Cited by 546Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismVoice and Speech Disorders

Connected speech production in three variants of primary progressive aphasia

Open access
Wilson, Stephen M., Henry, Maya L., Besbris, Max, Ogar, Jennifer M., Dronkers, Nina F., Jarrold, William, Miller, Bruce L., Gorno-Tempini, Maria Luisa·2010·Brain

Abstract

Primary progressive aphasia is a clinical syndrome defined by progressive deficits isolated to speech and/or language, and can be classified into non-fluent, semantic and logopenic variants based on motor speech, linguistic and cognitive features. The connected speech of patients with primary progressive aphasia has often been dichotomized simply as 'fluent' or 'non-fluent', however fluency is a multidimensional construct that encompasses features such as speech rate, phrase length, articulatory agility and syntactic structure, which are not always impacted in parallel. In this study, our first objective was to improve the characterization of connected speech production in each variant of primary progressive aphasia, by quantifying speech output along a number of motor speech and linguistic dimensions simultaneously. Secondly, we aimed to determine the neuroanatomical correlates of changes along these different dimensions. We recorded, transcribed and analysed speech samples for 50 patients with primary progressive aphasia, along with neurodegenerative and normal control groups. Patients were scanned with magnetic resonance imaging, and voxel-based morphometry was used to identify regions where atrophy correlated significantly with motor speech and linguistic features. Speech samples in patients with the non-fluent variant were characterized by slow rate, distortions, syntactic errors and reduced complexity. In contrast, patients with the semantic variant exhibited normal rate and very few speech or syntactic errors, but showed increased proportions of closed class words, pronouns and verbs, and higher frequency nouns, reflecting lexical retrieval deficits. In patients with the logopenic variant, speech rate (a common proxy for fluency) was intermediate between the other two variants, but distortions and syntactic errors were less common than in the non-fluent variant, while lexical access was less impaired than in the semantic variant. Reduced speech rate was linked with atrophy to a wide range of both anterior and posterior language regions, but specific deficits had more circumscribed anatomical correlates. Frontal regions were associated with motor speech and syntactic processes, anterior and inferior temporal regions with lexical retrieval, and posterior temporal regions with phonological errors and several other types of disruptions to fluency. These findings demonstrate that a multidimensional quantification of connected speech production is necessary to characterize the differences between the speech patterns of each primary progressive aphasic variant adequately, and to reveal associations between particular aspects of connected speech and specific components of the neural network for speech production.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/brain/awq129

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilson, S. M., Henry, M. L., Besbris, M., Ogar, J. M., Dronkers, N. F., Jarrold, W., Miller, B. L., & Gorno-Tempini, M. L.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
  • SRI International (US)
Venue
Brain
Published
2010-06-11
Volume
133
Issue
7
Pages
2069-2088
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2100997075
Cited by
546
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 21
FWCI
16.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (P50 AG03006, P01AG019724)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R03DC010878)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS050915)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
Keywords
primary progressive aphasia, speech fluency, semantic variant, logopenic variant, speech rate, syntactic errors, word retrieval, phonological errors, brain atrophy, neuroanatomical correlates, voxel-based morphometry
MeSH terms
Aged, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nerve Net, Speech, Speech Production Measurement, Aphasia, Primary Progressive, Frontotemporal Dementia

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