Clinicoanatomic Studies in Dysarthria Review, Critique, and Directions for Research Research Article
Research Article  |   June 01, 2001
Clinicoanatomic Studies in Dysarthria
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Ray D. Kent, PhD
    University of Wisconsin-Madison
    Waisman Center Room 435, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1500 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53705-2280
  • Joseph R. Duffy
    Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN
  • Angela Slama
    University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Jane F. Kent
    University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Amy Clift
    Southwest Missouri State University Springfield
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Dysarthria / Speech / Research Articles
Research Article   |   June 01, 2001
Clinicoanatomic Studies in Dysarthria
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, June 2001, Vol. 44, 535-551. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2001/042)
History: Received May 31, 2000 , Accepted January 29, 2001
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, June 2001, Vol. 44, 535-551. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2001/042)
History: Received May 31, 2000; Accepted January 29, 2001
Web of Science® Times Cited: 28

More than 30 years ago, Darley, Aronson, and Brown (1969) proposed clinicoanatomic correlations for seven perceptual types of dysarthria. These correlations have not been systematically re-examined even though imaging technologies developed in recent years provide the means to do so. This review considers data from published imaging studies as well as data from selected medical interventions to evaluate the current state of knowledge that relates lesion site to the nature of a speech disturbance. Although the extant data are not sufficient to allow a complete evaluation of the seven types of dysarthria described by Darley et al., relevant information has been reported on lesions of the pyramidal pathway, extrapyramidal pathway, and cerebellum. In general, the results are best explained by an equivalence mode of brain-behavior relationship in which a type of dysarthria is associated with a lesion in one of two or more brain structures. Criteria also are proposed for future studies of clinicoanatomic relationships in neurogenic communication disorders.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by research grant No. 5 R01 DC 00319 from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communicative Disorders (NIDCD-NIH). The participation of Amy Clift was supported by a Research Mentorship from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. The authors are grateful for the constructive suggestions made by the guest editor, Ronald Netsell, and two reviewers, Thomas J. Hixon and James Till.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access