Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Very few cases of Chinese pure alexia have been reported to date. We aim to summarize the linguistic features and neuropsychological profiles of Chinese pure alexia through a case series study.
METHODS: 11 consecutive patients with post-stroke Chinese pure alexia and 11 healthy controls were included. The Aphasia Battery of Chinese (ABC) and 68-Chinese character oral reading test (68-character test) were used to evaluate the reading and writing ability. Reading errors were classified based on the performance of 68-character test. Neuropsychological profiles were evaluated with corresponding scales. The possible correlation between the reading ability and the writing ability or neuropsychological performance was analyzed.
RESULTS: The patients had a correct rate of 43.7 ± 23.2% in the 68-character test, significantly lower (P < 0.001) than that of controls. Shape-similar error was the most common type of reading error (101/209, 48.3%). The ABC total writing score rate of the patients ranged from 68.9% to 98.7% (median, 90.5%), significantly lower (P < 0.001) than that of the controls. The patients also showed worse performance in MMSE, auditory verbal learning test, Boston naming test, intersecting pentagons copying and clock-drawing test (all P < 0.05). In the patient group, the correct rate of 68-character test was significantly correlated with the ABC total writing score rate (P = 0.008), the score rate of Boston naming test (P = 0.017), and the clock-drawing test score (P = 0.010).
CONCLUSIONS: Shape-similar errors may be a characteristic of Chinese pure alexia. The correlation between visuospatial dysfunction and pure alexia might explain the frequent occurrence of shape-similar errors in Chinese pure alexia.
METHODS: 11 consecutive patients with post-stroke Chinese pure alexia and 11 healthy controls were included. The Aphasia Battery of Chinese (ABC) and 68-Chinese character oral reading test (68-character test) were used to evaluate the reading and writing ability. Reading errors were classified based on the performance of 68-character test. Neuropsychological profiles were evaluated with corresponding scales. The possible correlation between the reading ability and the writing ability or neuropsychological performance was analyzed.
RESULTS: The patients had a correct rate of 43.7 ± 23.2% in the 68-character test, significantly lower (P < 0.001) than that of controls. Shape-similar error was the most common type of reading error (101/209, 48.3%). The ABC total writing score rate of the patients ranged from 68.9% to 98.7% (median, 90.5%), significantly lower (P < 0.001) than that of the controls. The patients also showed worse performance in MMSE, auditory verbal learning test, Boston naming test, intersecting pentagons copying and clock-drawing test (all P < 0.05). In the patient group, the correct rate of 68-character test was significantly correlated with the ABC total writing score rate (P = 0.008), the score rate of Boston naming test (P = 0.017), and the clock-drawing test score (P = 0.010).
CONCLUSIONS: Shape-similar errors may be a characteristic of Chinese pure alexia. The correlation between visuospatial dysfunction and pure alexia might explain the frequent occurrence of shape-similar errors in Chinese pure alexia.
摘要：
目的：迄今为止报道的中国纯失语症病例很少。我们旨在通过案例系列研究来总结中国纯失读症的语言特征和神经心理学特征。
方法：纳入11例连续中风后中国纯失语症患者和11例健康对照。使用汉语失语症（ABC）和68汉字口语阅读测试（68汉字测试）来评估阅读和写作能力。根据68个字符测试的性能对阅读错误进行分类。用相应的量表评估神经心理学概况。分析了阅读能力与写作能力或神经心理学表现之间的可能相关性。
结果：患者在68字符测试中的正确率为43.7±23.2％，显著低于对照组(P<0.001)。形状相似误差是最常见的读数误差类型（101/209，48.3%）。患者的ABC总书写得分率为68.9%至98.7%(中位数,90.5%)，显著低于对照组(P<0.001)。患者的MMSE表现也较差，听觉语言学习测试，波士顿命名测试，交叉五边形复制和时钟绘制测试(均P<0.05)。在病人组中,68个字符测试的正确率与ABC总写作率显著相关(P=0.008),波士顿命名测试的得分率(P=0.017)，和时钟绘制测试得分（P=0.010）。
结论：形状相似错误可能是中国纯失语症的特征。视觉空间功能障碍与纯失语症之间的相关性可能解释了中国纯失语症中形状相似错误的频繁发生。
方法：纳入11例连续中风后中国纯失语症患者和11例健康对照。使用汉语失语症（ABC）和68汉字口语阅读测试（68汉字测试）来评估阅读和写作能力。根据68个字符测试的性能对阅读错误进行分类。用相应的量表评估神经心理学概况。分析了阅读能力与写作能力或神经心理学表现之间的可能相关性。
结果：患者在68字符测试中的正确率为43.7±23.2％，显著低于对照组(P<0.001)。形状相似误差是最常见的读数误差类型（101/209，48.3%）。患者的ABC总书写得分率为68.9%至98.7%(中位数,90.5%)，显著低于对照组(P<0.001)。患者的MMSE表现也较差，听觉语言学习测试，波士顿命名测试，交叉五边形复制和时钟绘制测试(均P<0.05)。在病人组中,68个字符测试的正确率与ABC总写作率显著相关(P=0.008),波士顿命名测试的得分率(P=0.017)，和时钟绘制测试得分（P=0.010）。
结论：形状相似错误可能是中国纯失语症的特征。视觉空间功能障碍与纯失语症之间的相关性可能解释了中国纯失语症中形状相似错误的频繁发生。
