Writing in Richardson variant of progressive supranuclear palsy in comparison to progressive non-fluent aphasia

Sitek, Emilia J.; Barczak, Anna; Kluj-Kozłowska, Klaudia; Kozłowski, Marcin; Narożańska, Ewa; Konkel, Agnieszka; Dąbrowska, Magda; Barcikowska, Maria; Sławek, Jarosław

doi:10.1016/j.pjnns.2015.05.004

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a comparison of written picture descriptions in patients with nfvPPA to patients with progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and controls, patients with nfvPPA have reduced length, speed, and information units compared to controls, 6 as well as reduced number of written words compared to PSP. 7 Long term follow-up of written language in one patient with nfvPPA also showed a decrease in written word output and amount of information, as well as a decrease in sentence complexity over time and increased dependence on nouns over verbs. 8 A study comparing written picture descriptions of patients with lvPPA to those of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia likely due to Alzheimer Disease reported that patients with lvPPA had increased letter insertion errors and a higher verb use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Automated analysis of written language in the three variants of primary progressive aphasia

Josephy‐Hernandez

Rezaii

Jones

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the important role of written language in everyday life, abnormalities in functional written communication have been sparsely investigated in Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA). Prior studies have analyzed written language separately in the three variants of PPA - nonfluent (nfvPPA), logopenic (lvPPA), and semantic (svPPA) - but have rarely compared them to each other or to spoken language. Manual analysis of written language can be a time-consuming process. We developed a program which uses a language parser and quantifies content units (CU) and total units (U) in written language samples. The program was used to analyze written and spoken descriptions of the WAB Picnic scene, based on a pre-defined CU corpus. We then calculated the ratio of CU to U (CU/U Ratio) as a measure of content density. Our cohort included 115 participants (20 control participants for written, 20 control participants for spoken, 28 participants with nfvPPA, 30 with lvPPA, and 17 with svPPA). We compared written language between patients with PPA and control participants and written to spoken language in patients with the three variants of PPA. Finally, we analyzed CU and U in relation to the Progressive Aphasia Severity Scale Sum of Boxes and the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes. Our program identified CU with a validity of 99.7% (95%CI 99.5 to 99.8) compared to manual annotation of the samples. All patients with PPA wrote fewer total units than controls (p<0.001). Patients with lvPPA (p=0.013) and svPPA (0.004) wrote fewer CU than controls. The CU/U Ratio was higher in nfvPPA and svPPA than controls (p=0.019 in both cases), but no different between lvPPA patients and controls (p=0.962). Participants with lvPPA (p<0.001) and svPPA (p=0.04) produced fewer CU in written samples compared to spoken. A two-way ANOVA showed all groups produced fewer units in written samples compared to spoken (p<0.001). However, the decrease in written CU compared to spoken was smaller than the decrease in written units compared to spoken in participants with PPA, resulting in a larger written CU/U Ratio when compared to spoken language (p<0.001). nfvPPA patients produced correlated written and spoken CU (R=0.5, p=0.009) and total units (R=0.64, p<0.001), but this was not the case for lvPPA or svPPA. Considering all PPA patients, fewer CU were produced in those with greater aphasia severity (PASS SoB, R=-0.24, p=0.04) and dementia severity (CDR SoB, R=-0.34, p=0.004). In conclusion, we observed reduced written content in patients with PPA compared to controls, with a preference for content over non-content units in patients with nfvPPA and svPPA. When comparing written to spoken language, we observed a similar "telegraphic" style in both modalities in patients with nfvPPA, which was different from patients with svPPA and lvPPA, who use significantly less non-content units in writing than in speech. Lastly, we show how our program provides a time-efficient tool, which could enable feedback and tracking of writing as an important feature of language and cognition.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Automated analysis of written language in the three variants of primary progressive aphasia

Josephy‐Hernandez

Rezaii

Jones

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a comparison of written picture descriptions in patients with nfvPPA to patients with progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and controls, patients with nfvPPA showed reduced length, speed and information units compared to controls, 6 as well as reduced number of written words compared to PSP. 7 Long-term follow-up of written language in one patient with nfvPPA also showed a decrease in written word output and amount of information, as well as a decrease in sentence complexity over time and increased dependence on nouns over verbs. 8 A study comparing written picture descriptions of patients with lvPPA to those of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia likely due to Alzheimer’s disease reported that patients with lvPPA had increased letter insertion errors and a higher verb use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Automated analysis of written language in the three variants of primary progressive aphasia

Josephy‐Hernandez

Rezaii

Jones

et al. 2023

Brain Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the important role of written language in everyday life, abnormalities in functional written communication have been sparsely investigated in primary progressive aphasia. Prior studies have analyzed written language separately in each of the three variants of primary progressive aphasia – but have rarely compared them to each other or to spoken language. Manual analysis of written language can be a time-consuming process. We therefore developed a program which quantifies content units and total units in written or transcribed language samples. We analyzed written and spoken descriptions of the Western Aphasia Battery Picnic scene, based on a pre-defined content unit corpus. We calculated the ratio of content units to units as a measure of content density. Our cohort included 115 participants (20 controls for written, 20 controls spoken, 28 participants with nonfluent variant primary progressive aphasia, 30 logopenic variant, 17 semantic variant). Our program identified content units with a validity of 99.7% (95%CI 99.5-99.8). All patients wrote fewer units than controls (p<0.001). Patients with the logopenic variant (p=0.013) and the semantic variant (0.004) wrote fewer content units than controls. The content-unit-to-unit ratio was higher in the nonfluent and semantic variants than controls (p=0.019), but no different in the logopenic variant (p=0.962). Participants with the logopenic (p<0.001) and semantic (p=0.04) variants produced fewer content units in written compared to spoken descriptions. All variants produced fewer units in written samples compared to spoken (p<0.001). However, due to a relatively smaller decrease in written content units, we observed a larger content-unit-to-unit ratio in writing over speech (p<0.001). Written and spoken content units (r=0.5, p=0.009) and total units (r=0.64, p<0.001) were significantly correlated in patients with nonfluent variant, but this was not the case for logopenic or semantic. Considering all patients with primary progressive aphasia, fewer content units were produced in those with greater aphasia severity (Progressive Aphasia Severity Scale Sum of Boxes, r=-0.24, p=0.04) and dementia severity (Clinical Dementia Rating scale Sun of Boxes, r=-0.34, p=0.004). In conclusion, we observed reduced written content in patients with primary progressive aphasia compared to controls, with a preference for content over non-content units in patients with the nonfluent and semantic variants. We observed a similar “telegraphic” style in both language modalities in patients with the nonfluent variant. Lastly, we show how our program provides a time-efficient tool, which could enable feedback and tracking of writing as an important feature of language and cognition.

show abstract

“…Dysgraphia is common in PSPs and CBS [36,51], and may be due to linguistic, cognitive, visual, or motor impairment. Writing features noted in PSPs include micrographia, abnormal slanting, omission of letters and words, addition of letters, and omission of diacritic marks in a Polish-language group [36,59,96,118,119]. The micrographia of PSPs differs from Parkinson's disease by the absence of progressive fatigue (reducing letter size).…”

Section: Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The micrographia of PSPs differs from Parkinson's disease by the absence of progressive fatigue (reducing letter size). The dysgraphia in PSPs may result from visuo-constructional or oculomotor deficits, whereby abnormal vertical and horizontal saccades disrupt the visual monitoring of writing [36,118], and may be exacerbated by severe limb akinesia.…”

Section: Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language impairment in progressive supranuclear palsy and corticobasal syndrome

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although commonly known as movement disorders, progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and corticobasal syndrome (CBS) may present with changes in speech and language alongside or even before motor symptoms. The differential diagnosis of these two disorders can be challenging, especially in the early stages. Here we review their impact on speech and language. We discuss the neurobiological and clinical-phenomenological overlap of PSP and CBS with each other, and with other disorders including non-fluent agrammatic primary progressive aphasia and primary progressive apraxia of speech. Because language impairment is often an early and persistent problem in CBS and PSP, there is a need for improved methods for language screening in primary and secondary care, and more detailed language assessments in tertiary healthcare settings. Improved language assessment may aid differential diagnosis as well as inform clinical management decisions.

show abstract

Writing in Richardson variant of progressive supranuclear palsy in comparison to progressive non-fluent aphasia

Abstract: As omission errors predominate in writing of patients with PSP-RS, writing seems to be compromised mainly because of oculomotor deficits, that may alter visual feedback while writing.

Cited by 5 publications

References 28 publications

Automated analysis of written language in the three variants of primary progressive aphasia

Automated analysis of written language in the three variants of primary progressive aphasia

Automated analysis of written language in the three variants of primary progressive aphasia

Language impairment in progressive supranuclear palsy and corticobasal syndrome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About