INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to determine which cognitive processes underlying spelling are most affected in the three variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA): Logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA), Semantic variant primary progressive aphasia (svPPA), and Nonfluent variant primary progressive aphasia (nfvPPA). METHODS: 23 PPA patients were administered The Johns Hopkins Dysgraphia Battery to assess spelling. Subtests evaluate for effects of word frequency, concreteness, word length, grammatical word class, lexicality (words vs pseudowords), and "regularity" by controlling for the other variables. Significant effects of each variable were identified with chi square tests. Responses on all spelling to dictation tests were scored by error type. 16 of the 23 subjects also had a high resolution MRI brain scan to identify areas of atrophy. RESULTS: We identified 4 patterns of spelling that could be explained by damage to one or more cognitive processes underlying spelling. Nine patients (3 unclassifiable, 4 with lvPPA, 2 with svPPA) had dysgraphia explicable by impaired access to lexical representations, with reliance on sublexical phonology-to-orthography conversion (POC). Two patients (with nfvPPA) showed dysgraphia explicable by impaired access to lexical representations and complete disruption of sublexical POC. Seven patients (4 with lvPPA, 1 with svPPA, 2 unclassifiable) showed dysgraphia explicable by impaired access to lexical-semantic representations and/or lexical representations with partially spared sublexical POC mechanisms. Five patients (1 with nfvPPA, 2 with svPPA, 1 with lvPPA, and 1 unclassifiable) showed dysgraphia explicable by impairment of the graphemic buffer. CONCLUSIONS: Any cognitive process underlying spelling can be affected in PPA. Predominance of phonologically plausible errors, more accurate spelling of regular words than irregular words, and more accurate spelling of pseudowords than words (indicating spared POC mechanisms) may indicate a low probability of progression to nfvPPA. Copyright Â
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to determine which cognitive processes underlying spelling are most affected in the three variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA): Logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA), Semantic variant primary progressive aphasia (svPPA), and Nonfluent variant primary progressive aphasia (nfvPPA). METHODS: 23 PPA patients were administered The Johns Hopkins Dysgraphia Battery to assess spelling. Subtests evaluate for effects of word frequency, concreteness, word length, grammatical word class, lexicality (words vs pseudowords), and "regularity" by controlling for the other variables. Significant effects of each variable were identified with chi square tests. Responses on all spelling to dictation tests were scored by error type. 16 of the 23 subjects also had a high resolution MRI brain scan to identify areas of atrophy. RESULTS: We identified 4 patterns of spelling that could be explained by damage to one or more cognitive processes underlying spelling. Nine patients (3 unclassifiable, 4 with lvPPA, 2 with svPPA) had dysgraphia explicable by impaired access to lexical representations, with reliance on sublexical phonology-to-orthography conversion (POC). Two patients (with nfvPPA) showed dysgraphia explicable by impaired access to lexical representations and complete disruption of sublexical POC. Seven patients (4 with lvPPA, 1 with svPPA, 2 unclassifiable) showed dysgraphia explicable by impaired access to lexical-semantic representations and/or lexical representations with partially spared sublexical POC mechanisms. Five patients (1 with nfvPPA, 2 with svPPA, 1 with lvPPA, and 1 unclassifiable) showed dysgraphia explicable by impairment of the graphemic buffer. CONCLUSIONS: Any cognitive process underlying spelling can be affected in PPA. Predominance of phonologically plausible errors, more accurate spelling of regular words than irregular words, and more accurate spelling of pseudowords than words (indicating spared POC mechanisms) may indicate a low probability of progression to nfvPPA. Copyright Â
Authors: K A Josephs; J L Whitwell; J R Duffy; W A Vanvoorst; E A Strand; W T Hu; B F Boeve; N R Graff-Radford; J E Parisi; D S Knopman; D W Dickson; C R Jack; R C Petersen Journal: Neurology Date: 2008-01-01 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Maria Luisa Gorno-Tempini; Nina F Dronkers; Katherine P Rankin; Jennifer M Ogar; La Phengrasamy; Howard J Rosen; Julene K Johnson; Michael W Weiner; Bruce L Miller Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Sarah Grace Hudspeth Dalton; Christine Shultz; Maya L Henry; Argye E Hillis; Jessica D Richardson Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Bradley Boeve; Jessica Bove; Patrick Brannelly; Danielle Brushaber; Giovanni Coppola; Rielly Dever; Christina Dheel; Bradford Dickerson; Susan Dickinson; Kelley Faber; Julie Fields; Jamie Fong; Tatiana Foroud; Leah Forsberg; Ralitza Gavrilova; Debra Gearhart; Nupur Ghoshal; Jennifer Goldman; Jonathan Graff-Radford; Neill Graff-Radford; Murray Grossman; Dana Haley; Hilary Heuer; Ging-Yuek Robin Hsiung; Edward Huey; David Irwin; David Jones; Lynne Jones; Kejal Kantarci; Anna Karydas; David Knopman; John Kornak; Ruth Kraft; Joel Kramer; Walter Kremers; Walter Kukull; Maria Lapid; Diane Lucente; Ian Mackenzie; Masood Manoochehri; Scott McGinnis; Bruce Miller; Rodney Pearlman; Len Petrucelli; Madeline Potter; Rosa Rademakers; Eliana Marisa Ramos; Kate Rankin; Katya Rascovsky; Pheth Sengdy; Les Shaw; Jeremy Syrjanen; Nadine Tatton; Joanne Taylor; Arthur Toga; John Trojanowski; Sandra Weintraub; Bonnie Wong; Zbigniew Wszolek; Adam Boxer; Howard Rosen Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 21.566