Quantitative assessment of grammar in amyloid-negative logopenic aphasia

Comparing two picture naming tasks in primary progressive aphasia: Insights from behavioural and neural results

Picture naming tests are widely used to evaluate language impairments in neurodegenerative diseases, especially in Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA). The available tests differ for many factors affecting the performance, e.g. format of stimuli and their psycholinguistic properties. We aim to identify the most appropriate naming test to be used on PPA according to the clinical and research demands. We investigated the behavioural characteristics, i.e. proportion of correct responses and error type, and their neural correlates in two Italian naming tests, CaGi naming (CaGi) and naming subtest of the Screening for Aphasia in NeuroDegeneration battery (SAND), administered to 52 PPA patients who underwent an FDG-PET scan. We analysed the effectiveness of the tests in distinguishing PPA versus controls and among PPA variants, considering the psycholinguistic variables affecting performance. We explored the brain metabolic correlates of behavioural performance in the tests. SAND, differently from CaGi, has time limits for the response and its items are less frequent and acquired later. SAND and CaGi differed in terms of number of correct responses and error profile, suggesting a higher difficulty to name SAND items compared to CaGi. Semantic errors predominated in CaGi, while anomic and semantic errors were equally frequent in SAND. Both tests distinguished PPA from controls, but SAND outperformed CaGi in discriminating among PPA variants. FDG-PET imaging revealed a shared metabolic involvement of temporal areas associated with lexico-semantic processing, encompassing anterior fusiform, temporal pole, and extending to posterior fusiform in sv-PPA. Concluding, a picture naming test with response time limit and items which are less frequent and acquired later in life, as SAND, may be effective at highlighting subtle distinctions between PPA variants, improving the diagnosis. Conversely, a naming test without time limit for the response, as CaGi, may be useful for a better characterization of the nature of the naming impairment at the behavioural level, eliciting more naming errors than anomia, possibly helping in the development of rehabilitation protocols.

Dyslexia and dysgraphia of primary progressive aphasia in Chinese: A systematic review

Introduction

Currently, little is known about Chinese-speaking primary progressive aphasia (PPA) patients compared to patients who speak Indo-European languages. We examined the demographics and clinical manifestations, particularly reading and writing characteristics, of Chinese patients with PPA over the last two decades to establish a comprehensive profile and improve diagnosis and care.

Methods

We reviewed the demographic features, clinical manifestations, and radiological features of Chinese-speaking PPA patients from 56 articles published since 1994. We then summarized the specific reading and writing errors of Chinese-speaking patients.

Results

The average age of onset for Chinese-speaking patients was in their early 60's, and there were slightly more male patients than female patients. The core symptoms and images of Chinese-speaking patients were similar to those of patients who speak Indo-European languages. Reading and writing error patterns differed due to Chinese's distinct tone and orthography. The types of reading errors reported in Chinese-speaking patients with PPA included tonal errors, regularization errors, visually related errors, semantic errors, phonological errors, unrelated errors, and non-response. Among these errors, regularization errors were the most common in semantic variant PPA, and tonal errors were specific to Chinese. Writing errors mainly consisted of non-character errors (stroke, radical/component, visual, pictograph, dyskinetic errors, and spatial errors), phonologically plausible errors, orthographically similar errors, semantic errors, compound word errors, sequence errors, unrelated errors, and non-response.

Conclusion

This paper provides the latest comprehensive demographic information and unique presentations on the reading and writing of Chinese-speaking patients with PPA. More detailed studies are needed to address the frequency of errors in reading and writing and their anatomical substrates.

Characterization of the logopenic variant of Primary Progressive Aphasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The linguistic and anatomical variability of the logopenic variant of Primary Progressive Aphasia (lv-PPA) as defined by current diagnostic criteria has been the topic of an intense debate. The present review and meta-analysis aims at characterizing the profile of lv-PPA, by a comprehensive analysis of the available literature on the neuropsychological, neuroimaging, electrophysiological, pathological, and genetic features of lv-PPA. We conducted a systematic bibliographic search, leading to the inclusion of 207 papers. Of them, 12 were used for the Anatomical Likelihood Estimation meta-analysis on grey matter revealed by magnetic resonance imaging data. The results suggest that the current guidelines outline a relatively consistent syndrome, characterized by a core set of linguistic and, to a lesser extent, non-linguistic deficits, mirroring the involvement of left temporal and parietal regions typically affected by Alzheimer Disease pathology. Variations of the lv-PPA profile are discussed in terms of heterogeneity of the neuropsychological instruments and the diagnostic criteria adopted.

Understanding the multidimensional cognitive deficits of logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia

The logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia is characterized by early deficits in language production and phonological short-term memory, attributed to left-lateralized temporoparietal, inferior parietal and posterior temporal neurodegeneration. Despite patients primarily complaining of language difficulties, emerging evidence points to performance deficits in non-linguistic domains. Temporoparietal cortex, and functional brain networks anchored to this region, are implicated as putative neural substrates of non-linguistic cognitive deficits in logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia, suggesting that degeneration of a shared set of brain regions may result in co-occurring linguistic and non-linguistic dysfunction early in the disease course. Here, we provide a Review aimed at broadening the understanding of logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia beyond the lens of an exclusive language disorder. By considering behavioural and neuroimaging research on non-linguistic dysfunction in logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia, we propose that a significant portion of multidimensional cognitive features can be explained by degeneration of temporal/inferior parietal cortices and connected regions. Drawing on insights from normative cognitive neuroscience, we propose that these regions underpin a combination of domain-general and domain-selective cognitive processes, whose disruption results in multifaceted cognitive deficits including aphasia. This account explains the common emergence of linguistic and non-linguistic cognitive difficulties in logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia, and predicts phenotypic diversification associated with progression of pathology in posterior neocortex.

Application of Machine Learning to Electroencephalography for the Diagnosis of Primary Progressive Aphasia: A Pilot Study

Background. Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a neurodegenerative syndrome in which diagnosis is usually challenging. Biomarkers are needed for diagnosis and monitoring. In this study, we aimed to evaluate Electroencephalography (EEG) as a biomarker for the diagnosis of PPA. Methods. We conducted a cross-sectional study with 40 PPA patients categorized as non-fluent, semantic, and logopenic variants, and 20 controls. Resting-state EEG with 32 channels was acquired and preprocessed using several procedures (quantitative EEG, wavelet transformation, autoencoders, and graph theory analysis). Seven machine learning algorithms were evaluated (Decision Tree, Elastic Net, Support Vector Machines, Random Forest, K-Nearest Neighbors, Gaussian Naive Bayes, and Multinomial Naive Bayes). Results. Diagnostic capacity to distinguish between PPA and controls was high (accuracy 75%, F1-score 83% for kNN algorithm). The most important features in the classification were derived from network analysis based on graph theory. Conversely, discrimination between PPA variants was lower (Accuracy 58% and F1-score 60% for kNN). Conclusions. The application of ML to resting-state EEG may have a role in the diagnosis of PPA, especially in the differentiation from controls. Future studies with high-density EEG should explore the capacity to distinguish between PPA variants.

Description of connected speech across different elicitation tasks in the logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia

BACKGROUND

Despite its importance, in-depth analysis of connected speech is often neglected in the diagnosis of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) - especially for the logopenic variant (lvPPA) for which unreliable differential diagnosis has been documented. Only a few studies have been conducted on this topic in lvPPA.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to describe and compare lexico-semantic and morphosyntactic features of connected speech in participants with lvPPA, in comparison with healthy controls, using three different elicitation tasks (i.e., picture description, story narration and semi-structured interviews). In addition to a number of discourse features, we were particularly interested in the presence or absence of syntactic deficits in this PPA variant in line with recent findings.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

A prospective group study was conducted to compare lvPPA participants (n = 13) to age- and education-matched healthy controls (n = 13). For each individual, connected speech was obtained using three tasks: (1) The Cookie Theft picture description; (2) Cinderella Story; (3) Topic-directed interview. Production on each task was recorded, transcribed and analysed according to the Quantitative Production Analysis (QPA) protocol, a tool developed by Berndt et al. (2000) for the analysis of sentence production in aphasia. Differences between lvPPA and healthy controls and among elicitation tasks were analysed using repeated measures multilevel mixed-effects regression, separately for each outcome.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

Four measures were significantly different between lvPPA participants and healthy controls across all elicitation tasks. Specifically, lvPPA participants produced a reduced proportion of open-class words, a higher proportion of verbs, a higher proportion of pronouns and fewer well-formed sentences. For these measures, the difference between lvPPA and healthy controls was consistent among elicitation tasks, except for the proportion of well-formed sentences, where the difference between the two groups was significantly greater in the story narration task than in the other tasks.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

Across elicitation tasks that used the same analysis protocol (i.e., QPA), a similar pattern of deficits in connected speech emerged in lvPPA patients. Importantly, the findings replicate previous studies, which used different elicitation tasks and analysis protocols. Especially in relation to the documented syntactic deficits, these findings provide implications for differential diagnosis in PPA.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject Connected speech analysis can provide an important contribution to the language assessment for the logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA). However, only a few studies have been conducted with this population. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study highlights differences between patients with lvPPA and healthy controls regarding the proportion of open-class words, nouns, verbs and well-formed sentences. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Importantly, our results highlight syntactic deficits in the same group of individuals with lvPPA, using the same analysis protocol and across various elicitation tasks, which has implications for differential diagnosis.

Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Profiles in Primary Progressive Aphasia and Primary Progressive Apraxia of Speech

Purpose The primary aim was to examine the utility of the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised (WAB-R; Kertesz, 2007) for classifying variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA). Traditional WAB-R metrics of Aphasia Quotient (AQ), subtest scores, WAB-R classification, and several novel metrics were examined. A secondary aim was to examine these same WAB-R metrics in individuals with primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS). Method A retrospective analysis of WAB-R records from 169 participants enrolled in a study of neurodegenerative speech and language disorders was conducted. PPA/PPAOS classification was determined by consensus review of speech, language, and cognitive profiles. Scores on each of the WAB-R subtests were obtained to derive AQ, WAB-R aphasia profile, and 3 ratios reflecting relative performance on subtests. Results Mean AQ was significantly higher in the PPAOS group compared to all PPA variants except primary fluent aphasia. AQ above the normal cutoff was observed for 20% of participants with PPA. Significant main effects of group were noted for each of the subtests. Follow-up comparisons most frequently discriminated PPAOS, primary agrammatic aphasia (PAA), and logopenic progressive aphasia. Primary fluent aphasia and semantic dementia (SD) subtest scores were less distinctive, with the exception of Naming for SD, which was significantly lower than for PAA and PPAOS. When the WAB-R AQ detected aphasia, a classification of anomic aphasia was most frequently observed; this pattern held true for each of the PPA variants. The mean Information Content:Naming ratio was highest for SD, and the mean Comprehension:Fluency ratio was highest for PAA. Conclusions In the current study, AQ underestimated the presence of PPA and WAB-R classification did not distinguish among PPA classification determined by consensus. Performance on individual subtests and relative performance across subtests demonstrated inconsistent alignment with PPA classification. We conclude the WAB-R in isolation is inadequate to detect or characterize PPA. We instead suggest utilizing the WAB-R as 1 component of a comprehensive language and motor speech assessment when PPA is suspected.