Jump to comment:

• Authors' response to 'An overestimation?'
  Laura McWhirter, Jon Stone, Nick Miller and Alan Carson
  Published on: 10 October 2019
• An overestimation of diagnosing functional foreign accent syndrome?
  Marcelo L. Berthier, Ignacio Moreno-Torres
  Published on: 10 October 2019

• Published on: 10 October 2019

  Authors' response to 'An overestimation?'

  • Laura McWhirter, Neuropsychiatrist University of Edinburgh and NHS Lothian
  • Other Contributors:
    • Jon Stone, Professor of Neurology
    • Nick Miller, Professor Emeritus of Speech Pathology
    • Alan Carson, Professor of Neuropsychiatry

  We, the authors, thank Berthier for his comments on our study of 49 individuals with self-reported Foreign Accent Syndrome.

  In response, we would first like to clarify that we do not use Berthier’s term ‘psychogenic’, but ‘functional’ in our paper, referring to foreign accent symptoms due to changes in neural function rather than (or in addition to) the direct effects of a structural lesion. The body-mind dualism implied by the terms ‘psychological/psychogenic’ vs ‘neurogenic’ no longer holds water. Berthier himself notes that the differentiation between “functional” and “structural” may be artificial and that there has been great progress in “unveiling of the neural basis” of functional disorders. As we frequently emphasise in explaining the diagnosis to individuals with functional neurological disorders, their symptoms are definitely ‘real’; not ‘imagined’; and have a basis in changes in neural function which we are beginning to understand more clearly [1,2].

  We accept the limitations provided by our method of data collection, including limited data about investigations and a likelihood of selection bias where those with predominantly functional FAS may be somewhat over-represented in our sample. We wish to clarify, however, that cases were classified as ‘probably functional’ on the basis of reported positive clinical features of a functional disorder (e.g. periods of return to normal accent, adoption of stereotypical behaviours) and not by the presence...

  Show More

  We, the authors, thank Berthier for his comments on our study of 49 individuals with self-reported Foreign Accent Syndrome.

  In response, we would first like to clarify that we do not use Berthier’s term ‘psychogenic’, but ‘functional’ in our paper, referring to foreign accent symptoms due to changes in neural function rather than (or in addition to) the direct effects of a structural lesion. The body-mind dualism implied by the terms ‘psychological/psychogenic’ vs ‘neurogenic’ no longer holds water. Berthier himself notes that the differentiation between “functional” and “structural” may be artificial and that there has been great progress in “unveiling of the neural basis” of functional disorders. As we frequently emphasise in explaining the diagnosis to individuals with functional neurological disorders, their symptoms are definitely ‘real’; not ‘imagined’; and have a basis in changes in neural function which we are beginning to understand more clearly [1,2].

  We accept the limitations provided by our method of data collection, including limited data about investigations and a likelihood of selection bias where those with predominantly functional FAS may be somewhat over-represented in our sample. We wish to clarify, however, that cases were classified as ‘probably functional’ on the basis of reported positive clinical features of a functional disorder (e.g. periods of return to normal accent, adoption of stereotypical behaviours) and not by the presence of psychiatric comorbidity [3].

  We agree with Berthier that positive features do not exclude the presence of any structural lesion; but we reach a very different conclusion. So, where Berthier indicates that this discounts the discriminative utility of these features, we conclude that the presence of these features suggests that FAS may have a partially or entirely functional basis even in those with a structural lesion. We hope that future prospective research will test this hypothesis.

  In our collective clinical experience, positive identification of functional neurological symptoms is universally helpful, including in those with comorbid structural lesions. Functional symptoms are potentially reversible, and respond to different therapeutic methods: for example, physiotherapy for functional movement disorders concentrates on distracting somatosensory attention away from the affected limb and encouraging natural ‘automatic’ movements rather than concentrated repeated strength exercises using the affected limb [4]. It seems likely that similar treatment approaches might be helpful in those with partially or predominantly functional FAS.

  Berthier questions how we can “dissect the psychogenic from the neurogenic to provide an integrated explanation to the affected person?” In our experience, individuals who have both ‘structural’ and ‘functional’ symptoms (such as those with epilepsy and dissociative seizures) are generally both receptive to and interested in an integrated explanation of the ways in which some of their symptoms may have a functional basis and therefore potential for improvement.

  The ‘social stigma’ which Berthier notes may be associated with a functional diagnosis, and which unfortunately can also come from health professionals, is perhaps the most important problem which Berthier identifies in his letter. We agree that multimodal neuroimaging may continue to better our understanding of the mechanisms of various FAS subtypes, and hope that this work will move forward collaboratively, embracing the possibility that a new foreign accent may sometimes arise as a result of disruptions not directly related to a structural lesion.

  1 Hallett M, Stone J, Carson A. Functional Neurologic Disorders, Volume 139 of the Handbook of Clinical Neurology series. Amsterdam: Elsevier 2016.

  2 Espay AJ, Aybek S, Carson A, et al. Current Concepts in Diagnosis and Treatment of Functional Neurological Disorders. JAMA Neurol

  3 Lee O, Ludwig L, Davenport R, et al. Functional foreign accent syndrome. Pract Neurol 2016.

  4 Nielsen G, Stone J, Edwards MJ. Physiotherapy for functional (psychogenic) motor symptoms: A systematic review. J Psychosom Res 2013

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top
• Published on: 10 October 2019

  An overestimation of diagnosing functional foreign accent syndrome?

  • Marcelo L. Berthier, Professor of Neurology. University of Malaga Unit of Cognitive Neurology and Aphasia Centro de Investigaciones Médico-Sanitarias (CIMES), University of Malaga,Malaga, Spain
  • Other Contributors:
    • Ignacio Moreno-Torres, Professor of Linguistics

  Elucidating the nature of the foreign accent syndrome (FAS) can contribute to improve its diagnosis and treatment approaches. To understand this apparently rare syndrome, McWhirter et al. 1 studied a large case series of 49 subjects self-reporting having FAS. The participants were recruited via unmoderated online FAS support groups and surveys shared with neurologists and speech-language therapists from several countries. Participants completed an online protocol including validated scales tapping somatic symptoms, anxiety and depression, social-occupational function, and illness perception. They were also requested to provide speech samples recorded via computers or smartphones during oral reading and picture description. The overall clinical presentation of FAS in each participant was classified by consensus reached by three authors (2 neuropsychiatrists and 1 neurologist) in (1) “probably functional”, (2) “possibly structural” or (3) “probably structural”, wherein (1) meant no evidence of a neurological event or injury suggestive of a functional disorder but with no spontaneous remission; (2) alluded to the presence of some features suggestive of a functional disorder but with some uncertainty about a possible structural basis; and (3) denoted the evidence of a neurological event or injury coincident with the onset of FAS. The recorded speech samples were examined by experts to diagnose FAS and their frequent associated speech-language deficits (apraxia of speech, dysar...

  Show More

  Elucidating the nature of the foreign accent syndrome (FAS) can contribute to improve its diagnosis and treatment approaches. To understand this apparently rare syndrome, McWhirter et al. 1 studied a large case series of 49 subjects self-reporting having FAS. The participants were recruited via unmoderated online FAS support groups and surveys shared with neurologists and speech-language therapists from several countries. Participants completed an online protocol including validated scales tapping somatic symptoms, anxiety and depression, social-occupational function, and illness perception. They were also requested to provide speech samples recorded via computers or smartphones during oral reading and picture description. The overall clinical presentation of FAS in each participant was classified by consensus reached by three authors (2 neuropsychiatrists and 1 neurologist) in (1) “probably functional”, (2) “possibly structural” or (3) “probably structural”, wherein (1) meant no evidence of a neurological event or injury suggestive of a functional disorder but with no spontaneous remission; (2) alluded to the presence of some features suggestive of a functional disorder but with some uncertainty about a possible structural basis; and (3) denoted the evidence of a neurological event or injury coincident with the onset of FAS. The recorded speech samples were examined by experts to diagnose FAS and their frequent associated speech-language deficits (apraxia of speech, dysarthria, dysprosody and aphasia) and the abnormal segmental and suprasegmental features that characterize FAS. The main finding of this study was that the authors’ consensus classified 71 % (35 subjects) of the participants as “probably functional”, 8% (4 subjects) as “possibly structural”, and 20% (10 subjects) as “probably structural”. The high prevalence of participants meeting the “probably functional” and “possibly functional” criteria for FAS (79%) appears difficult to reconcile with previous data. 2,4 This overestimation may spuriously inflate the number of functional cases, thus biasing the currently accepted relative frequency of the FAS variants.2 It is also conceivable that subjects with “functional” FAS completed the evaluation because they feel more urge to be evaluated than those with other variants. Below, we briefly examine the caveats of this study concerning the validity of the assessment results.
  First, only 13 out of 49 (26%) participants provided samples of speech production and 10 of them were classified as having “probably functional” FAS, whereas the remaining 3 cases were considered to have “probably structural” FAS. This makes the diagnosis of FAS elusive in most participants (74%) who did not submit speech samples for expert evaluation, a requirement needed for establishing the precise diagnosis of FAS.3
  Second, McWhirter et al. 1 identified some features of the speech (i.e., periods of remission, ability to copy other accents, lack of typical speech-language deficits accompanying neurogenic FAS) in “functional” FAS that considered helpful for identifying such cases. Nevertheless, these characteristics have also been observed in neurogenic cases. Alternation between foreign accent, loss of regional accent, and using a previously heard accent in the same individual have been reported in a variant of neurogenic FAS (see Berthier et al., 2015 in 2). Cases with no or rapidly resolving dysarthria, apraxia of speech or aphasia but persistent foreign accent have been described as “pure” neurogenic FAS (see references in 4). The fluctuating course of FAS related to psychiatric disorders (schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) could not viewed as functional; rather, it has a neurochemical correlate (e.g., withdrawal of neuroleptics) involving abnormal dopaminergic neurotransmission (see Reeves & Norton, 2001; and Poulin et al., 2007 in 4). In this regard, anxiety and depression in the McWhirter et al’s sample occurred more frequently in the “structural” group than in the “functional” FAS cases. 1 Thus, these neuropsychiatric disorders do not have a discriminative value between subtypes.
  Third, 11 (22%) participants in the present study had suffered from stroke, but the authors reported structural lesions on neuroimaging in only 5 of them (10%), all belonging to the "probably structural" group (data from Table 1). No information on lesion characteristics (i.e., location, size) was provided. Recent developments on the neuroscience of accent (see 2) may explain why the scarcity of brain damage in McWhirter et al.’s study1 does not undermine the role of structural or functional lesions in those participants with normal neuroimaging. In the present study this was particularly pertinent for those cases associated with stroke, mild traumatic brain injury, Parkinson’s disease, headaches, or seizures. Overall, focal lesions responsible from FAS are very small (involving a single gyrus or portions of a nucleus) compromising of one or more components of the speech production network.3,4 and these lesions may be easily overlooked if sophisticated neuroimaging methods are not used. Note that functional and structural brain changes have been reported even in cases of psychogenic and developmental FAS when high resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diffusion tensor imaging, positron emission tomography or functional MRI were used.3-5
  Fourth, the differentiation between “functional” and “structural” FAS may be deemed artificial considering the current limitations of conventional neuroimaging methods (computed tomography, low resolution MRI). 4 Such limitations prevent unveiling the neural basis of cases which until now fall under the umbrella of “functional” disorders.3 For example, the demarcation of a “possible functional FAS” (functional disorder with an uncertain structural basis)1 is uncertain. How can we interpret the hybrid identity in such FAS cases? How the attending professionals can dissect the psychogenic from the neurogenic nature of FAS to provide an integrated explanation to the affected person? We have reported that the interpretation of FAS as psychogenic in cases associated with previously undetected small stroke lesions 4 or developmental brain anomalies 3 created a social stigma in the affected persons which, in turn, heightened the negative connotation of living with a FAS.
  The differentiation between FAS variants does not depends solely on the segmental and suprasegmental alterations 5 nor in the frequency of comorbid psychiatric disorders. Therefore, the implementation of other methodologies to refine the differential diagnosis between FAS variants is needed. We trust that multimodal neuroimaging and other ancillary methods will contribute to illuminate the still hidden origins of FAS subtypes.

  References
  1. McWhirter L, Miller N, Campbell C, et al. Understanding foreign accent syndrome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019 Mar 2. pii: jnnp-2018-319842. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2018-319842.
  2. Moreno-Torres I, Mariën P, Dávila G, et al. Editorial: Language beyond Words: The Neuroscience of Accent. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 Dec 20;10:639. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00639.
  3. Berthier ML, Roé-Vellvé N, Moreno-Torres I et al. Mild Developmental Foreign Accent Syndrome and Psychiatric Comorbidity: Altered White Matter Integrity in Speech and Emotion Regulation Networks. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 Aug 9;10:399. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00399.
  4. Moreno-Torres I, Berthier ML, Del Mar Cid M. et al. Foreign accent syndrome: a multimodal evaluation in the search of neuroscience-driven treatments. Neuropsychologia 2013; 51:520-37. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.11.010.
  5. Keulen S. Foreign Accent Syndrome: A Neurolinguistic Analysis. PhD Thesis. University of Groningen (The Netherlands) and Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium). May 18th, 2017.

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top