Assessing processing speed and its neural correlates in the three variants of primary progressive aphasia with a non-verbal tablet-based task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior research has revealed distinctive patterns of impaired language abilities across the three variants of Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA): nonfluent/agrammatic (nfvPPA), logopenic (lvPPA) and semantic (svPPA). However, little is known about whether, and to what extent, non-verbal cognitive abilities, such as processing speed, are impacted in PPA patients. This is because neuropsychological tests typically contain linguistic stimuli and require spoken output, being therefore sensitive to verbal deficits in aphasic patients. The aim of this study is to investigate potential differences in processing speed between PPA patients and healthy controls, and among the three PPA variants, using a brief non-verbal tablet-based task (Match) modeled after the WAIS-III digit symbol coding test, and to determine its neural correlates. Here, we compared performance on the Match task between PPA patients (n = 61) and healthy controls (n = 59) and across the three PPA variants. We correlated performance on Match with voxelwise gray and white matter volumes. We found that lvPPA and nfvPPA patients performed significantly worse on Match than healthy controls and svPPA patients. Worse performance on Match across PPA patients was associated with reduced gray matter volume in specific parts of the left middle frontal gyrus, superior parietal lobule, and precuneus, and reduced white matter volume in the left parietal lobe. To conclude, our behavioral findings reveal that processing speed is differentially impacted across the three PPA variants and provide support for the potential clinical utility of a tabled-based task (Match) to assess non-verbal cognition. In addition, our neuroimaging findings confirm the importance of a set of fronto-parietal regions that previous research has associated with processing speed and executive control. Finally, our behavioral and neuroimaging findings combined indicate that differences in processing speed are largely explained by the unequal distribution of atrophy in these fronto-parietal regions across the three PPA variants.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".