TY - JOUR
T1 - Apraxia of speech and the study of speech production impairments
T2 - Can we avoid further confusion? Reply to Romani (2021)
AU - Mailend, Marja Liisa
AU - Maas, Edwin
AU - Story, Brad H.
N1 - Funding Information:
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute On Deafness And Other Communication Disorders of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number F31DC014375.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - We agree with Cristina Romani (CR) about reducing confusion and agree that the issues raised in her commentary are central to the study of apraxia of speech (AOS). However, CR critiques our approach from the perspective of basic cognitive neuropsychology. This is confusing and misleading because, contrary to CR’s claim, we did not attempt to inform models of typical speech production. Instead, we relied on such models to study the impairment in the clinical category of AOS (translational cognitive neuropsychology). Thus, the approach along with the underlying assumptions is different. This response aims to clarify these assumptions, broaden the discussion regarding the methodological approach, and address CR’s concerns. We argue that our approach is well-suited to meet the goals of our recent studies and is commensurate with the current state of the science of AOS. Ultimately, a plurality of approaches is needed to understand a phenomenon as complex as AOS.
AB - We agree with Cristina Romani (CR) about reducing confusion and agree that the issues raised in her commentary are central to the study of apraxia of speech (AOS). However, CR critiques our approach from the perspective of basic cognitive neuropsychology. This is confusing and misleading because, contrary to CR’s claim, we did not attempt to inform models of typical speech production. Instead, we relied on such models to study the impairment in the clinical category of AOS (translational cognitive neuropsychology). Thus, the approach along with the underlying assumptions is different. This response aims to clarify these assumptions, broaden the discussion regarding the methodological approach, and address CR’s concerns. We argue that our approach is well-suited to meet the goals of our recent studies and is commensurate with the current state of the science of AOS. Ultimately, a plurality of approaches is needed to understand a phenomenon as complex as AOS.
KW - Apraxia of speech
KW - clinical diagnosis
KW - methodological approach
KW - speech/language production
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85121362024&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85121362024&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/02643294.2021.2009790
DO - 10.1080/02643294.2021.2009790
M3 - Comment/debate
C2 - 34881683
AN - SCOPUS:85121362024
SN - 0264-3294
VL - 38
SP - 309
EP - 317
JO - Cognitive Neuropsychology
JF - Cognitive Neuropsychology
IS - 4
ER -