Patterns of Dysgraphia in Primary Progressive Aphasia Compared to Post-Stroke Aphasia

Faria, Andréia V.; Crinion, Jenny; Tsapkini, Kyrana; Newhart, Melissa; Davis, Cameron; Cooley, Shannon; Mori, Susumu; Hillis, Argye E.

doi:10.1155/2013/561692

Cited by 24 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent study from our laboratory has identified early spelling patterns that predict the variant of PPA into which the patient is like-ly to evolve, when only naming and spelling are affected (such that the patient does not yet meet criteria for any one variant). Our study further determined which cognitive processes underlying spelling are affected in each of the PPA variants [1,17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spelling Intervention in Post-Stroke Aphasia and Primary Progressive Aphasia

Tsapkini

Hillis

2013

Behavioural Neurology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spelling–a core language skill–is commonly affected in neurological diseases such as stroke and Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA). We present two case studies of the same spelling therapy (learning of phoneme-to-grapheme correspondences with help from key words) in two participants: one who had a stroke and one with PPA (logopenic variant). Our study highlights similarities and differences in the time course of each indivdual's therapy. The study evaluates the effectiveness and generalization of treatment in each case, i.e. whether the treatment affected the trained items and/or untrained items, and whether or not the treatment gains were maintained after the end of therapy. Both participants were able to learn associations between phonemes and graphemes as well as between phonemes and words. Reliable generalization to untrained words was shown only for the participant with post-stroke aphasia, but we were not able to test generalization to untrained words in the individual with PPA. The same spelling therapy followed a different time course in each case. The participant with post-stroke aphasia showed a lasting effect of improved spelling, but we were unable to assess maintenance of improvement in the participant with PPA. We discuss these differences in light of the underlying nature of each disease.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spelling Intervention in Post-Stroke Aphasia and Primary Progressive Aphasia

Tsapkini

Hillis

2013

Behavioural Neurology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several research groups have recently focused great effort on the development of interventions to reduce the rate of decline. Spelling is often one of the earliest affected language skills (Faria et al, 2013; Mesulam, 2001; Sepelyak et al, 2011), and, given today's extensive use of email and texting technologies, may cause particular concern. Language interventions targeting the main cognitive mechanisms recruited during spelling have been modest but encouraging in PPA (Rapp & Glucroft, 2009; Tsapkini & Hillis, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Augmentation of spelling therapy with transcranial direct current stimulation in primary progressive aphasia: Preliminary results and challenges

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a neurodegenerative disease that primarily affects language functions and often begins in the fifth or sixth decade of life. The devastating effects on work and family life call for the investigation of treatment alternatives. In this article, we present new data indicating that neuromodulatory treatment, using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined with a spelling intervention, shows some promise for maintaining or even improving language, at least temporarily, in PPA. Aims The main aim of the present article is to determine whether tDCS plus spelling intervention is more effective than spelling intervention alone in treating written language in PPA. We also asked whether the effects of tDCS are sustained longer than the effects of spelling intervention alone. Methods & Procedures We present data from six PPA participants who underwent anodal tDCS or sham plus spelling intervention in a within-subject crossover design. Each stimulation condition lasted 3 weeks or a total of 15 sessions with a 2-month interval in between. Participants were evaluated on treatment tasks as well as on other language and cognitive tasks at 2-week and 2-month follow-up intervals after each stimulation condition. Outcomes & Results All participants showed improvement in spelling (with sham or tDCS). There was no difference in the treated items between the two conditions. There was, however, consistent and significant improvement for untrained items only in the tDCS plus spelling intervention condition. Furthermore, the improvement lasted longer in the tDCS plus spelling intervention condition compared to sham plus spelling intervention condition. Conclusions Neuromodulation with tDCS offers promise as a means of augmenting language therapy to improve written language function at least temporarily in PPA. The consistent finding of generalisation of treatment benefits to untreated items and the superior sustainability of treatment effects with tDCS justifies further investigations. However, the small sample size still requires caution in interpretation. Present interventions need to be optimised, and particular challenges, such as ways to account for the variable effect of degeneration in each individual, are discussed.

show abstract

“…According to Faria et al (2013), patients with lvPPA usually present with phonological dysgraphia, characterized by an impaired phonology-to-orthography conversion route and partially impaired access to orthographic word forms. According to Faria et al (2013), patients with lvPPA usually present with phonological dysgraphia, characterized by an impaired phonology-to-orthography conversion route and partially impaired access to orthographic word forms.…”

Section: C Sentence Repetition In a Patient With Lvppamentioning

confidence: 99%