OBJECTIVE: To compare the distribution of error types across subgroups of primary progressive aphasia and poststroke aphasia in different vascular locations. METHOD: We analyzed naming errors in 49 individuals with acute left hemisphere ischemic stroke and 55 individuals with three variants of primary progressive aphasia. Location of atrophy or ischemic stroke was characterized using MRI. RESULTS: We found that distribution of error types was very similar across all subgroups, irrespective of the site or etiology of the lesion. The only significant difference across groups was the percentage of circumlocutions (F(7, 96) = 3.02, p = .005). Circumlocution errors were highest among logopenic variant PPA (24%) and semantic variant PPA (24%). Semantic coordinate errors were common in all groups, probably because they can arise from disruption of different cognitive processes underlying naming and, therefore, from different locations of brain damage. CONCLUSIONS: Semantic errors are common among all types of primary progressive aphasia and poststroke aphasia, and the type of error depends in part on the location of damage. Copyright 2010 APA, all rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the distribution of error types across subgroups of primary progressive aphasia and poststroke aphasia in different vascular locations. METHOD: We analyzed naming errors in 49 individuals with acute left hemisphere ischemic stroke and 55 individuals with three variants of primary progressive aphasia. Location of atrophy or ischemic stroke was characterized using MRI. RESULTS: We found that distribution of error types was very similar across all subgroups, irrespective of the site or etiology of the lesion. The only significant difference across groups was the percentage of circumlocutions (F(7, 96) = 3.02, p = .005). Circumlocution errors were highest among logopenic variant PPA (24%) and semantic variant PPA (24%). Semantic coordinate errors were common in all groups, probably because they can arise from disruption of different cognitive processes underlying naming and, therefore, from different locations of brain damage. CONCLUSIONS: Semantic errors are common among all types of primary progressive aphasia and poststroke aphasia, and the type of error depends in part on the location of damage. Copyright 2010 APA, all rights reserved.
Authors: Argye E Hillis; Jonathan T Kleinman; Melissa Newhart; Jennifer Heidler-Gary; Rebecca Gottesman; Peter B Barker; Eric Aldrich; Rafael Llinas; Robert Wityk; Priyanka Chaudhry Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2006-08-02 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Christina E Wierenga; William M Perlstein; Michelle Benjamin; Christiana M Leonard; Leslie Gonzalez Rothi; Tim Conway; M Allison Cato; Kaundinya Gopinath; Richard Briggs; Bruce Crosson Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 2.892
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: Mustafa Seckin; M-Marsel Mesulam; Alfred W Rademaker; Joel L Voss; Sandra Weintraub; Emily J Rogalski; Robert S Hurley Journal: Neurocase Date: 2015-05-18 Impact factor: 0.881
Authors: Javier Riancho; Ana Pozueta; Miguel Santos; Carmen Lage; José M Carril; Ignacio Banzo; Isabel Martínez-Rodriguez; Marilu Gorno-Tempini; Pascual Sánchez-Juan Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Diana Petroi; Joseph R Duffy; Andrew Borgert; Edythe A Strand; Mary M Machulda; Matthew L Senjem; Clifford R Jack; Keith A Josephs; Jennifer L Whitwell Journal: Brain Lang Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 2.381
Authors: Adam Odolil; Amy E Wright; Lynsey M Keator; Shannon M Sheppard; Bonnie Breining; Donna C Tippett; Argye E Hillis Journal: Aphasiology Date: 2019-03-23 Impact factor: 2.773