Event Abstract

Back to Event

Understanding and classifying the different variants of Primary Progressive Aphasia based on spelling performance

Kyriaki Neophytou1*, Charalambos Themistocleous2, Robert Wiley1, Kyrana Tsapkini1, 2 and Brenda Rapp1
  • 1 Johns Hopkins University, Department of Cognitive Science, United States
  • 2 Johns Hopkins Medicine, Department of Neurology, United States

Introduction: Previous findings suggest differences in the written spelling performance between the three variants of Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA) - semantic (svPPA), logopenic (lvPPA) and non-fluent (nfvPPA) (Shim et al., 2012; Sepelyak et al., 2011). However, no attempts have been made to systematically distinguish the three variants in terms of their spelling performance. The challenges of classification are considerable and given the ease of administering a spelling test, we aimed to determine to what extent a spelling task can provide accurate classification of the PPA variants. Method: Thirty-three participants with PPA were included - 14 lvPPAs, 11 nfvPPAs and 8 svPPAs – originally classified using the neuropsychological and spoken language criteria defined by Gorno-Tempini et al. (2011). Data were collected prior to spelling treatment, using a spelling to dictation task with both real-words and pseudowords (92-138 items/per participant), scored for each grapheme (i.e., letter) and analyzed for each participant individually using generalized linear mixed effects models (GLMEM) for real-words and pseudowords separately. The variables of interest for both real-words and pseudowords were word length, phoneme-grapheme conversion probability and grapheme position. The real-word models also included frequency, imageability, and the orthographic and phonological neighborhood density of the target words. The coefficients from the output of the GLMEMs, together with 3 additional variables – verb/noun and pseudoword/word accuracy differences from the spelling task, and language impairment severity according to FTD-CDR (Knopman, 2008) - were used as predictors in a Random Forests (RFs) model implemented in Python, to identify the variables that contribute the most in distinguishing the three variants. Then, the three most significant predictors identified with RFs were used in multinomial models implemented in R to classify the PPA variants. The model was trained on a training set of all participants minus one (i.e. the left-out participant) and evaluated on the left-out participant, known as Leave-One-Out cross-validation. This process was repeated 33 times to evaluate all participants. Results: The three most significant predictors of the RFs analysis were: (1) grapheme position in real-words, (2) pseudoword/word accuracy difference, and (3) length of real-words (Figure 1). The overall accuracy of the multinomial models with these three predictors only was 67%: lvPPA=71%, nfvPPA=64% and svPPA=63%. When severely impaired cases (language severity =3 in Knopman et al., 2008; FTD-CDR criteria) were excluded (giving a new dataset of 22 participants), the overall accuracy increased to 91%: lvPPA=90%, nfvPPA=86% and svPPA=100%. Discussion: Our study provides evidence of the value of considering spelling performance in understanding and classifying the different variants of PPA. The results suggest that lexical status, word length and grapheme position are useful parameters for classification, which index key components of the cognitive architecture of spelling (Rapp, 2002). Also, the finding that prediction accuracy increased when more severe cases were excluded supports previous findings (Mesulam et al., 2012), as severity increases variants become less differentiated and classification is more difficult. In sum, a relatively short, easy-to-administer spelling test, provides useful information for PPA variant classification and can potentially be used as a clinical tool.

Figure 1
Image

References

Gorno-Tempini, M. L., Hillis, A. E., Weintraub, S., Kertesz, A., Mendez, M., Cappa, S. E. E. A., ... & Manes, F. (2011). Classification of primary progressive aphasia and its variants. Neurology, 76(11), 1006-1014.

Knopman, D. S., Kramer, J. H., Boeve, B. F., Caselli, R. J., Graff-Radford, N. R., Mendez, M. F., ... & Mercaldo, N. (2008). Development of methodology for conducting clinical trials in frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Brain, 131(11), 2957-2968.

Mesulam, M. M., Wieneke, C., Thompson, C., Rogalski, E., & Weintraub, S. (2012). Quantitative classification of primary progressive aphasia at early and mild impairment stages. Brain, 135(5), 1537-1553.

Rapp B. (2002) Uncovering the cognitive architecture of spelling In A. Hillis (Ed.), Handbook on adult language disorders: integrating cognitive neuropsychology, neurology and rehabilitation. Philadelphia PA, Psychology Press, 47-70.

Sepelyak, K., Crinion, J., Molitoris, J., Epstein-Peterson, Z., Bann, M., Davis, C., ... & Hillis, A. E. (2011). Patterns of breakdown in spelling in primary progressive aphasia. Cortex, 47(3), 342-352.

Shim, H., Hurley, R. S., Rogalski, E., & Mesulam, M. M. (2012). Anatomic, clinical, and neuropsychological correlates of spelling errors in primary progressive aphasia. Neuropsychologia, 50(8), 1929-1935.

Keywords: primary progressive aphasia, spelling, Variant classification, Language impairment, severity

Conference: Academy of Aphasia 56th Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada, 21 Oct - 23 Oct, 2018.

Presentation Type: oral presentation

Topic: Eligible for a student award

Citation: Neophytou K, Themistocleous C, Wiley R, Tsapkini K and Rapp B (2019). Understanding and classifying the different variants of Primary Progressive Aphasia based on spelling performance. Conference Abstract: Academy of Aphasia 56th Annual Meeting. doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2018.228.00001

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: 01 May 2018; Published Online: 22 Jan 2019.

* Correspondence: Ms. Kyriaki Neophytou, Johns Hopkins University, Department of Cognitive Science, Baltimore, United States, kneophy1@jhu.edu