Event Abstract

Back to Event

Information selection and information sequencing deficits in two variants of primary progressive aphasia – A connected speech analysis

Inga Hameister1, 2, 3*, David Foxe1, 4, 5, 6, John Hodges1, 4, 5, 6, Olivier Piguet1, 4, 5, 6 and Lyndsey Nickels1, 2
  • 1 ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Australia
  • 2 Macquarie University, Department of Cognitive Science, Australia
  • 3 International Doctorate of Experimental Approaches to Language and Brain (IDEALAB, Universities of Trento (IT), Groningen (NL), Potsdam (DE), Newcastle (UK) and Macquarie University(AU)), Australia
  • 4 University of Sydney, Brain and Mind Centre, Australia
  • 5 University of New South Wales, School of Medical Science, Australia
  • 6 Neuroscience Research Australia, Australia

Introduction: In a previous study, we demonstrated that some individuals with (predominantly non-fluent/agrammatic) post-stroke aphasia showed difficulties selecting and ordering essential information in a picture description task (Hameister & Nickels, 2016). However, whether the same pattern occurs in non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia (nfvPPA) has not been studied, although deficits in selecting the most relevant information to describe a picture have been reported in the behavioural form of frontotemporal degeneration (e.g., Ash et al., 2006; Boschi et al., 2017). Moreover, it seems plausible that individuals with profound semantic impairments (semantic variant, svPPA; e.g., Gorno-Tempini et al., 2011), may also have difficulties selecting essential information and forming semantic relations between ideas to generate the appropriate order for production. Consequently, this study aims to identify information selection and sequencing deficits in individuals with nfvPPA and svPPA by examining the main concepts produced in a picture description. Method: Forty individuals with PPA (20 svPPA, 20 nfvPPA) and 20 healthy subjects were recruited from Frontier the clinical dementia research group in Sydney, Australia. A connected speech analysis quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated the main concepts produced in the participants’ Cookie Theft picture descriptions. Relevant main concepts were defined as utterances that contained one verb and were mentioned by more than 60% of all healthy controls (c.f., Richardson & Dalton, 2016). Main concepts were identified in the picture descriptions of individuals with PPA and compared in content, number and order to those of healthy subjects and across the variants of PPA. Results: A one-way independent ANOVA showed a significant effect of group in the number of main concepts the participants produced (F(2,57) = 8.806, p<.001). Post-hoc analysis revealed a significant difference in the mean number of main concepts of both PPA groups compared to healthy subjects (Tukey Test: pnfvPPA<.05; psvPPA<.001, see Figure 1A). No significant differences were found between both PPA groups. Moreover, we found qualitative differences in the main concepts produced: While 75% of all healthy participants mentioned that “the mother is not paying attention” only half as many individuals with nfvPPA (35%) and svPPA (35%) mentioned this concept (see Figure 1B). Our preliminary analysis of the concept order showed a high variability in the picture descriptions of healthy controls and no significant group differences. Results of further analyses will be presented at the conference. Discussion: We observed a reduced number of main concepts in both svPPA and nfvPPA. The qualitative differences suggest this may not simply be the result of general language impairments. In particular, fewer individuals with PPA produced inferential information such as “the mother is not paying attention” and instead focused on descriptive statements like “the mother is washing the plate”. Further statistical analysis to support this claim is underway. The observed high variability in the main concept order for the controls may be caused by the fact that the Cookie Theft does not elicit a strictly sequential story. Analysis of sequential errors (e.g. “boy falling” before “boy on stool”) will provide further insights into the participants’ ability to order information.

Figure 1
Image

References

Ash, S., Moore, P., Antani, S., McCawley, G., Work, M., & Grossman, M. (2006). Trying to tell a tale: Discourse impairments in progressive aphasia and frontotemporal dementia. Neurology, 66(9), 1405–1413.

Boschi, V., Catricalà, E., Consonni, M., Chesi, C., Moro, A., & Cappa, S. F. (2017). Connected Speech in Neurodegenerative Language Disorders: A Review, 8.

Gorno-Tempini, M. L., Hillis, A. E., Weintraub, S., Kertesz, A., Mendez, M., Cappa, S. F., Ogar, J.M., Rohrer, J.D., Black, S., Boeve, B.F., Manes, F., Dronkers, N.F., Vandenberghe, R., Racovsky, K., PAtterson, K., Miller, B.L., Knopman, D.S., Hodges, J.R., Mesulam, M.M., & Grossman, M. (2011). Classification of primary progressive aphasia and its variants. Neurology, 76, 1–10.

Hameister, I., & Nickels, L. (2016). Why did the cat get up the tree? - What picture descriptions can tell us about conceptualisation deficits in aphasia -. In 54th Annual Academy of Aphasia Meeting. doi:10.3389/conf.fpsyg.2016.68.00063

Richardson, J. D., & Dalton, S. G. (2016). Main concepts for three different discourse tasks in a large non-clinical sample. Aphasiology, 30(1), 45–73.

Keywords: primary progressive aphasia, Conceptualisation, concept analsysis, Connected speech, macrostructural organisation

Conference: Academy of Aphasia 55th Annual Meeting , Baltimore, United States, 5 Nov - 7 Nov, 2017.

Presentation Type: poster or oral

Topic: Consider for student award

Citation: Hameister I, Foxe D, Hodges J, Piguet O and Nickels L (2019). Information selection and information sequencing deficits in two variants of primary progressive aphasia – A connected speech analysis. Conference Abstract: Academy of Aphasia 55th Annual Meeting . doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2017.223.00036

Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.

The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.

Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.

For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.

Received: 26 Apr 2017; Published Online: 25 Jan 2019.

* Correspondence: Ms. Inga Hameister, ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Sydney, Australia, inga.hameister@students.mq.edu.au