Cited by 12Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

The Use of Profanity During Letter Fluency Tasks in Frontotemporal Dementia and Alzheimer Disease

Open access
Ringman, John M., Kwon, Eunice, Flores, Deborah L., Rotko, Carol, Mendez, Mario F., Lu, Po·2010·Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the production of profanity during letter fluency testing distinguishes frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and Alzheimer disease (AD) patients. BACKGROUND: Alterations in language and social behavior typify FTD spectrum disorders. Nonetheless, in can be difficult to distinguish pathologically defined frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) from AD clinically. Assessing verbal fluency by having patients generate words beginning with specific letters in a given period of time can yield diverse information of diagnostic use. METHOD: Words produced during FAS letter fluency testing were reviewed, and instances of the use of "f*ck," "*ss," and "sh*t" and other words felt to be inappropriate were sought. The frequency of these words was compared between clinically diagnosed FTD and AD patients using χ(2) tests. RESULTS: We found that 6/32 (18.8%) patients with FTD generated the word "f*ck" during the "F" trial as opposed to none of 38 patients with AD (P=0.007). Patients who said "f*ck" had diagnoses of either behavioral variant FTD (3/15), progressive nonfluent aphasia (2/8), or semantic dementia (1/3). CONCLUSIONS: Though the specific neuropathology in these cases is uncertain, generation of "f*ck" during letter fluency testing seems to have use in differentiating FTD from AD.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/wnn.0b013e3181e11392

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The use of profanity during verbal fluency testing is more suggestive of bvFTD than AD.

    “Interestingly, the use of profanity during verbal fluency testing has been shown to be more suggestive of bvFTD than AD [26].”

    From Diagnosing the frontal variant of Alzheimer’s disease: a clinician’s yellow brick road (2017) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Results report that saying “f*ck” during letter-fluency testing was significantly more frequent in the FTD group than in the AD group; three of the six FTD patients who said it had bvFTD. The finding was not specific to bvFTD, and the Results say rates for other profane or inappropriate words were not significantly higher. Thus the claim broadens both the diagnostic group and the type of profanity supported by the study. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [4]Neary D Snowden JS Gustafson L Frontotemporal lobar degeneration: a consensus on clinical diagnostic criteria Neurology 1998 51 12 6 1546 1554 9855500
  2. [13]Marczinski CA Kertesz A Category and letter fluency in semantic dementia, primary progressive aphasia, and Alzheimer's disease Brain Lang 2006 6 97 3 258 265 16325251
  3. [15]Lang AE Riley D Bergeron C Calne D Neurodegeneratie diseases 1994 Philadelphia WB Saunders 877 894
  4. [32]McCairn KW Bronfeld M Belelovsky K Bar-Gad I The neurophysiological correlates of motor tics following focal striatal disinhibition Brain 2009 8 132 Pt 8 2125 2138 19506070
  5. [35]Hu WT Rippon GW Boeve BF Alzheimer's disease and corticobasal degeneration presenting as corticobasal syndrome Mov Disord 2009 5 7 19425061
  6. [39]Nuwer MR Coprolalia as an organic symptom Adv Neurol 1982 35 363 368 6959513

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ringman, J. M., Kwon, E., Flores, D. L., Rotko, C., Mendez, M. F., & Lu, P.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Venue
Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology
Published
2010-09
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
159-164
ISSN
1543-3633 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2045105551
Cited by
12
References
39
Citations by year
2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
0.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (P50AG016570, P50-AG 16570, R01AG034499)
  • National Center for Research Resources ((M01 RR00865), M01RR000865)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
swearing, phonemic fluency, frontotemporal dementia, Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal lobar degeneration, differential diagnosis, behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia, progressive nonfluent aphasia, semantic dementia, verbal fluency
MeSH terms
Alzheimer Disease, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Language, Language Tests, Middle Aged, Reference Values, Social Behavior, Verbal Behavior, Case-Control Studies, Matched-Pair Analysis, Frontotemporal Dementia, Stroop Test

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