Speech and Language Therapy for Voice Problems in Parkinson’s Disease: A Meta-Analysis
Publication: The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
Abstract
Patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) commonly have speech and voice problems that affect their functional communication and that are not sensitive to pharmacological or neurosurgical treatments. The authors aimed to evaluate the effects of speech and language therapies (SLTs) on dysphonia in patients with PD by analyzing data from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies in English and Chinese that were related to speech and language treatment for patients with PD were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science and Technology Journal Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Wanfang Database. On the basis of exclusion criteria, 391 records identified through the search were reduced to 10 studies that included 230 patients in the treatment groups and 205 patients in the control groups. A meta-analysis of data from the 10 studies was performed to examine the effects of SLTs on dysphonia in patients with PD. SLTs increased sound pressure level during sustained phonation, reading of the Rainbow Passage, and monologue 6 months after treatment, enhanced semitone standard deviation during reading of the Rainbow Passage more than 12 months after treatment, and reduced Voice Handicap Index scores among patients with PD with dysphonia problems at least 3 months after treatment. These findings demonstrate the efficacy of SLTs, especially Lee Silverman Voice Treatment, in increasing vocal loudness and functional communication among patients with PD. Further RCTs with large samples and multicenter participation are needed to validate the long-term effects and the efficacy of SLTs among patients with severe PD.
Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that affects about 1.5% of individuals worldwide (1). Individuals with PD commonly have speech and vocal problems (2), including dysphonic speech, reduced loudness, and loss of articulation, which limit their ability to participate in spoken communication and social interactions. Dysphonia in patients with PD worsens during disease progression, with a poor and variable response to pharmacological (3) or neurosurgical treatments (4). Indeed, surgical intervention, such as deep brain stimulation, has not been shown to have any definitive positive effects on speech dysfunction (5, 6). Sewall et al. (7) found that vocal cord injection may improve Parkinson’s dysarthria, but this result was based on small samples, and the technique the authors used was innovative.
In the 2006 guidelines for PD (8), speech and language therapy (SLT) was recommended for speech problems in patients with PD on the basis of two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 41 participants. In recent years, several RCTs have demonstrated that the behavioral treatment techniques of SLT may be more effective than other treatment techniques in improving the sound pressure level (SPL), Voice Handicap Index (VHI) ratings, and semitone standard deviation (STSD) among patients with PD with speech impairments (9–17). In 2012, a systematic review and a meta-analysis in the Cochrane database indicated that no conclusions could be drawn regarding the efficacy of SLTs for speech problems in patients with PD because of a small number of patients, methodological flaws, and the possibility of publication bias (18, 19). A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2015 concluded that speech therapy was effective for patients with PD with dysphonia (20). However, this analysis included only relevant English articles, with few RCTs, and the long-term benefit of speech therapy was not identified. Subsequently, several RCTs have evaluated the effects of SLTs (9, 11, 12, 16), although these studies have yet to be summarized within one review.
Accumulating evidence in the guidelines and in recent studies provides a rationale for the pooling of current data. The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effects of SLTs on dysphonia among individuals with PD.
Methods
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The literature search was limited to RCTs. All included studies met the following criteria: all participants with a diagnosis of PD >18, and the study investigated the effect of SLT on voice and speech disorders. The primary outcomes consisted of SPL and VHI, and the secondary outcomes included STSD, fundamental frequency, and forced vital capacity. Studies that met one of the following criteria were excluded: no outcomes described, no control groups, or animal experiments.
Search Strategy
Two reviewers (H.X., M.L.) independently searched databases, including PubMed, Embase, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science and Technology Journal Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Wanfang Database, using the following free-text terms and medical subject heading terms from inception to October 20, 2018: ‘‘Parkinson’s disease,’’ ‘‘dysarthria,’’ “speech,” ‘‘language,’’ “voice,” “treatment,” and “RCT.” In addition, we manually searched the reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles to identify the studies missed by our original search strategy. The search was limited to clinical studies published in English or Chinese.
Data Extraction
Two authors (Z.B., D.L.) extracted useful information independently, and any disagreement was resolved by discussion until an agreement was reached; a third author (Jinpin Li) was consulted if needed. The extracted data included the first author’s name, the publication date, the country or ethnicity of study participants, the number of patients, sex, age, severity and duration of disease, intervention, treatment course, outcomes, and follow-up period in both treatment and control groups.
Quality Assessment
We assessed the risk of bias of the included RCTs using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias assessment tool.
Statistical Analysis
Meta-analysis and descriptive analysis were performed with the statistical software RevMan 5.3, provided by the Cochrane Collaboration Network. The weighted mean difference was used for the same continuous variables in the result measures with a confidence interval of 95%. Comparisons between groups were performed by using the chi-square test for categorical variables, t test for quantitative variables with normal distribution, and the Mann–Whitney U test when a nonparametric test was required. The statistical heterogeneity of the included studies was evaluated with the chi-square test and the associated I2 value. The test level was set at an alpha of 0.10. If there was no statistical heterogeneity (p>0.1, I2<50%), the fixed-effects model (FEM) was used for the meta-analysis; otherwise, the random-effects model (REM) was used. A p value <0.05 was considered significant.
Results
Study Selection and Characteristics
A total of 391 records were identified through database searches and other sources. Among these records, six duplicated records were removed, 304 records were excluded because speech or language treatment was not used as the intervention strategy, 57 records were excluded because full-text checking indicated that they were not RCTs, and 14 records were excluded because treatment outcomes were not fully available. A total of 10 studies were included in this meta-analysis (Figure 1). (For details on the quality assessment [risk of bias] of the 10 studies, see Table S1 in the online supplement .)
FIGURE 1. Flow diagram of studies considered for the meta-analysisa
a RCTs=randomized controlled trials.
All of the 10 included studies were RCTs. The demographic and clinical features of the included patients are presented in Table 1. A total of 435 patients (females, N=157; males, N=278) were included in these studies; 230 patients comprised the treatment groups, and 205 patients comprised the control groups. Severity of speech and voice disorders before treatment were assessed by using speech/voice severity ratings or Hoehn-Yahr clinical stages on a scale of 1–5: 1=mild, 2=mild/moderate, 3=moderate, 4=moderate/severe, and 5=severe. Clinical stages of most participants were classified as 1–3. Most participants in the SLT group were treated with Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT). In only one study were patients treated with prosodic exercises with visual feedback; placebo or no intervention was administered in the control group (10). LSVT and respiratory effort treatment (RET) both focused on improving vocal loudness. LSVT led to critical improvements, but RET alone was insufficient (13, 14, 21). Therefore, RET was often considered “placebo treatment” in clinical trials and was compared with intensive speech therapies, such as LSVT (14, 21–23). The follow-up periods included 1 month, 6 months, 7 months, 12 months, and 24 months.
| Participantsa | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Age (years) | Severity ratingb | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total | T | C | T | C | T | C | Interventionc | Course (weeks) | Outcomed | ||||||||||||
| Study | Country | T | C | F | M | F | M | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | M | SD | Treatment | Control | Treatment | Follow-up | Primary | Secondary |
| Johnson and Pring, (10) | Austria | 6 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 63.5 | — | 64.8 | — | NA | NA | NA | NA | Prosodic exercises | None | 4 | 4 | SPL | Frenchay dysarthria/fundamental frequency |
| Ramig et al. (21) | United States | 26 | 19 | 5 | 21 | 7 | 12 | 63.5 | 11.5 | 65.6 | 8.9 | 2.8 | 1.0 | 2.74 | 1.15 | LSVT | Placebo (RET) | 4 | 4 | SPL | FVC |
| Ramig et al. (14) | United States | 22 | 13 | 4 | 18 | 5 | 8 | 63.23 | 11.87 | 65.3 | 8.8 | 2.64 | 0.95 | 2.6 | 1.2 | LSVT | Placebo (RET) | 4 | 48 | SPL | STSD |
| Ramig et al. (17) | United States | 14 | 15 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 67.9 | 9.0 | 71.2 | 12.7 | ND | ND | ND | ND | LSVT | None | 4 | 24 | SPL | None |
| Ramig et al. (13) | United States, Canada | 21 | 12 | 4 | 17 | 5 | 7 | 61.3 | 11.4 | 63.3 | 7.1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.7 | 1.9 | LSVT | Placebo (RET) | 4 | 96 | SPL | STSD |
| Halpern et al. (15) | United States | 8 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 65.8 | 8.4 | 63.3 | 6.0 | 2.3 | 0.7 | 2.0 | 0.7 | LSVT | None | 4 | 24 | SPL VHI | VAS/CETI-M |
| Tang et al. (16) | China | 32 | 32 | 15 | 17 | 13 | 19 | 69.75 | 4.35 | 68.5 | 4.6 | 2.02 | 0.45 | 2.05 | 0.48 | LSVT | Placebo (routine speech treatment) | 12 | 12 | VHI | WAB |
| Yang et al. (12) | China | 49 | 49 | 24 | 25 | 22 | 27 | 65.82 | 2.56 | 66.8 | 2.9 | 2.09 | 0.34 | 2.11 | 0.27 | LSVT | Placebo (routine speech treatment) | 12 | 12 | VHI | WAB |
| Ramig et al. (9) | United States | 22 | 22 | 7 | 15 | 8 | 14 | 68 | 8 | 64 | 9 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 2.0 | 0.7 | LSVT | None | 4 | 28 | SPL | CETI-M |
| Sackley et al. (11) | United Kingdom | 30 | 29 | 7 | 23 | 6 | 23 | 67.0 | 8.4 | 65.0 | 7.5 | NA | NA | NA | NA | LSVT | None | 4 | 48 | VHI | PDQ-39 |
a
C=control group; F=female; M=male, T=treatment group.
b
Hoehn-Yahr scale severity ratings of speech and voice deficits: 1=mild, 2=mild/moderate, 3=moderate, 4=moderate/severe, and 5=severe (NA=not available; ND=no difference).
c
Data were determined by using Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT).
d
Communication Effectiveness Index-Modified (CETI-M), forced vital capacity (FVC), Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire–39 (PDQ-39), sound pressure level (SPL), semitone standard deviation (STSD), visual analog scale (VAS), Voice Handicap Index (VHI), and Western Aphasia Battery (WAB).
Study Quality
All 10 included studies were placebo-controlled RCTs (Table 1). Eight were published in English (9–11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 21) and two in Chinese (12, 16). We assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Most studies were of moderate quality. Although participants were randomly assigned to interventions, the methods of sequence generation allocation concealment and blinding of participants and outcome assessors were unclear in most of the included studies.
Outcomes of Meta-Analyses
SPL.
Seven studies reported the SPL of sustained phonation as the primary outcome (9, 10, 13–15, 17, 21). Immediately after SLT (1 month or 4 weeks), an increase of 12.53 dB (95% CI=10.59, 14.47, p<0.00001; REM, I2=54%,) in the SPL was observed in the treatment group, compared with the control group (Figure 2).
FIGURE 2. Sound pressure level (SPL) for sustained phonationa
a IV=inverse variance, random=random effects, RET=respiratory effort treatment. Bold indicates statistical significance.
Seven studies reported the SPL during reading of the Rainbow Passage as the primary outcome (9, 10, 13–15, 17, 21). FEM analysis showed that immediately after SLT, the SPL score increased by 6.36 dB in the SLT group, compared with the control group (95% CI=5.44, 7.29, p<0.00001; I2=0%) (Figure 3). The pooled estimate of the effect of SLT on the SPL of monologue from six studies was 4.33 dB (95% CI=3.29, 5.38, p<0.00001; I2=12%) (Figure 3).
FIGURE 3. Sound pressure level (SPL) during reading of the Rainbow Passage and monologuea
a Fixed=fixed effects, IV=inverse variance, RET=respiratory effort treatment. Bold indicates statistical significance.
Three studies reported the SPL during sustained phonation, reading of the Rainbow Passage, and monologue as the outcomes 6 months after treatment (14, 15, 17). The overall effects on the SPL during sustained phonation, reading of the Rainbow Passage, and monologue were, respectively, 6.07 dB (95% CI=0.10, 12.24, p<0.00001; REM, I2=90%) (Figure 2), 2.89 dB (95% CI=1.27, 4.52, p<0.00001; FEM, I2=28%) (Figure 3), and 2.09 dB (95% CI=0.83, 3.35, p=0.001; I2=0%) (Figure 3) in the SLT group, compared with the control group. One study showed that only participants who underwent the LSVT had significantly increased vocal intensity during sustained vowel phonation (F=26.82, df=1, 21, p<0.0001) and reading of the Rainbow Passage (F=8.26, df=1, 21, p=0.0091) at 12 months after treatment, but no statistically significant differences were found between pretreatment and posttreatment in the placebo group (14).
STSD.
Three studies reported the STSD during reading of the Rainbow Passage and monologue as the outcome immediately after treatment (13, 14, 21). The overall effects on reading of the Rainbow Passage and monologue were, respectively, 0.31 dB (95% CI=0.11, 0.50, p=0.002; FEM, I2=0%) and 0.05 dB (95% CI=–0.25, 0.34, p=0.75; FEM, I2=0%) in the SLT group, compared with the control group. Two studies (13, 14) revealed significantly increased STSD only during reading of the Rainbow Passage (95% CI=0.05, 0.55, p=0.02; FEM, I2=0%) but not during conversational monologue (95% CI=–0.20, 0.73, p=0.26; FEM, I2=0%), more than 12 months after treatment in the LSVT group (Figure 4). One study found that the LSVT significantly improved the STSD during reading of the Rainbow Passage and monologue immediately after treatment and at the 24-month follow-up, compared with pretreatment (13).
FIGURE 4. Semitone standard deviation (STSD) during reading of the Rainbow Passage and monologuea
a Fixed=fixed effects, IV=inverse variance, RET=respiratory effort treatment. Bold indicates statistical significance.
VHI.
Four studies reported VHI as the primary outcome 12 weeks after treatment (11, 12, 15, 16). The VHI score was significantly reduced by 10.76 dB in the SLT group, compared with the control group (95% CI=–14.28, –7.23, p<0.00001; FEM, I2=0%) (Figure 5).
FIGURE 5. Voice handicap index (VHI) for 12 weeks after treatmenta
a Fixed=fixed effects, IV=inverse variance. Bold indicates statistical significance.
Sensitivity Analysis
Considerable heterogeneity (I2=54%) was observed in the SPL of sustained phonation immediately after treatment in the SLT group. The leave-one-out sensitivity analysis revealed that the I2 was materially altered (from 54% to 0%) and the SPL increased by 13.44 dB (95% CI=12.06, 4.83, p<0.00001) when one study (9) was excluded, indicating that the heterogeneity was attributable to this study (9). The baseline data, interventions, and the collection and evaluation of outcomes in this study (9) were not considerably different from those in other studies in this meta-analysis; therefore, the heterogeneity may be derived from systematic errors. In addition, the heterogeneity (I2=90%) in the SPL of sustained phonation 6 months after treatment was attributed to another study (15), in which the SPL was lower in the SLT group than in the control group.
Publication Bias
No publication bias was detected in the funnel plots, which included more than five studies (9–10, 13–15, 17, 21) (Figure 6).
FIGURE 6. Funnel plot of sound pressure level immediately after treatmenta
a Shown are the results for sound pressure level (SPL) for sustained phonation (panel A), monologue (panel B), and reading of the Rainbow Passage (panel C). SE=standard error of the mean difference,
Discussion
This meta-analysis was aimed to evaluate the effects of SLTs on patients with PD with voice and language problems. We found that SLTs increased the SPL during sustained phonation, reading of the Rainbow Passage, and monologue 6 months after treatment, elevated the STSD during reading of the Rainbow Passage more than 12 months after treatment, and reduced VHI scores among patients with PD with dysphonia problems at least 3 months after treatment.
Many patients with PD have voice disorders for which pharmacological and neurosurgical treatments are not effective. It is well known that PD is associated with alterations in basal ganglia circuitry because of a decrease in dopamine; however, dysfunction in this circuitry may offer only a partial explanation for voice disorders in individuals with PD. Sensory deficits and decreased striato-prefrontal connectivity in internal monitoring and maintenance of amplitude of movements across the speech production mechanism may also contribute to decreased loudness, imprecise articulation, and monotone (24–28). These factors may also explain why the symptoms of dysphonia are not sensitive to dopamine treatment.
Prosodic exercises, one of the SLTs, decrease the perceived prosodic abnormality of speech, and intonation exercises improve speech ability. LSVT, one type of SLT, was developed in the mid-1990s by Ramig et al. (17). This treatment focuses primarily on a simple set of tasks designed to improve maximally phonatory and respiratory functions, including respiratory drive, vocal fold adduction, laryngeal muscle activity and synergy, laryngeal and supralaryngeal articulatory movements, and vocal tract configuration (13). LSVT differs from traditional PD voice treatments in the following ways: the singular target of treatment is voice, treatment is intensive, and the sensory component of the voice disorder is addressed (9). Two neuroimaging studies indicate brain functional changes after classic therapy, supporting the beneficial effects of LSVT (29, 30).
Although SLT is an effective intervention for patients with PD, it is difficult to provide because of the disparity between the number of service providers and the number of patients needing this treatment, funding issues that limit access to treatment, and geographic constraints that create barriers to care access (31). Development of telehealth technologies may overcome some of these accessibility challenges. For example, the effect of Web-based LSVT on voice loudness is similar to that of classic LSVT but can be provided in a more time- and cost-efficient manner, compared with traditional in-person LSVT (20). Delivering LSVT through an interactive, customized, personal digital assistant–based software program (e.g., LSVT Companion) allows delivery of this treatment despite mobility and geographical constraints, with use of LSVT-certified clinicians at a reasonable cost (15).
This study had several limitations. The quality of the included RCTs was unclear. Some of these RCTs did not provide a detailed description of the randomization method, concealment of allocation, and blinding of outcome assessment, which rendered the risk of bias unclear. The long-term effects (1 or 2 years) on SPL, STSD of monologue, and VHI were not identified. The severity of voice disorders in most participants was classified as mild to moderate, and the efficacy of SLTs was not assessed in patients with PD with severe conditions. Information on patient adherence or compliance to an intensive therapy program and information about the maintenance plan was unavailable in the included studies. It should be noted that statistical significance does not mean clinical significance. Some of the reported statistically significant differences in decibel levels in the meta-analysis were around only ≤3 dB—generally below a detectable change for human perception.
Conclusions
This meta-analysis demonstrated the efficacy of SLTs, especially LSVT, in increasing vocal loudness and functional communication among individuals with PD. Further RCTs with large sample sizes and multicenter participation are needed to validate the long-term effects and efficacy of SLTs in patients with severe PD.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Editage personnel (www.editage.cn) for English-language editing.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.neuropsych.19020044.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 523.29 KB
References
1.
Pringsheim T, Jette N, Frolkis A, et al: The prevalence of Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mov Disord 2014; 29:1583–1590
2.
Darley FL, Aronson AE, Brown JR: Differential diagnostic patterns of dysarthria. J Speech Hear Res 1969; 12:246–269
3.
Pinho P, Monteiro L, Soares MFP, et al: Impact of levodopa treatment in the voice pattern of Parkinson’s disease patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CoDAS 2018; 30:e20170200
4.
Pinto S, Ozsancak C, Tripoliti E, et al: Treatments for dysarthria in Parkinson’s disease. Lancet Neurol 2004; 3:547–556
5.
Aldridge D, Theodoros D, Angwin A, et al: Speech outcomes in Parkinson’s disease after subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation: a systematic review. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2016; 33:3–11
6.
Wertheimer J, Gottuso AY, Nuno M, et al: The impact of STN deep brain stimulation on speech in individuals with Parkinson’s disease: the patient’s perspective. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2014; 20:1065–1070
7.
Sewall GK, Jiang J, Ford CN: Clinical evaluation of Parkinson’s-related dysphonia. Laryngoscope 2006; 116:1740–1744
8.
National Collaborating Center for Chronic Conditions: Parkinson’s Disease: National Clinical Guideline for Diagnosis and Management in Primary and Secondary Care. London, Royal College of Physicians, 2006
9.
Ramig L, Halpern A, Spielman J, et al: Speech treatment in Parkinson’s disease: Randomized controlled trial (RCT). Mov Disord 2018; 33:1777–1791
10.
Johnson JA, Pring TR: Speech therapy and Parkinson’s disease: a review and further data. Br J Disord Commun 1990; 25:183–194
11.
Sackley CM, Smith CH, Rick CE, et al: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard speech and language therapy versus control in Parkinson’s disease: a pilot randomised controlled trial (PD COMM pilot). Pilot Feasibility Stud 2018; 4:30
12.
Yang MF, Zhao J, Qie YL, et al. Lee Silverman voice treatment can improve the speech and the life quality of patients with Parkinson's disease [in Chinese]. Chin J Phys Med Rehabil 2017; 39:43–47
13.
Ramig LO, Sapir S, Countryman S, et al: Intensive voice treatment (LSVT) for patients with Parkinson’s disease: a 2 year follow up. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001; 71:493–498
14.
Ramig LO, Countryman S, O’Brien C, et al: Intensive speech treatment for patients with Parkinson’s disease: short- and long-term comparison of two techniques. Neurology 1996; 47:1496–1504
15.
Halpern AE, Ramig LO, Matos CE, et al: Innovative technology for the assisted delivery of intensive voice treatment for Parkinson disease. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2012; 21:354–367
16.
Tang HY, Xu MM, Yu H: Effect of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVTLOUD) on speech function of patients with Parkinson’s Disease [in Chinese]. Journal of Nursing (China) 2016; 23:66–69
17.
Ramig LO, Sapir S, Fox C, et al: Changes in vocal loudness following intensive voice treatment (LSVT) in individuals with Parkinson’s disease: a comparison with untreated patients and normal age-matched controls. Mov Disord 2001; 16:79–83
18.
Herd CP, Tomlinson CL, Deane KHO, et al: Speech and language therapy versus placebo or no intervention for speech problems in Parkinson's Disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 8:CD002812
19.
Herd CP, Tomlinson CL, Deane KH, et al: Comparison of speech and language therapy techniques for speech problems in Parkinson’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 8:CD002814
20.
Atkinson-Clement C, Sadat J, Pinto S: Behavioral treatments for speech in Parkinson’s disease: meta-analyses and review of the literature. Neurodegener Dis Manag 2015; 5:233–248
21.
Ramig LO, Countryman S, Thompson LL, et al: Comparison of two forms of intensive speech treatment for Parkinson disease. J Speech Hear Res 1995; 38:1232–1251
22.
Smith ME, Ramig LO, Dromey C, et al: Intensive voice treatment in Parkinson disease: laryngostroboscopic findings. J Voice 1995; 9:453–459
23.
Ramig LO, Dromey C: Aerodynamic mechanisms underlying treatment-related changes in vocal intensity in patients with Parkinson disease. J Speech Hear Res 1996; 39:798–807
24.
Sapir S, Ramig LO, Fox CM: Intensive voice treatment in Parkinson’s disease: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment. Expert Rev Neurother 2011; 11:815–830
25.
Desmurget M, Grafton ST, Vindras P, et al: The basal ganglia network mediates the planning of movement amplitude. Eur J Neurosci 2004; 19:2871–2880
26.
Schneider JS, Diamond SG, Markham CH: Deficits in orofacial sensorimotor function in Parkinson’s disease. Ann Neurol 1986; 19:275–282
27.
Gallena S, Smith PJ, Zeffiro T, et al: Effects of levodopa on laryngeal muscle activity for voice onset and offset in Parkinson disease. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2001; 44:1284–1299
28.
Arnold C, Gehrig J, Gispert S, et al: Pathomechanisms and compensatory efforts related to Parkinsonian speech. Neuroimage Clin 2013; 4:82–97
29.
Liotti M, Ramig LO, Vogel D, et al: Hypophonia in Parkinson’s disease: neural correlates of voice treatment revealed by PET. Neurology 2003; 60:432–440
30.
Narayana S, Fox PT, Zhang W, et al: Neural correlates of efficacy of voice therapy in Parkinson’s disease identified by performance-correlation analysis. Hum Brain Mapp 2010; 31:222–236
31.
Theodoros D, Aldridge D, Hill AJ, et al: Technology-enabled management of communication and swallowing disorders in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic scoping review. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2019; 54:170–188
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 28 February 2019
Revision received: 23 January 2020
Accepted: 16 February 2020
Published online: 6 May 2020
Published in print: Fall 2020
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Funding Information
Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant 81660354).
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).