learning classifiers using these speech features achieved 87.0% accuracy for AD versus CN, 93.2% for DLB versus CN, and 87.4% for AD versus DLB.

Discussion

Our findings indicate the discriminative differences in speech features in AD and DLB and the feasibility of using these features in combination as a screening tool for identifying/differentiating AD and DLB.