Describing Phonological Paraphasias in Three Variants of Primary Progressive Aphasia Purpose The purpose of this study was to describe the linguistic environment of phonological paraphasias in 3 variants of primary progressive aphasia (semantic, logopenic, and nonfluent) and to describe the profiles of paraphasia production for each of these variants. Method Discourse samples of 26 individuals diagnosed with primary ... Research Article
Research Article  |   March 01, 2018
Describing Phonological Paraphasias in Three Variants of Primary Progressive Aphasia
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Sarah Grace Hudspeth Dalton
    The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
  • Christine Shultz
    The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
  • Maya L. Henry
    The University of Texas at Austin
  • Argye E. Hillis
    Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
  • Jessica D. Richardson
    The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
  • Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication.
    Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication. ×
  • Correspondence to Sarah Grace Hudspeth Dalton: hudspeth@unm.edu
  • Editor: Margaret Blake
    Editor: Margaret Blake×
  • Associate Editor: Heather Clark
    Associate Editor: Heather Clark×
  • Publisher Note: This article is part of the Special Issue: Select Papers From the 46th Clinical Aphasiology Conference.
    Publisher Note: This article is part of the Special Issue: Select Papers From the 46th Clinical Aphasiology Conference.×
Article Information
Special Populations / Older Adults & Aging / Language Disorders / Aphasia / Speech, Voice & Prosody / Special Issue: Select Papers From the 46th Clinical Aphasiology Conference / Research Articles
Research Article   |   March 01, 2018
Describing Phonological Paraphasias in Three Variants of Primary Progressive Aphasia
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, March 2018, Vol. 27, 336-349. doi:10.1044/2017_AJSLP-16-0210
History: Received October 31, 2016 , Revised March 13, 2017 , Accepted June 19, 2017
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, March 2018, Vol. 27, 336-349. doi:10.1044/2017_AJSLP-16-0210
History: Received October 31, 2016; Revised March 13, 2017; Accepted June 19, 2017

Purpose The purpose of this study was to describe the linguistic environment of phonological paraphasias in 3 variants of primary progressive aphasia (semantic, logopenic, and nonfluent) and to describe the profiles of paraphasia production for each of these variants.

Method Discourse samples of 26 individuals diagnosed with primary progressive aphasia were investigated for phonological paraphasias using the criteria established for the Philadelphia Naming Test (Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, 2013). Phonological paraphasias were coded for paraphasia type, part of speech of the target word, target word frequency, type of segment in error, word position of consonant errors, type of error, and degree of change in consonant errors.

Results Eighteen individuals across the 3 variants produced phonological paraphasias. Most paraphasias were nonword, followed by formal, and then mixed, with errors primarily occurring on nouns and verbs, with relatively few on function words. Most errors were substitutions, followed by addition and deletion errors, and few sequencing errors. Errors were evenly distributed across vowels, consonant singletons, and clusters, with more errors occurring in initial and medial positions of words than in the final position of words. Most consonant errors consisted of only a single-feature change, with few 2- or 3-feature changes. Importantly, paraphasia productions by variant differed from these aggregate results, with unique production patterns for each variant.

Conclusions These results suggest that a system where paraphasias are coded as present versus absent may be insufficient to adequately distinguish between the 3 subtypes of PPA. The 3 variants demonstrate patterns that may be used to improve phenotyping and diagnostic sensitivity. These results should be integrated with recent findings on phonological processing and speech rate. Future research should attempt to replicate these results in a larger sample of participants with longer speech samples and varied elicitation tasks.

Supplemental Materials https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.5558107

Acknowledgments
The data collection for this research was supported in part by National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grants R01 DC011317, awarded to Argye E. Hillis, and R03 DC013403, awarded to Maya L. Henry. We are also grateful for access to data made available through National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant K24 DC015544 and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Grant R01 NS050915, both awarded to Maria Luisa Gorno-Tempini, and National Institute on Aging Grant P01 AG019724, awarded to Bruce Miller, at the University of California, San Francisco. Finally, we express gratitude to the individuals with PPA who are willing to share with us their stories.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access