The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
The University of Texas at Austin.
Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018 Mar 1;27(1S):336-349. doi: 10.1044/2017_AJSLP-16-0210.
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.
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.
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.
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.
本研究旨在描述原发性进行性失语症（语义性、流畅性和非流畅性）3 种变体中的语音错语的语言环境，并描述这些变体中每种变体的错语产生情况。
使用为费城命名测试（Moss 康复研究所，2013 年）制定的标准，对 26 名被诊断为原发性进行性失语症的患者的话语样本进行语音错语分析。对语音错语进行错语类型、目标词的词性、目标词的频率、错误的音段类型、辅音错误的词位、错误类型和辅音错误的变化程度进行编码。
在 3 种变体中，有 18 名患者产生了语音错语。最常见的错语类型是非词，其次是形式错语，然后是混合错语，错误主要发生在名词和动词上，而功能词上的错误较少。大多数错误是替代，其次是添加和删除错误，很少有排序错误。错误在元音、辅音单音和辅音簇中均匀分布，单词的首音和中音位置的错误比单词的尾音位置的错误多。大多数辅音错误只包含单个特征的变化，很少有 2 个或 3 个特征的变化。重要的是，变体的错语产生与这些综合结果不同，每个变体都有独特的产生模式。
这些结果表明，将错语编码为存在或不存在的系统可能不足以充分区分 3 种 PPA 亚型。这 3 种变体表现出的模式可用于提高表型和诊断敏感性。这些结果应与最近关于语音处理和语音率的研究结果相结合。未来的研究应尝试在更大的参与者样本中，使用更长的语音样本和不同的诱发任务来复制这些结果。
