SLPCohortAphasiology2020

Visuomotor Figure Construction and Visual Figure Delayed Recall and Recognition in Primary Progressive Aphasia.

Donna C Tippett, Bonnie Breining, Emily Goldberg and 7 others

PMID 33281269

WHAT IT FOUND

In primary progressive aphasia, delayed figure recall differed by variant: nonfluent/agrammatic participants remembered drawings better than logopenic or semantic participants.

Recognition and decline over time did not differ.

Key findings

01Nonfluent/agrammatic participants scored significantly better on delayed figure recall than logopenic and semantic participants.

02On immediate figure copy, 92% of nonfluent/agrammatic participants scored above 14 of 17, compared with 79% of logopenic and 60% of semantic participants.

03Figure recognition and mean rates of decline did not differ significantly between PPA variants.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only 30 of 93 participants completed follow-up testing, so decline findings are based on a smaller group. Symptom duration was estimated from when patients or caregivers first noticed symptoms, which may not reflect true disease severity. There was no validated measure of disease severity or aphasia severity for PPA, so groups may differ in severity despite similar symptom duration. No healthy control group was tested in this study; normal limits were taken from prior data. Testing was done in one outpatient cognitive neurology clinic, and participants were not randomly assigned to groups.

Declared interests

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that logopenic variant is the only impaired one or that delayed recall can diagnose variants. Nonfluent/agrammatic participants performed best on delayed recall, logopenic and semantic participants did not differ significantly, and recognition and decline were null.

Read it on PubMed →