Logopenic and nonfluent variants of primary progressive aphasia are differentiated by acoustic measures of speech production
Open accessAbstract
Differentiation of logopenic (lvPPA) and nonfluent/agrammatic (nfvPPA) variants of Primary Progressive Aphasia is important yet remains challenging since it hinges on expert based evaluation of speech and language production. In this study acoustic measures of speech in conjunction with voxel-based morphometry were used to determine the success of the measures as an adjunct to diagnosis and to explore the neural basis of apraxia of speech in nfvPPA. Forty-one patients (21 lvPPA, 20 nfvPPA) were recruited from a consecutive sample with suspected frontotemporal dementia. Patients were diagnosed using the current gold-standard of expert perceptual judgment, based on presence/absence of particular speech features during speaking tasks. Seventeen healthy age-matched adults served as controls. MRI scans were available for 11 control and 37 PPA cases; 23 of the PPA cases underwent amyloid ligand PET imaging. Measures, corresponding to perceptual features of apraxia of speech, were periods of silence during reading and relative vowel duration and intensity in polysyllable word repetition. Discriminant function analyses revealed that a measure of relative vowel duration differentiated nfvPPA cases from both control and lvPPA cases (r(2) = 0.47) with 88% agreement with expert judgment of presence of apraxia of speech in nfvPPA cases. VBM analysis showed that relative vowel duration covaried with grey matter intensity in areas critical for speech motor planning and programming: precentral gyrus, supplementary motor area and inferior frontal gyrus bilaterally, only affected in the nfvPPA group. This bilateral involvement of frontal speech networks in nfvPPA potentially affects access to compensatory mechanisms involving right hemisphere homologues. Measures of silences during reading also discriminated the PPA and control groups, but did not increase predictive accuracy. Findings suggest that a measure of relative vowel duration from of a polysyllable word repetition task may be sufficient for detecting most cases of apraxia of speech and distinguishing between nfvPPA and lvPPA.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Across primary progressive aphasia variants, ASLA markers capture syndrome-specific patterns that predict underlying neuropathology years before death and correlate with variant-specific atrophy, even longitudinally.
“Across primary progressive aphasia variants, ASLA markers capture syndromespecific patterns 49-53 that predict underlying neuropathology years before death 7 and correlate with variant-specific atrophy, 53-56 even longitudinally. 57”
From Speech and language markers of neurodegeneration: a call for global equity (2023) · cites this paper as [55]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 73 · Cited by 105
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [31]Van Riper C (1963) Speech Correction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Authors
- Ballard, K. J., Savage, S., Leyton, C. E., Vogel, A. P., Hornberger, M., & Hodges, J. R.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders (AU)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Ballard, Kirrie J.
- ORCID
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2014-02-28
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e89864
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3938536
- OpenAlex
- W2068520467
- Cited by
- 105
- References
- 73
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 7.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2015-03-26)
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Medical Research Council
- National Health and Medical Research Council (FF0776229, 630489, 1012302)
- 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, logopenic variant, nonfluent/agrammatic variant, apraxia of speech, speech motor planning, voxel-based morphometry, frontotemporal dementia, supplementary motor area, inferior frontal gyrus, amyloid PET, differential diagnosis
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Speech, Aphasia, Primary Progressive
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