Henderson Shalom K, Peterson Katie A, Patterson Karalyn, Lambon Ralph Matthew A, Rowe James B
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 7EF, UK.
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 7EF, UK.
Brain Commun. 2023 Feb 21;5(2):fcad042. doi: 10.1093/braincomms/fcad042. eCollection 2023.
Verbal fluency is widely used as a clinical test, but its utility in differentiating between neurodegenerative dementias and progressive aphasias, and from healthy controls, remains unclear. We assessed whether various measures of fluency performance could differentiate between Alzheimer's disease, behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia, non-fluent and semantic variants of primary progressive aphasia, progressive supranuclear palsy, corticobasal syndrome and healthy controls. Category and letter fluency tasks were administered to 33 controls and 139 patients at their baseline clinical visit. We assessed group differences for total number of words produced, psycholinguistic word properties and associations between production order and exemplar psycholinguistic properties. Receiver operating characteristic curves determined which measure could best discriminate patient groups and controls. The total word count distinguished controls from all patient groups, but neither this measure nor the word properties differentiated the patient groups. Receiver operating characteristic curves revealed that, when comparing controls to patients, the strongest discriminators were total word count followed by word frequency. Word frequency was the strongest discriminator for semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia versus other groups. Fluency word counts were associated with global severity as measured by Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination Revised. Verbal fluency is an efficient test for assessing global brain-cognitive health but has limited utility in differentiating between cognitively and anatomically disparate patient groups. This outcome is consistent with the fact that verbal fluency requires many different aspects of higher cognition and language.
语言流畅性被广泛用作一项临床测试,但其在区分神经退行性痴呆与进行性失语症以及与健康对照者方面的效用仍不明确。我们评估了流畅性表现的各种指标是否能够区分阿尔茨海默病、额颞叶痴呆的行为变异型、原发性进行性失语症的非流畅型和语义变异型、进行性核上性麻痹、皮质基底节综合征以及健康对照者。在33名对照者和139名患者的基线临床访视时,对他们进行了类别和字母流畅性任务测试。我们评估了所产生单词总数、心理语言学单词属性以及生成顺序与典型心理语言学属性之间关联的组间差异。受试者工作特征曲线确定了哪种指标能够最佳地区分患者组和对照组。单词总数能够将对照组与所有患者组区分开来,但该指标以及单词属性均无法区分患者组。受试者工作特征曲线显示,在将对照组与患者进行比较时,最强的区分指标是单词总数,其次是词频。对于原发性进行性失语症的语义变异型与其他组相比,词频是最强的区分指标。流畅性单词计数与用修订版Addenbrooke认知检查量表所衡量的整体严重程度相关。语言流畅性是评估整体脑认知健康的一项有效测试,但在区分认知和解剖学上不同的患者组方面效用有限。这一结果与语言流畅性需要更高认知和语言的许多不同方面这一事实是一致的。