Cited by 77Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchHistorical and Modern Theater StudiesAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research

Language, executive function and social cognition in the diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia syndromes

Open access
Harciarek, Michał, Cosentino, Stephanie·2013·International Review of Psychiatry

Abstract

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) represents a spectrum of non-Alzheimer's degenerative conditions associated with focal atrophy of the frontal and/or temporal lobes. Frontal and temporal regions of the brain have been shown to be strongly involved in executive function, social cognition and language processing and, thus, deficits in these domains are frequently seen in patients with FTD or may even be hallmarks of a specific FTD subtype (i.e. relatively selective and progressive language impairment in primary progressive aphasia). In this review we have attempted to delineate how language, executive function, and social cognition may contribute to the diagnosis of FTD syndromes, namely the behavioural variant FTD as well as the language variants of FTD including the three subtypes of primary progressive aphasia (PPA): non-fluent/agrammatic, semantic and logopenic. This review also addresses the extent to which deficits in these cognitive areas contribute to the differential diagnosis of FTD versus Alzheimer's disease (AD). Finally, early clinical determinants of pathology are briefly discussed and contemporary challenges to the diagnosis of FTD are presented.

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 · 10.3109/09540261.2013.763340

Cites

219 of 219 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?

  • Patients with bvFTD may show aberrant strategies and behaviours during the neuropsychological examination, such as stereotypies of speech, impulsivity, rigidity, obsessionality and clock watching.

    “For example, although test results may be within normal range, patients with bvFTD may show aberrant strategies and behaviours during the neuropsychological examination, such as stereotypies of speech, impulsivity, rigidity, obsessionality and clock watching.”

    From Recommendations to distinguish behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia from psychiatric disorders (2020) · cites this paper as Harciarek and Cosentino, 2013

    The executive-function section (page unavailable) says some patients with FTD score in the normal range on certain tests despite impaired behavior, and that qualitative features of bvFTD test performance can be more informative than overall scores. It describes repetitions, perseveration and rule violations, but does not identify the claimed examination behaviors—stereotypies of speech, impulsivity, rigidity, obsessionality or clock watching—as examples. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Major deficits in attention and executive functions are often reported in patients with bvFTD.

    “Major deficits in attention (Kipps et al. , 2008) and executive functions (Kipps et al. , 2008; Harciarek and Cosentino, 2013) are often reported; however, these are not specific to bvFTD (Jenner et al. , 2006).”

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

1 of the 220 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kertesz A Davidson W McCabe P Munoz D Behavioral quantitation is more sensitive than cognitive testing in frontotemporal dementia Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders 2003b 17 223 239 14657786

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harciarek, M., & Cosentino, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Gdańsk (PL)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Harciarek, Michał
Venue
International Review of Psychiatry
Published
2013-04
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
178-196
ISSN
  • 0954-0261 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-1627
OpenAlex
W2112261117
Cited by
77
References
220
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Review of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (K23AG032899)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS076837)
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 › Neurology › Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Keywords
frontotemporal dementia, primary progressive aphasia, behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia, executive function, social cognition, language impairment, differential diagnosis from Alzheimer's disease, semantic variant, logopenic variant
MeSH terms
Aphasia, Diagnosis, Differential, Humans, Language, Language Tests, Neuropsychological Tests, Executive Function, Emotional Intelligence, 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