Comparison of neuropsychological functioning in Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia
Abstract
Neuropsychological changes distinguishing mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) from frontotemporal dementia (FTD) have been described, but empirical verification of differential cognitive characteristics is lacking. Archival neuropsychological data on 15 FTD patients, 16 AD patients, and 16 controls were compared. Controls outperformed both patient groups on measures of verbal and nonverbal memory, executive ability, and constructional skill, with AD patients showing more widespread memory decline. No differences were found between the 3 groups in confrontation naming, recognition memory, or basic attention. Patient groups differed only in nonverbal memory, with FTD patients performing significantly better than AD patients. However, patient groups also differed in pattern of performance across executive and memory domains. Specifically, AD patients exhibited significantly greater impairment on memory than executive tasks, whereas the opposite pattern characterized the FTD group. These findings suggest that examination of relative rankings of scores across cognitive domains, in addition to interpretation of individual neuropsychological scores, may be useful in differential diagnosis of FTD versus AD.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Executive dysfunction is not always the most prominent deficit in bvFTD and may not even be present on formal neuropsychological test results in the early stages.
“Contrary to popular belief, executive dysfunction is not always the most prominent deficit in bvFTD and may not even be present on formal neuropsychological test results in the early stages (Pachana et al. , 1996; Kipps et al. , 2008; Rascovsky et al. , 2011).”
From Recommendations to distinguish behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia from psychiatric disorders (2020) · cites this paper as Pachana et al. , 1996
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 27 · Cited by 154
- Authors
- Pachana, N. A., Boone, K. B., Miller, B. L., Cummings, J. L., & Berman, N.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Harbor–UCLA Medical Center (US)
- Venue
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1996-11
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 505-510
- ISSN
- 1355-6177 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7661
- OpenAlex
- W1963538608
- Cited by
- 154
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 5.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Aging (AG 10123, P30AG010123)
- National Center for Research Resources (M01RR000425, M01-RR00425)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
- Keywords
- Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, differential diagnosis, neuropsychological assessment, memory impairment, executive function, nonverbal memory, verbal memory, constructional ability, confrontation naming, recognition memory, attention
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Dementia, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Mental Recall, Temporal Lobe
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review