Quantitative assessment of grammar in amyloid-negative logopenic aphasia
•Amyloid-negative lvPPA subjects have a unique linguistic profile.•Amyloid-negative lvPPA has some language features similar to amyloid-positive.•Amyloid-negative lvPPA also shares language features with agrammatic PPA.•The speech of lvPPA can help distinguish amyloid-negative versus-positive subjec...
Saved in:
Published in | Brain and language Vol. 186; pp. 26 - 31 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Netherlands
Elsevier Inc
01.11.2018
Academic Press |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | •Amyloid-negative lvPPA subjects have a unique linguistic profile.•Amyloid-negative lvPPA has some language features similar to amyloid-positive.•Amyloid-negative lvPPA also shares language features with agrammatic PPA.•The speech of lvPPA can help distinguish amyloid-negative versus-positive subjects.
Logopenic primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA) typically results from underlying Alzheimer's disease, but subjects have been reported that do not show beta-amyloid (Aβ) deposition. These subjects do not differ on neurological and speech-language testing from Aβ-positive lvPPA, but they impressionistically show increased grammatical deficits. We performed a quantitative linguistic analysis of grammatical characteristics in Aβ-negative lvPPA compared to Aβ-positive lvPPA and agrammatic PPA, which is characterized by increased grammatical difficulties. Aβ-negative lvPPA used fewer function words and correct verbs but more syntactic and semantic errors compared to Aβ-positive lvPPA. These measures did not differ between Aβ-negative lvPPA and agPPA. Both lvPPA cohorts showed a higher mean length of utterance, more complex sentences, and fewer nouns than agPPA. Aβ-negative lvPPA subjects appear unique and share linguistic features with both agPPA and Aβ-positive lvPPA. Quantitative language analysis in lvPPA may be able to distinguish those with and without Aβ deposition. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 Author contributions JW and KJ were responsible for study design, study supervision and obtaining funding. KT and JW drafted the manuscript, which was revised by KJ, JD, RU, HC, MM, and ES. KT was responsible for the acquisition of linguistic data, data analysis, and statistical analysis. KJ, JD, MM, HC and ES were responsible for acquisition of clinical data. JW was responsible for the neuroimaging analysis. KT, JW, JD, RU, and KJ contributed to interpretation of data. |
ISSN: | 0093-934X 1090-2155 1090-2155 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.bandl.2018.09.003 |