Table 3. Profiling of intelligibility assessment First author Recording environment Stimulus organisation Intelligibility in context or without context? Number of assessors Assessor expertise Assessment task Barnish Recorded in participants’ homes A blended presentation approach was used. The allocation of stimuli to assessors followed Square and presentation order was randomised In context 64 Staff or students of the University of East Anglia without expertise in speech disorders Transcription Coates Recorded in participants’ Not stated In context and without context 8 Speech and language therapists Transcription Donovan Recorded in participants’ homes (71/75) or in clinic (4/75) Not stated In context 3 Speech and language therapists Transcription Miller Recorded in participants’ homes Each assessor was randomly assigned the recordings of 5 different speakers Without context 3 Assessors were unfamiliar with Parkinson’s disease Transcription
Figure legends Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart Figures (600 dpi TIFF) Supplementary data Table of studies excluded at full-text screening with reasons First author Year Title Publication details Reason for exclusiona Anderson 2013 Social problem solving, social cognition, and mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease Behav Neurosci 127(2): 184-92 Not focused on everyday communication Ash 2012 The organization and anatomy of narrative comprehension and expression in Lewy body spectrum disorders Neuropsychology 26(3): 368-384 Not focused on oral medium
speakers with Parkinson’s disease McNamara 2010 Social cognition of indirect speech: Evidence from Parkinson’s disease J Neurolinguistics 23(2): 162-71 Not focused on oral medium McNamara 2006 Life goals of patients with Parkinson’s disease: A pilot study on correlations with mood and cognitive functions Clin Rehabil 20: 818-826 Not focused on everyday communication Martens 2011 Assessment of prosodic communicative efficiency in Parkinson’s disease as judged by professional listeners Parkinsons Dis 2011: Article ID 129310 Not focused on everyday communication (impairment level only) Miller 2006 Life with communication changes in Parkinson’s disease Age Ageing 35(3): 235-9 No explicit linkage of either cognitive status or intelligibility to communicative outcomes Monetta 2009 Irony comprehension and theory of mind deficits in patients with Parkinson’s disease Cortex 45(8): 972-81 Not focused on oral medium Monetta 2007 Effects of verbal working memory deficits on metaphor comprehension in patients with Parkinson’s disease Lang 101(1): 80-9 Not focused on oral medium Mott 2004 Only misunderstood? The effects of Parkinson’s disease on interactions with health professionals Aust J Prim Health 10(2): No explicit linkage of either cognitive status or intelligibility to communicative outcomes Pell 2006 The impact of Parkinson’s disease on communication Brain Lang 97(2): 123-34 Not focused on everyday communication
from the perspective of listeners (impairment only) Pitcairn 1990 Impressions of parkinsonian patients from their recorded voices Br J Disord Commun 25(1): 85-92 Not focused on everyday communication Saldert 2014 Semantic trouble sources and their repair in conversations affected by Parkinson’s disease Int J Lang Commun Disord 49(6): 710-21 No explicit linkage of either cognitive status or intelligibility to communicative outcomes Tremblay 2015 The effects of subthalamic deep brain stimulation on metaphor comprehension and language abilities in Parkinson’s disease Brain Lang 141: 103-9 Not separable from surgical intervention Tremblay 2014 The role of polysemy on metaphor comprehension processing: The example of Parkinson’s disease J Neurolinguistics 30(1): 1-13 Not focused on oral medium Walshe 2009 Dysarthria Impact Profile: Development of a scale to measure psychosocial effects Int J Lang Commun Dis 44(5): 693-715 Results from people with PD not presented separately Walshe 2008 Intelligibility of dysarthric speech: Perceptions of speakers and listeners Int J Lang Commun Disord 43(6): 633-48 Results from people with PD not presented separately a = primary reason for exclusion listed for each excluded article - some articles could have been justifiably excluded for more than one reason Full Medline search strategy (exp parkinson disease/) AND (exp cognition/ OR exp cognition disorders/ OR exp dementia/ OR exp memory/ OR exp memory disorders/ OR exp neuropsychology/ OR planning.mp OR exp problem solving/ OR exp executive function OR exp learning/OR exp social perception/ OR social cognition.mp
Detailed study characteristics First author Year Country Design Sizeb funded Diagnostic criteria for PD Other inclusion criteria Participant characteristics Alpert 1990 USA 10 No IPD (H&Y 3-4) Mild-to-moderate dementia. No psychiatric conditions or substance abuse N = 10; male = 80%; Mean age = 77 years; mean disease duration (DUR) = 6 years Ash 2011 USA 14a No PD (Hughes criteria) No other causes of dementia N = 14; male = 71%; Mean age = 73; DUR = 7 Barnish 2013 UK 45 No IPD (PDBB criteria) No clinical evidence of dementia or previous serious medical conditions that affect cognition or speech. Judged by clinics to be suitable for the study N = 45; male = 62%; age = 71, DUR = 7 (median) Coates 1997 UK 48 Clinically diagnosed IPD No severe intercurrent illness or clinical evidence of dementia N = 48; male = 42%; age = 70; DUR = 7 2008, 2005 USA 25 No PD (H&Y1-4) Aged between 18 and 90. No history of neurologic, psychiatric or language deficit. MMSE ≥23. Not N = 25; male = 56%; age =70
hospitalisation. No major depression in last 6 months (Beck score >16). Not currently taking medication known to affect CNS 2003 USA 20 No Clinically diagnosed PD No clinical dementia (DSM-III) or history of substance or head injury. Male and right-handed N = 20; male = 100%; age = 72; DUR = 9 Miller 2011, 2008 UK Cohort 104 No IPD (PDBB criteria) H&Y ≤ 3 at assessment. No comorbid conditions likely to affect communication. No DBS or SLT treatment. Native English speaking. N = 104; age = 72; DUR = 7 Monetta 2008 Canada 14 No IPD (Calne criteria) No dementia (Mattis other serious medical conditions or history of substance or alcohol abuse N = 14; age = 66 Pell 2014 Canada 15 No Clinically diagnosed PD No dementia (Mattis scale), other neurological conditions, major psychiatric N = 15; male = 53%, age = 71; DUR = 11