■原发性进行性失语症(PPA)的所有常见变体都表现出命名缺陷。变体的区别在于重复中的相对缺陷(logopenic;lvPPA),对象知识(语义;svPPA),和语法或衔接(非流利/语法;nfavPPA;Gorno-Tempini等人。,2011).霍普金斯动作命名评估(HANA)是一项30项动词命名任务,可以区分变体(Stockbridge等人。,2021)。项目级准确性由目标动词频率驱动,语义信息密度,和目标词的概念具体性(Stockbridge,威尼斯,etal.,2022年)。
■在这次调查中,我们检查了词频,语义密度,具体性,和获取年龄(AoA)也塑造了患者提供的不正确反应。我们假设错误响应将在这些维度上作为PPA变体的函数而变化。
■对271名PPA参与者进行了HANA管理,导致443个总管理部门和4,529个可分析的错误响应。误差和目标频率响应之间的标准化差异,密度,具体性,对每位患者计算AoA并进行平均。使用相关样品的方差分析(ANOVA)来比较变体,并且计划的事后分析检查变体对每个响应质量的影响。
■参与者的年龄相似,性别,用手,和教育。PPA变体与词汇质量的标准化平均差异之间存在显着相互作用(Pillai\'sTrace=0.11,F(9,747)=3.19,p<0.001)。单变量方差分析显示错误响应的语义密度相对于目标的显着差异(F(3)=7.91,p<0.001,ηP2=0.09),因为与具有nfavPPA的个体产生的单词相比,具有lvPPA的个体倾向于产生比目标语义密度更大的错误响应(平均差=1.45,95CI=[0.60,2.29],p<0.001;图1)。PPA变体的误差响应相对于目标的具体性也有所不同(F(3)=5.99,p<0.001,ηP2=0.07),因为具有nfavPPA的个体产生的错误响应明显比具有lvPPA的个体更具体(平均差=0.08,95CI=[0.02,0.13],p=0.003)或svPPA(平均差=0.08,95CI=[0.02,0.14],p=0.007)。变体相对于其靶标在AoA或响应频率方面没有显着差异。所有变体都倾向于产生比目标动词更低的AoA更频繁的单词。
■错误响应在语义上趋于密集,更具体,更高的频率,比目标动词年轻的AoA。然而,PPA变体在这些更广泛的趋势成立的程度上存在显着差异。这些不同的模式可以被包括作为在PPA变体之间进行区分的更大的诊断图片的一部分。
UNASSIGNED: All common variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) exhibit
naming deficits. Variants are distinguished by relative deficits in repetition (logopenic; lvPPA), object knowledge (semantic; svPPA), and agrammatism or articulation (non-fluent/agrammatic; nfavPPA; Gorno-Tempini et al., 2011). The Hopkins Action
Naming Assessment (HANA) is a 30-item verb
naming task that can distinguish between variants (Stockbridge et al., 2021). Item-level accuracy is driven by target verb frequency, semantic information density, and conceptual concreteness of the target word (Stockbridge, Venezia, et al., 2022).
UNASSIGNED: In this investigation, we examined whether word frequency, semantic density, concreteness, and age of acquisition (AoA) also shaped the incorrect responses patients provided. We hypothesised that error responses would vary in these dimensions as a function of PPA variant.
UNASSIGNED: The HANA was administered to 271 participants with PPA, resulting in 443 total administrations and 4,529 analysable error responses. Standardised differences between error and target responses for frequency, density, concreteness, and AoA were calculated and averaged for each patient. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for correlated samples was used to compare variants and planned post-hoc analyses examined the effect of variant on each response quality.
UNASSIGNED: Participants were similar in age, sex, handedness, and education. There was a significant interaction between PPA variant and the standardised mean differences in lexical qualities (Pillai\'s Trace=0.11, F(9, 747)=3.19, p<0.001). Univariate ANOVAs revealed significant differences in the semantic density of error responses relative to the target (F(3)=7.91, p<0.001, ηP 2=0.09), as individuals with lvPPA tended to produce error responses with greater semantic density than the target when compared to the words produced by individuals with nfavPPA (mean difference=1.45, 95%CI=[0.60,2.29], p<0.001; Figure 1). PPA variants also differed in the concreteness of their error responses relative to the target (F(3)=5.99, p<0.001, ηP 2=0.07), as error responses produced by individuals with nfavPPA were significantly more concrete than those with lvPPA (mean difference=0.08, 95%CI=[0.02,0.13], p=0.003) or svPPA (mean difference=0.08, 95%CI=[0.02,0.14], p=0.007). Variants did not differ significantly in AoA or frequency of responses relative to their targets. All variants tended to produce more frequent words with a lower AoA than the target verb.
UNASSIGNED: Error responses tended to be more semantically dense, more concrete, higher frequency, and younger AoA than the target verb. However, PPA variants differed significantly in the extent to which these broader trends held true. These distinct patterns may be included as part of a larger diagnostic picture that to distinguish among PPA variants.