4.7 Article

Nonverbal oral apraxia in primary progressive aphasia and apraxia of speech

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 82, 期 19, 页码 1729-1735

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000412

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01 DC10367, DC012519, R01 AG37491, R01 DC012519]
  2. Alzheimer's Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective:The goal of this study was to explore the prevalence of nonverbal oral apraxia (NVOA), its association with other forms of apraxia, and associated imaging findings in patients with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and progressive apraxia of speech (PAOS).Methods:Patients with a degenerative speech or language disorder were prospectively recruited and diagnosed with a subtype of PPA or with PAOS. All patients had comprehensive speech and language examinations. Voxel-based morphometry was performed to determine whether atrophy of a specific region correlated with the presence of NVOA.Results:Eighty-nine patients were identified, of which 34 had PAOS, 9 had agrammatic PPA, 41 had logopenic aphasia, and 5 had semantic dementia. NVOA was very common among patients with PAOS but was found in patients with PPA as well. Several patients exhibited only one of NVOA or apraxia of speech. Among patients with apraxia of speech, the severity of the apraxia of speech was predictive of NVOA, whereas ideomotor apraxia severity was predictive of the presence of NVOA in those without apraxia of speech. Bilateral atrophy of the prefrontal cortex anterior to the premotor area and supplementary motor area was associated with NVOA.Conclusions:Apraxia of speech, NVOA, and ideomotor apraxia are at least partially separable disorders. The association of NVOA and apraxia of speech likely results from the proximity of the area reported here and the premotor area, which has been implicated in apraxia of speech. The association of ideomotor apraxia and NVOA among patients without apraxia of speech could represent disruption of modules shared by nonverbal oral movements and limb movements.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据