Event Abstract

Back to Event

Investigating the possibility of a syntactic impairment in the semantic variant of PPA using a constrained production task: Preliminary findings

Jennifer Cupit1*, Carol Leonard1, 2, Naida Graham1, 3, Bruna Seixas Lima1, David Tang-Wai1, 4, Sandra Black1, 5 and Elizabeth Rochon1, 3
  • 1 University of Toronto, Department of Speech-Language Pathology, Canada
  • 2 University of Ottawa, Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Program, Canada
  • 3 Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Canada
  • 4 Toronto Western Hospital – University Health Network, Canada
  • 5 Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Canada

In the semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia (svPPA), syntactic skills are generally thought to be preserved, while in the non-fluent variant (nfvPPA) syntactic impairment is a core diagnostic feature (Gorno-Tempini et al., 2011). There are, however, some indications in the literature that syntactic processing may not be entirely normal in svPPA. Most studies of syntactic production in svPPA have used unconstrained tasks and have found no syntactic impairment (e.g., Bird et al., 2000; Kave et al., 2007). In the two published studies that have found a syntactic impairment in svPPA, one used a constrained task (Benedet et al., 2006), and the other (Meteyard & Patterson, 2009) did not. However, the authors of the latter article suggested that the observed syntactic errors were subtle. They also suggested that a syntactic impairment in svPPA might not be observed in spontaneous language samples due to an overreliance on simpler structures. In the current study, we used a constrained sentence production task to compare the syntactic abilities of individuals with nfvPPA, svPPA and healthy controls longitudinally, to investigate the existence of a syntactic impairment in the different PPA variants. We predicted that by using a constrained task we would observe a syntactic impairment in both variants of PPA. We tested 18 participants with nfvPPA, 13 with svPPA and 23 control participants. They were tested up to three separate times, with approximately one year between sessions. Groups were matched on age and years of education. The patient groups were matched on Mini Mental State Examination score (Folstein, Folstein & McHugh, 1975) and estimated time post onset of initial symptoms, but the nfvPPA group scored higher than the svPPA group on the Boston Naming Test (Kaplan, Goodglass, & Weintraub, 2001). We used the sentence production task from Caplan and Hanna (1998) to elicit active, passive, dative and dative-passive sentences. A mixed ANOVA (Group X Sentence Type) was run for three different measures of sentence production: accuracy on overall production, accuracy on verb morphology and ‘overall grammaticality’ (a measure we devised to reflect a sentence’s grammaticality, irrespective of its semantic content), for each of the three time points. Post hoc testing was performed using the Tukey-Kramer test. For all main effects and interactions, a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. We found that both the nfvPPA and svPPA groups showed a syntactic impairment in this constrained sentence production task. However, the groups demonstrated a different pattern and progression of impairment, with the syntactic impairment initially being generally more severe and pervasive for participants with nfvPPA compared to participants with svPPA. Interestingly, the svPPA group demonstrated a syntactic impairment in the analysis of accuracy of verb morphology that was not observed in the analysis using the less stringent ‘overall grammaticality’ measure. This difference may mirror the differences observed when using constrained versus unconstrained tasks. Overall, the findings from this study contribute important information regarding the nature and progression of the language production impairment in the non-fluent and semantic variants of primary progressive aphasia.

References

Benedet, M., Patterson, K., Gomez-Pastor, I., & Garcia de la Rocha, M. L. (2006). ‘‘Non-semantic” aspects of language in semantic dementia: as normal as they’re said to be? Neurocase, 12(15–26).

Bird, H., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Patterson, K., & Hodges, J. R. (2000). The rise and fall of frequency and imageability: noun and verb production in semantic dementia. Brain and Language, 73(17–49).

Caplan, D., & Hanna, J. E. (1998). Sentence production by aphasic patients in a constrained task. Brain and Language, 63, 184–218.

Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini-mental state: A practical method for grading the state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.

Gorno-Tempini M. L., Hillis A., Weintraub S., et al. (2011). Classification of primary progressive aphasia and its variants. Neurology, 76, 1006-1014.

Kaplan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (2001). Boston Naming Test (2nd ed.). Philadelphia:
Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

Kave, G., Leonard, C., Cupit, J., & Rochon, E. (2007). Structurally well-formed narrative production in the face of severe conceptual deterioration: A longitudinal case study of a woman with semantic dementia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 161-177.

Meteyard, L., & Patterson, K. (2009). The relation between content and structure in language production: An analysis of speech errors in semantic dementia. Brain and Language, 110, 121–134.

Keywords: primary progressive aphasia, Semantic Dementia, syntactic impairment, Language production, constrained task, sentence production

Conference: Academy of Aphasia 53rd Annual Meeting, Tucson, United States, 18 Oct - 20 Oct, 2015.

Presentation Type: Poster

Topic: Not student first author

Citation: Cupit J, Leonard C, Graham N, Seixas Lima B, Tang-Wai D, Black S and Rochon E (2015). Investigating the possibility of a syntactic impairment in the semantic variant of PPA using a constrained production task: Preliminary findings. Front. Psychol. Conference Abstract: Academy of Aphasia 53rd Annual Meeting. doi: 10.3389/conf.fpsyg.2015.65.00030

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: 30 Apr 2015; Published Online: 24 Sep 2015.

* Correspondence: PhD. Jennifer Cupit, University of Toronto, Department of Speech-Language Pathology, Toronto, Canada, jennifer.cupit@utoronto.ca