Abnormal language-related oscillatory responses in primary progressive aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA) may react to linguistic stimuli differently than healthy controls, reflecting degeneration of language networks and engagement of compensatory mechanisms. We used magnetoencephalography (MEG) to evaluate oscillatory neural responses in sentence comprehension, in patients with PPA and age-matched controls. Participants viewed sentences containing semantically and syntactically anomalous words that evoke distinct oscillatory responses. For age-matched controls, semantic anomalies elicited left-lateralized 8-30 Hz power decreases distributed along ventral brain regions, whereas syntactic anomalies elicited bilateral power decreases in both ventral and dorsal regions. In comparison to controls, patients with PPA showed altered patterns of induced oscillations, characterized by delayed latencies and attenuated amplitude, which were correlated with linguistic impairment measured offline. The recruitment of right hemisphere temporo-parietal areas (also found in controls) was correlated with preserved semantic processing abilities, indicating that preserved neural activity in these regions was able to support successful semantic processing. In contrast, syntactic processing was more consistently impaired in PPA, regardless of neural activity patterns, suggesting that this domain of language is particularly vulnerable to the neuronal loss. In addition, we found that delayed peak latencies of oscillatory responses were associated with lower accuracy for detecting semantic anomalies, suggesting that language deficits observed in PPA may be linked to delayed or slowed information processing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".