4.6 Article

Characteristics of language impairment in Parkinson's disease and its influencing factors

期刊

TRANSLATIONAL NEURODEGENERATION
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/2047-9158-4-2

关键词

Aphasia quotient; Language function deterioration rate; Language impairment; Parkinson's disease; Western aphasia battery

资金

  1. China National Nature Science Fund [30973153, 81371421]
  2. Foundation of the Liaoning Educational Committee [L202013136, L2010560]
  3. Liaoning Doctoral Starting Fund [20071042]
  4. Liaoning ST project Fund [2011225020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Language impairment is relatively common in Parkinson's disease (PD), but not all PD patients are susceptible to language problems. In this study, we identified among a sample of PD patients those pre-disposed to language impairment, describe their clinical profiles, and consider factors that may precipitate language disability in these patients. Methods: A cross-sectional cohort of 31 PD patients and 20 controls were administered the Chinese version of the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) to assess language abilities, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) to determine cognitive status. PD patients were then apportioned to a language-impaired PD (LI-PD) group or a PD group with no language impairment (NLI-PD). Performance on the WAB and MoCA was investigated for correlation with the aphasia quotient deterioration rate (AQDR). Results: The PD patients scored significantly lower on most of the WAB subtests than did the controls. The aphasia quotient, cortical quotient, and spontaneous speech and naming subtests of the WAB were significantly different between LI-PD and NLI-PD groups. The AQDR scores significantly and positively correlated with age at onset and motor function deterioration. Conclusion: A subset group was susceptible to language dysfunction, a major deficit in spontaneous speech. Once established, dysphasia progression is closely associated with age at onset and motor disability progression.

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

4.6
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