ArticleAphasiology2024
Shave, shear, shred, or cut: PPA variant differentially impacts erroneous responses produced in a confrontation naming test of verbs.
Article in Aphasiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: All common variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) exhibit naming deficits. Variants are distinguished by relative deficits in repetition (logopenic; lvPPA), object knowledge (semantic; svPPA), and agrammatism or articulation (non-fluent/agrammatic; nfavPPA; Gorno-Tempini et al., 2011). The Hopkins Action Naming Assessment (HANA) is a 30-item verb naming task that can distinguish between variants (Stockbridge et al., 2021). Item-level accuracy is driven by target verb frequency, semantic information density, and conceptual concreteness of the target word (Stockbridge, Venezia, et al., 2022). Aims: In this investigation, we examined whether word frequency, semantic density, concreteness, and age of acquisition (AoA) also shaped the Methods & Procedures: The HANA was administered to 271 participants with PPA, resulting in 443 total administrations and 4,529 analysable error responses. Standardised differences between error and target responses for frequency, density, concreteness, and AoA were calculated and averaged for each patient. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for correlated samples was used to compare variants and planned post-hoc analyses examined the effect of variant on each response quality. Outcomes & Results: Participants were similar in age, sex, handedness, and education. There was a significant interaction between PPA variant and the standardised mean differences in lexical qualities (Pillai's Trace=0.11, F(9, 747)=3.19, p<0.001). Univariate ANOVAs revealed significant differences in the semantic density of error responses relative to the target (F(3)=7.91, p<0.001, η Conclusions: Error responses tended to be more semantically dense, more concrete, higher frequency, and younger AoA than the target verb. However, PPA variants differed significantly in the extent to which these broader trends held true. These distinct patterns may be included as part of a larger diagnostic picture that to distinguish among PPA variants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.