Purpose
Slowed speech and interruptions to the flow of connected speech are common in aphasia. These features are also observed during dual-task performance for neurotypical adults. The purposes of this study were to determine (a) whether indices of fluency related to cognitive–linguistic versus motor processing would differ between speakers with aphasia plus apraxia of speech (AOS) and speakers with aphasia only and (b) whether cognitive load reduces fluency in speakers with aphasia with and without AOS.

Method
Fourteen speakers with aphasia (7 with AOS) and 7 neurotypical controls retold short stories alone (single task) and while simultaneously distinguishing between a high and a low tone (dual task). Their narrative samples were analyzed for speech fluency according to sample duration, speech rate, pause/fill time, and repetitions per syllable.

Results
As expected, both speaker groups with aphasia spoke slower and with more pauses than the neurotypical controls. The speakers with AOS produced more repetitions and longer samples than controls, but they did not differ on these measures from the speakers with aphasia without AOS. Relative to the single-task condition, the dual-task condition increased the duration of pauses and fillers for all groups but reduced speaking rate only for the control group. Sample duration and frequency of repetitions did not change in response to cognitive load.

Conclusions
Speech output in aphasia becomes less fluent when speakers have to engage in simultaneous tasks, as is typical in everyday conversation. Although AOS may lead to more sound and syllable repetitions than normal, speaking tasks other than narrative discourse might better capture this specific type of disfluency. Future research is needed to confirm and expand these preliminary findings.

Background: Person-centered rehabilitation requires that meaningful life activities are identified on a case-by-case basis, but the discovery process can be inaccessible for clients with aphasia. Card-sorting methodology addresses core barriers and help clients communicate their preferences.

Aims: To characterize life activities that people with aphasia want to do, to estimate consistency in selections over time, and to replicate previous findings about the ability of family members and friends to identify their loved ones’ activity preferences.

Methods & Procedures: We administered the Life Interests and Values (LIV) Cards to 26 people with aphasia, asking them which of 95 depicted life activities they wanted to do more in their lives. Half the activity cards were presented again one to ten weeks later. Twenty family members or friends responded as proxies by selecting from a questionnaire with the same items.

Outcomes & Results: Participants with aphasia selected diverse activities, though as a group they identified significantly more activities from the “social” activity category than from the “home and community”, “creative and relaxing”, or “physical” categories. Across the repeated interviews, they selected identical activities on average 78% of the time. Item-to-item agreement between people with aphasia and their proxy responders was significantly lower at 69%.

Conclusions: People with aphasia have diverse activity interests and are reliable informants about their preferences. Because significant others have limited ability to predict these choices, their impressions are inadequate substitutes for direct interviews.