Visuomotor Figure Construction and Visual Figure Delayed Recall and Recognition in Primary Progressive Aphasia

Clinical and neuroimaging characteristics of primary progressive aphasia

The chapter covers the clinical syndrome of a primary progressive aphasia (PPA), the demographics of this rare neurodegenerative disease, defining clinical and neuroanatomic characteristics of each PPA variant, disease progression, and behavioral features. The chapter begins with a brief introduction that includes references to seminal papers that defined this clinical syndrome and its three variants. The classic PPA subtypes discussed in the chapter are semantic variant PPA (svPPA), nonfluent/agrammatic PPA (nfaPPA), and logopenic variant PPA (lvPPA). The key language and cognitive characteristics, and language tasks that can elicit these language impairments, are detailed. Overlap in the clinical profiles of the PPA variants, which make differential diagnosis challenging, are explained. Disease progression is described, revealing that the PPA variants become more similar over time. Although PPA is language-predominant dementia, there are behavioral manifestations, particularly in svPPA. Changes in behavior in this variant are addressed as well as behavioral changes in nfaPPA and lvPPA that are less well recognized. The patterns of atrophy in the left temporal, parietal, and/or frontal cortices unique to each PPA variant are described. The underlying neuropathologies of the PPA variants are discussed, specifically tauopathies and non-tauopathies associated with svPPA and nfaPPA and Alzheimer's disease pathology in lvPPA.

Verbal Short-Term Memory Disturbance in the Primary Progressive Aphasias: Challenges and Distinctions in a Clinical Setting

Impaired verbal ‘phonological’ short-term memory is considered a cardinal feature of the logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia (lv-PPA) and is assumed to underpin most of the language deficits in this syndrome. Clinically, examination of verbal short-term memory in individuals presenting with PPA is common practice and serves two objectives: (i) to help understand the possible mechanisms underlying the patient’s language profile and (ii) to help differentiate lv-PPA from other PPA variants or from other dementia syndromes. Distinction between lv-PPA and the non-fluent variant of PPA (nfv-PPA), however, can be especially challenging due to overlapping language profiles and comparable psychometric performances on verbal short-term memory tests. Here, we present case vignettes of the three PPA variants (lv-PPA, nfv-PPA, and the semantic variant (sv-PPA)) and typical Alzheimer’s disease (AD). These vignettes provide a detailed description of the short-term and working memory profiles typically found in these patients and highlight how speech output and language comprehension deficits across the PPA variants differentially interfere with verbal memory performance. We demonstrate that a combination of verbal short-term and working memory measures provides crucial information regarding the cognitive mechanisms underlying language disturbances in PPA. In addition, we propose that analogous visuospatial span tasks are essential for the assessment of PPA as they measure memory capacity without language contamination.

The Box Task: A novel tool to differentiate the primary progressive aphasias

OBJECTIVE

Differentiating the primary progressive aphasia (PPA) variants in clinical settings remains complex and challenging, especially for the logopenic (lv-PPA) and non-fluent variants (nfv-PPA). Recent studies suggest that visuospatial memory is more compromised in lv-PPA than in nfv-PPA and is relatively spared in the semantic variant (sv-PPA). Accordingly, assessment of visuospatial memory performance may assist in the differential diagnosis of PPA variants. Here, we investigated the utility of a novel computerised visuospatial working memory test-the Box Task-to differentiate the three PPA variants and typical Alzheimer's disease (AD).

METHODS

Eighteen lv-PPA, 14 nfv-PPA, 23 sv-PPA, 33 AD patients, and 32 healthy controls matched for age and education were recruited. All participants completed the computerised Box Task and WMS-III Spatial Span as measures of visuospatial working memory.

RESULTS

The lv-PPA group made significantly more Box Task between-search errors than nfv-PPA, sv-PPA and control groups. The AD group, however, displayed the greatest impairments on this measure relative to the PPA variants. Logistic regression analyses in lv-PPA and nfv-PPA demonstrated that the combination of Box Task between-search error variables (i.e., 4- and 6-box levels) could correctly classify 72% of lv-PPA patients and nearly 79% of nfv-PPA patients. Area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC) analyses revealed the Box Task was more sensitive than Spatial Span at differentiating lv-PPA from nfv-PPA.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that a simple, computerised measure of visuospatial working memory-the Box Task-shows potential diagnostic utility in differentiating lv-PPA from the other PPA variants.

Longitudinal decline in spoken word recognition and object knowledge in primary progressive aphasia

The premise of this study is that spoken word recognition and object knowledge are impaired in semantic variant primary progressive aphasia (PPA) (svPPA) and are spared in logopenic variant (lvPPA) and nonfluent agrammatic primary progressive aphasia (nfaPPA) at disease onset. Over time, however, there may be heterogeneity in these abilities in lvPPA and nfaPPA. We hypothesized that individuals with svPPA would demonstrate poorer performance on baseline spoken word recognition and object knowledge than those with lvPPA and nfaPPA) as documented in the literature, but that rates of decline over time on spoken word recognition and object knowledge would be similar in all 3 PPA variants because these become less distinguishable with disease progression.The aim of this study was to investigate longitudinal patterns of decline in spoken word recognition and object knowledge across PPA variants.Ninety-five individuals with PPA completed the Semantic Word Picture Matching and Semantic Associates tests at baseline to establish expected performance in these areas. Thirty-five individuals completed follow-up testing.The distributions of trichotomized mean rates of decline in object knowledge were similar for lvPPA and svPPA (P = .05). There were weak negative correlations between symptom duration and baseline scores on Semantic Word Picture Matching (r[37] = -0.399, P = .01), and baseline scores on Semantic Associates (r[37] = -0.394, P = .01) in lvPPA.Degradation of spoken word recognition and object knowledge occurs over time in lvPPA. Further investigation of the receptive language deficits in PPA is warranted to characterize language changes that lessen the distinctions between PPA variants with disease progression.

Neural regions underlying object and action naming: Complementary evidence from acute stroke and primary progressive aphasia

BACKGROUND

Naming impairment is commonly noted in individuals with aphasia. However, object naming receives more attention than action naming. Furthermore, most studies include participants with aphasia due to only one aetiology, commonly stroke. We developed a new assessment, the Hopkins Action Naming Assessment (HANA), to evaluate action naming impairments.

AIMS

Our aims were to show that the HANA is a useful tool that can (1) identify action naming impairments and (2) be used to investigate the neural substrates underlying naming. We paired the HANA with the Boston Naming Test (BNT) to compare action and object naming. We considered participants with aphasia due to primary progressive aphasia (PPA) or acute left hemisphere stroke to provide a more comprehensive picture of brain-behaviour relationships critical for naming. Behaviourally, we hypothesised that there would be a double dissociation between object and action naming performance. Neuroanatomically, we hypothesised that different neural substrates would be implicated in object vs. action naming and that different lesion-deficit associations would be identified in participants with PPA vs. acute stroke.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

Participants (N=138 with PPA, N=37 with acute stroke) completed the BNT and HANA. Behavioural performance was compared. A subset of participants (N=31 with PPA, N=37 with acute stroke) provided neuroimaging data. The whole brain was automatically segmented into regions of interest (ROIs). For participants with PPA, the image variables were the ROI volumes, normalised by the brain volume. For participants with acute stroke, the image variables were the percentage of each ROI affected by the lesion. The relationship between ROIs likely to be involved in naming performance was modelled with LASSO regression.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

Behavioural results showed a double dissociation in performance: in each group, some participants displayed intact performance relative to healthy controls on actions but not objects and/or significantly better performance on actions than objects, while others showed the opposite pattern. These results support the need to assess both objects and actions when evaluating naming deficits. Neuroimaging results identified different regions associated with object vs. action naming, implicating overlapping but distinct networks of regions. Furthermore, results differed for participants with PPA vs. acute stroke, indicating that critical information may be missed when only one aetiology is considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the study provides a more comprehensive picture of the neural bases of naming, underscoring the importance of assessing both objects and actions and considering different aetiologies of damage. It demonstrates the utility of the HANA.

Diagnostic Assessment in Primary Progressive Aphasia: An Illustrative Case Example

Purpose Diagnosis and classification of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) requires confirmation of specific speech and language symptoms, highlighting the important role of speech-language pathologists in the evaluation process. The purpose of this case report is to inform speech-language pathologists regarding current practices for diagnostic assessment in PPA, describing standard approaches as well as complementary, state-of-the-art procedures that may improve diagnostic precision. Method We describe the diagnostic evaluation of a 49-year-old woman with complaints of progressive word-finding difficulty. She completed standard neurological, neuropsychological, and speech-language evaluations, as well as magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography imaging of her brain. In addition, a history of developmental speech, language, and learning abilities was obtained, as well as genetic testing and assessment of cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers. We discuss the evaluation results in the context of the most current research related to PPA diagnosis. Conclusion Detailed behavioral assessment, thorough intake of symptom history and neurodevelopmental differences, multimodal neuroimaging, and comprehensive examination of genes and biomarkers are of paramount importance for detecting and characterizing PPA, with ramifications for early behavioral and/or pharmacological intervention. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12771113.

Classification of primary progressive aphasia: challenges and complexities

Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is classified into three variants, logopenic variant PPA (lvPPA), nonfluent agrammatic PPA (nfaPPA), and semantic variant PPA (svPPA), based on clinical (syndromic) characteristics with support from neuroimaging and/or underlying neuropathology. Classification of PPA variants provides information valuable to disease management. International consensus criteria are widely employed to identify PPA subtypes; however, classification is complex, and some individuals do not fit neatly into the subtyping scheme. In this review, diagnostic challenges and their implications are discussed, possible explanations for these challenges are explored, and approaches to address PPA classification are considered.