Discussion 2 Flashcards
Individual test scores failed to show?
a clear pattern of deficits in lvPPA relative to the nfvPPA group.
Impaired repetition is a central feature of ? And may be predicted?
LvPPA and may be predicated on phonological working memory impairment.
Performance on working memory tests was undoubtedly impaired in ?
And which measures in particular disriminated ? From ?
lvPPA relative to controls, and the Brown–Peterson measures, in particular, discriminated lvPPA from SD.
impairments on working memory tests were also apparent in the nfvPPA and AD groups and the specificity of these measures was generally low for?
LvPPA
another factor analytic study of PPA found that repetition clustered (ryhmittyä, kerääntyä) with
agrammatism and AOS, core features of nfvPPA.
Given the marked speech production problems exhibited by patients with nfvPPA, it was perhaps unsurprising that
they were impaired to a similar degree on tasks of verbal working memory as lvPPA patients. (nfvPPA patients)
Our study supports the supposition that,
in isolation, this feature has limited utility as a core diagnostic marker of lvPPA
the PCA elicited a ‘working memory’ factor which, together with a ‘speech production and grammaticality’ factor and a ‘semantics and behaviour’ factor, was able to
differentiate lvPPA patients from nfvPPA and SD patients relatively well when evaluated with a linear discriminant analysis.
Composite measures of working memory may therefore prove useful diagnostically in the classification of PPA.
Kyllä
The PCA analysis did not ?
distinguish lvPPA from multi-domain AD
The findings suggest that common language and working memory deficits occur in
lvPPA and multi- domain AD
Their findings ? From some previous studies?
findings differ from those of some previous studies, which have found differences between AD and lvPPA patients in the realm of verbal working memory and language.
Differences in findings might reflect phenotypic variation in study cohorts,
of which age is known to be one determinant. Differences in assessment methods might also be relevant. Stage of illness might also be relevant.
The finding by Foxe and Meyer of poorer phonological short-term memory in lvPPA were compared with
AD, despite patients being matched for visual short-term memory performance might represent a transient distinction. (lyhytaikainen eroavaisuus)
It is of interest in this regard that longitudinal studies of lvPPA have indicated
convergence (lähentyminen, kohdistuminen) over time with the clinical symptoms of AD and a spread of atrophy consistent with AD
It is possible that at an earlier stage of disease
greater differences might have been elicited between the two groups.
the majority of patients were assessed within a year of their medical referral, so were still at a relatively early stage of illness.
What further studies would be useful and involving what?
Further studies involving incident cases and longitudinal investigation of working memory in a spectrum of different AD subtypes with varying ages of onset would be useful.
Which factor was most useful in classifying the three patient groups?
The ‘grammaticality and speech production’ factor was the most useful factor in classifying the three patient groups.
What has been suggested of lvPPA features rather than?
The absence of frank impairments in grammar and comprehension should be a core feature of lvPPA, rather than impaired repetition
Our findings support the notion that grammaticality (together with speech production) is ? In differientation of PPA ?
is more effective than impaired repetition in differentiation of PPA. However, supporting criteria for lvPPA are almost exclusively made up of features denoting preserved areas of speech and language.
The only other core feature,?, is a notoriously common feature across dementia syndromes, in this study, proved non-discriminatory.
The only other core feature, impaired single word retrieval, is a notoriously common feature across dementia syndromes, in this study, proved non-discriminatory.
What do they suggest as a new way of criteria and denoting a disorder?
Thus, a change in the core criteria from ‘impaired phrase repetition’ to ‘preserved grammaticality and speech production’ would constitute denoting a disorder exclusively by absence of features, rather than the presence of characteristic features.
The likely effect of this would be that any patient with PPA who does not have the defining features of the other two subtypes would be classified as ?
LvPPA
While this would increase the sensitivity of the criteria for lvPPA, it would have a ?
detrimental (= harmful, damaging) effect on the specificity, as mild cases of nfvPPA and svPPA and atypical PPA patients would probably fulfil criteria for lvPPA.