To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To characterize and compare the neuropsychological profiles of patients with primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS) and apraxia of speech with progressive agrammatic aphasia (AOS-PAA).
Thirty-nine patients with PPAOS and 49 patients with AOS-PAA underwent formal neurological, speech, language, and neuropsychological evaluations. Cognitive domains assessed included immediate and delayed episodic memory (Wechsler Memory Scale-Third edition; Logical Memory; Visual Reproduction; Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test), processing speed (Trail Making Test A), executive functioning (Trail Making Test B; Delis-Kaplan Executive Functioning Scale – Sorting), and visuospatial ability (Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure copy).
The PPAOS patients were cognitively average or higher in the domains of immediate and delayed episodic memory, processing speed, executive functioning, and visuospatial ability. Patients with AOS-PAA performed more poorly on tests of immediate and delayed episodic memory and executive functioning compared to those with PPAOS. For every 1 unit increase in aphasia severity (e.g. mild to moderate), performance declined by 1/3 to 1/2 a standard deviation depending on cognitive domain. The degree of decline was stronger within the more verbally mediated domains, but was also notable in less verbally mediated domains.
The study provides neuropsychological evidence further supporting the distinction of PPAOS from primary progressive aphasia and should be used to inform future diagnostic criteria. More immediately, it informs prognostication and treatment planning.
This study examined the relationship between patient performance on multiple memory measures and regional brain volumes using an FDA-cleared quantitative volumetric analysis program – Neuroreader™.
Ninety-two patients diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) by a clinical neuropsychologist completed cognitive evaluations and underwent MR Neuroreader™ within 1 year of testing. Select brain regions were correlated with three widely used memory tests. Regression analyses were conducted to determine if using more than one memory measures would better predict hippocampal z-scores and to explore the added value of recognition memory to prediction models.
Memory performances were most strongly correlated with hippocampal volumes than other brain regions. After controlling for encoding/Immediate Recall standard scores, statistically significant correlations emerged between Delayed Recall and hippocampal volumes (rs ranging from .348 to .490). Regression analysis revealed that evaluating memory performance across multiple memory measures is a better predictor of hippocampal volume than individual memory performances. Recognition memory did not add further predictive utility to regression analyses.
This study provides support for use of MR Neuroreader™ hippocampal volumes as a clinically informative biomarker associated with memory performance, which is a critical diagnostic feature of MCI phenotype.
The objective of this study was to describe the neuropsychological profiles of the three variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA). Based on a comprehensive speech and language evaluation, 91 subjects were classified as logopenic (lvPPA=51), semantic (svPPA=13), or agrammatic (agPPA=27). All subjects completed a separate neuropsychological evaluation assessing verbal and visual memory, processing speed, executive function, and visuospatial function. The groups did not differ on demographic variables or on measures of disease duration or aphasia severity. There were group differences on aspects of learning and memory, as well as aspects of executive and visuospatial functions, primarily with the lvPPA group performing lower than the agPPA and svPPA groups. The agPPA group showed subtle deficits consistent with frontal lobe impairment, whereas neurocognitive weaknesses in the svPPA group were restricted to temporal lobe functions. The pattern of neurocognitive dysfunction in lvPPA suggests disease involvement of frontal lobe functions in addition to temporoparietal functions. These neurocognitive findings emphasize the value of a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation of individuals who present with primary language disturbance, given the pattern of cognitive deficits may provide additive information for differentiating these clinical syndromes. (JINS, 2015, 21, 429–435)
Previous studies suggest that task-activated functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) can predict future cognitive decline among healthy older adults. The present fMRI study examined the relative sensitivity of semantic memory (SM) versus episodic memory (EM) activation tasks for predicting cognitive decline. Seventy-eight cognitively intact elders underwent neuropsychological testing at entry and after an 18-month interval, with participants classified as cognitively “Stable” or “Declining” based on ≥1.0 SD decline in performance. Baseline fMRI scanning involved SM (famous name discrimination) and EM (name recognition) tasks. SM and EM fMRI activation, along with Apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 status, served as predictors of cognitive outcome using a logistic regression analysis. Twenty-seven (34.6%) participants were classified as Declining and 51 (65.4%) as Stable. APOE ε4 status alone significantly predicted cognitive decline (R2 = .106; C index = .642). Addition of SM activation significantly improved prediction accuracy (R2 = .285; C index = .787), whereas the addition of EM did not (R2 = .212; C index = .711). In combination with APOE status, SM task activation predicts future cognitive decline better than EM activation. These results have implications for use of fMRI in prevention clinical trials involving the identification of persons at-risk for age-associated memory loss and Alzheimer's disease. (JINS, 2012, 18, 1–11)
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.