Few studies have examined written discourse in primary progressive aphasia (PPA), a clinical syndrome due to frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) or Alzheimer's disease (AD).
Objective
We aim to: (1) determine differences in written discourse in PPA variants and controls using three approaches for analyzing narratives, and (2) make recommendations regarding the clinical utility of these approaches.
Methods
Individuals with PPA and healthy controls wrote descriptions of the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination Cookie Theft Picture (CTP). We hypothesized that written narratives would be characterized by: (1) fewer total words, lower percentages of CTP content units (CUs) and Core Lexicon Words, and lower communication efficiency in all PPA variants compared to controls; (2) fewer content words in semantic variant PPA (svPPA) than in logopenic variant PPA (lvPPA), nonfluent variant PPA (nfvPPA), and controls; and (3) fewer function words in nfvPPA than in lvPPA and controls.
Results
Participants with svPPA had significantly lower percentages of total CTP CUs, CTP noun and verb phrase CUs, and Core Lexicon Words than lvPPA. Overall content unit (CU) profile of lvPPA was more similar to controls than to the other two variants. Written narratives of participants with nfvPPA and svPPA had significantly lower percentages of particles, a class of function words, than lvPPA participants.
Conclusions
Part of speech analysis showed a deficit in function words in nfvPPA. Content unit analysis distinguished svPPA and lvPPA, and is easily incorporated into the clinical environment when spoken data are scarce or difficult to obtain because of speech production impairments.
MesulamMM. Primary progressive aphasia. Ann Neurol2001; 49: 425–432.
2.
MesulamM-MRogalskiEJWienekeC, et al.Primary progressive aphasia and the evolving neurology of the language network. Nat Rev Neurol2014; 10: 554–569.
3.
MontembeaultMBrambatiSMGorno-TempiniML, et al.Clinical, anatomical, and pathological features in the three variants of primary progressive aphasia: a review. Front Neurol2018; 9: 692.
4.
Gorno-TempiniMLHillisAEWeintraubS, et al.Classification of primary progressive aphasia and its variants. Neurology2011; 76: 1006–1014.
5.
JosephsKAWhitwellJLDuffyJR, et al.Progressive aphasia secondary to Alzheimer disease vs FTLD pathology. Neurology2008; 70: 25–34.
6.
HodgesJRMitchellJDawsonK, et al.Semantic dementia: demography, familial factors and survival in a consecutive series of 100 cases. Brain2010; 133: 300–306.
7.
JosephsKAHodgesJRSnowdenJS, et al.Neuropathological background of phenotypical variability in frontotemporal dementia. Acta Neuropathol2011; 122: 137–153.
8.
RohrerJDLashleyTSchottJM, et al.Clinical and neuroanatomical signatures of tissue pathology in frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Brain2011; 134: 2565–2581.
9.
ModirroustaMPriceBHDickersonBC. Neuropsychiatric symptoms in primary progressive aphasia: phenomenology, pathophysiology, and approach to assessment and treatment. Neurodegen Dis Manage2013; 3: 133–146.
10.
MesulamM-MWeintraubSRogalskiEJ, et al.Asymmetry and heterogeneity of Alzheimer’s and frontotemporal pathology in primary progressive aphasia. Brain2014; 137: 1176–1192.
11.
LeytonCEBrittonAKHodgesJR, et al.Distinctive pathological mechanisms involved in primary progressive aphasias. Neurobiol Aging2016; 38: 82–92.
12.
SpinelliEGMandelliMLMillerZA, et al.Typical and atypical pathology in primary progressive aphasia variants. Ann Neurol2017; 81: 430–443.
13.
WilsonSMHenryMLBesbrisM, et al.Connected speech production in three variants of primary progressive aphasia. Brain2010; 133: 2069–2088.
14.
SajjadiSAPattersonKTomekM, et al.Abnormalities of connected speech in semantic dementia vs Alzheimer’s disease. Aphasiology2012; 26: 847–866.
15.
SajjadiSAPattersonKTomekM, et al.Abnormalities of connected speech in the non-semantic variants of primary progressive aphasia. Aphasiology2012; 26: 1219–1237.
16.
AshSEvansEO’SheaJ, et al.Differentiating primary progressive aphasias in a brief sample of connected speech. Neurology2013; 81: 329–336.
17.
HilgerARamsbergerGGilleyP, et al.Analysing speech problems in a longitudinal case study of logopenic variant PPA. Aphasiology2014; 28: 840–861.
18.
Faroqi-ShahYTreanorARatnerNB, et al.Using narratives in differential diagnosis of neurodegenerative syndromes. J Commun Disord2020; 85: 105994.
19.
LavoieMBlackSETang-WaiDF, et al.Description of connected speech across different elicitation tasks in the logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia. Int J Lang Comm Disord2021; 56: 1074–1085.
20.
ThemistocleousCFicekBWebsterK, et al.Automatic subtyping of individuals with primary progressive aphasia. J Alzhehimers Dis2021; 79: 1185–1194.
21.
ChoSOlmCAAshS, et al.Automatic classification of AD pathology in FTD phenotypes using natural speech. Alzheimers Dement2024; 20: 3416–3428.
22.
LukicSFanZGarcíaAM, et al.Discriminating nonfluent/agrammatic and logopenic PPA variants with automatically extracted morphosyntactic measures from connected speech. Cortex2024; 173: 34–48.
23.
MeteyardLPattersonK. The relation between content and structure in language production: an analysis of speech errors in semantic dementia. Brain Lang2009; 110: 121–134.
24.
AshSMoorePAntaniS, et al.Trying to tell a tale: discourse impairments in progressive aphasia and frontotemporal dementia. Neurology2006; 66: 1405–1413.
25.
KavéGLeonardCCupitJ, et al.Structurally well-formed narrative production in the face of severe conceptual deterioration: a longitudinal case study of a woman with semantic dementia. J Neurolinguist2007; 20: 161–177.
26.
AshSMcMillanCGunawardenaD, et al.Speech errors in progressive non-fluent aphasia. Brain Lang2010; 113: 13–20.
27.
ThompsonCKChoSHsuC-J, et al.Dissociations between fluency and agrammatism in primary progressive aphasia. Aphasiology2012; 26: 20–43.
28.
MackJEChandlerSDMeltzer-AsscherA, et al.What do pauses in narrative production reveal about the nature of word retrieval deficits in PPA?Neuropsychologia2015; 77: 211–222.
29.
MackJEBarbieriEWeintraubS, et al.Quantifying grammatical impairments in primary progressive aphasia: structured language tests and narrative language production. Neuropsychologia2021; 151: 107713.
30.
WalenskiMSostaricsTMesulamMM, et al.The production of adjectives in narratives by individuals with primary progressive aphasia. J Neurolinguist2024; 69: 101179.
31.
GoodglassHKaplanEBarresiB. BDAE-3: Boston diagnostic aphasia examination. 3rd ed.Philadelphia, PA: Williams and Wilkins, 2001.
32.
KerteszA. WAB-R: Western aphasia battery–revised. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Assessments USA, 2006.
33.
CanuEAgostaFLumacaL, et al.Connected speech alterations and progression in patients with primary progressive aphasia variants. Neurology2025; 104: e213524.
34.
KimHObermeyerJWileyRW. Written discourse in diagnosis for acquired neurogenic communication disorders: current evidence and future directions. Front Hum Neurosci2024; 17: 1264582.
35.
SepelyakKCrinionJMolitorisJ, et al.Patterns of breakdown in spelling in primary progressive aphasia. Cortex2011; 47: 342–352.
36.
ShimHHurleyRSRogalskiE, et al.Anatomic, clinical, and neuropsychological correlates of spelling errors in primary progressive aphasia. Neuropsychologia2012; 50: 1929–1935.
37.
FariaAVCrinionJTsapkiniK, et al.Patterns of dysgraphia in primary progressive aphasia compared to post-stroke aphasia. Behav Neurol2013; 26: 21–34.
38.
GrahamNL. Dysgraphia in primary progressive aphasia: characterisation of impairments and therapy options. Aphasiology2014; 28: 1092–1111.
39.
NeophytouKWileyRWRappB, et al.The use of spelling for variant classification in primary progressive aphasia: theoretical and practical implications. Neuropsychologia2019; 133: 107157.
40.
GrahamNLPattersonKHodgesJR. When more yields less: speaking and writing deficits in nonfluent progressive aphasia. Neurocase2004; 10: 141–155.
41.
SitekEJBarczakAKluj-KozłowskaK, et al.Writing in Richardson variant of progressive supranuclear palsy in comparison to progressive non-fluent aphasia. Neurol Neurochir Pol2015; 49: 217–222.
42.
SitekEJBarczakAKluj-KozłowskaK, et al.Is descriptive writing useful in the differential diagnosis of logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia, Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment?Neurol Neurochir Pol2015; 49: 239–244.
43.
TetzloffKAUtianskiRLDuffyJR, et al.Quantitative analysis of agrammatism in agrammatic primary progressive aphasia and dominant apraxia of speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res2018; 61: 2337–2346.
44.
Josephy-HernandezSRezaiiNJonesA, et al.Automated analysis of written language in the three variants of primary progressive aphasia. Brain Commun2023; 5: fcad202.
45.
CodeCMullerNTreeJ, et al.Syntactic impairments can emerge later: progressive agrammatic agraphia and syntactic comprehension impairment. Aphasiology2006; 20: 1035–1058.
46.
HeitkampNSchumacherRCrootK, et al.A longitudinal linguistic analysis of written text production in a case of semantic variant primary progressive aphasia. J Neurolinguist2016; 39: 26–37.
47.
HwangYTStrikwerda-BrownCEl-OmarH, et al.“More than words” – longitudinal linguistic changes in the works of a writer diagnosed with semantic dementia. Neurocase2021; 27: 243–252.
48.
TetzloffKAMeadeGDuffyJR, et al.Word count matters: features of written language production in progressive apraxia of speech with and without agrammatism. Folia Phoniatr Logop2025; 77: 375–383.
49.
GrossmanM. The non-fluent/agrammatic variant of primary progressive aphasia. Lancet Neurol2012; 11: 545–555.
50.
ThompsonCKChoSPriceC, et al.Semantic interference during object naming in agrammatic and logopenic primary progressive aphasia (PPA). Brain Lang2012; 120: 237–250.
51.
TetzloffKADuffyJRClarkHM, et al.Progressive agrammatic aphasia without apraxia of speech as a distinct syndrome. Brain2019; 142: 2466–2482.
52.
JosephsKADuffyJRStrandEA, et al.Characterizing a neurodegenerative syndrome: primary progressive apraxia of speech. Brain2012; 135: 1522–1536.
53.
JungYDuffyJJosephsK. Primary progressive aphasia and apraxia of speech. Semin Neurol2013; 33: 342–347.
54.
BothaHJosephsKA. Primary progressive aphasias and apraxia of speech. Continuum (Minneap Minn)2019; 25: 101–127.
55.
NestorPJ. Progressive non-fluent aphasia is associated with hypometabolism centred on the left anterior insula. Brain2003; 126: 2406–2418.
56.
Gorno-TempiniMLOgarJMBrambatiSM, et al.Anatomical correlates of early mutism in progressive nonfluent aphasia. Neurology2006; 67: 1849–1851.
57.
KnibbJAWoollamsAMHodgesJR, et al.Making sense of progressive non-fluent aphasia: an analysis of conversational speech. Brain2009; 132: 2734–2746.
58.
JosephsKADuffyJRFossettTR, et al.Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 positron emission tomography in progressive apraxia of speech and primary progressive aphasia variants. Arch Neurol2010; 67: 596–605.
59.
CrootKBallardKLeytonCE, et al.Apraxia of speech and phonological errors in the diagnosis of nonfluent/agrammatic and logopenic variants of primary progressive aphasia. J Speech Lang Hear Res2012; 55: S1562–S1572.
60.
DuffyJRStrandEAClarkH, et al.Primary progressive apraxia of speech: clinical features and acoustic and neurologic correlates. Am J Speech Lang Pathol2015; 24: 88–100.
61.
XuATippettDCRappB, et al.Speech motor planning relies on multiple brain areas: evidence from neurodegenerative disease. In: Annual convention of the association of psychological science, Washington, DC, May 2025.
62.
OgarJMDronkersNFBrambatiSM, et al.Progressive nonfluent aphasia and its characteristic motor speech deficits. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord2007; 21: S23–S30.
63.
DuffyJRStrandEAJosephsKA. Motor speech disorders associated with primary progressive aphasia. Aphasiology2014; 28: 1004–1017.
64.
TippettDC. Classification of primary progressive aphasia: challenges and complexities. F1000Res2020; 9: 64.
RohrerJDKnightWDWarrenJE, et al.Word-finding difficulty: a clinical analysis of the progressive aphasias. Brain2007; 131: 8–38.
67.
PulgramE. Graphic and phonic systems: figurae and signs. WORD1965; 21: 208–224.
68.
VachekJ. Written language revisited. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1989.
69.
YorkstonKMBeukelmanDR. An analysis of connected speech samples of aphasic and normal speakers. J Speech Hear Disord1980; 45: 27–36.
70.
CraigHKHinckleyJJWinkelsethM, et al.Quantifying connected speech samples of adults with chronic aphasia. Aphasiology1993; 7: 155–163.
71.
DaltonSGAl HarbiMBerubeS, et al.Development of main concept and core lexicon checklists for the original and modern Cookie Theft stimuli. Aphasiology2024; 38: 1975–1999.
72.
CotelliMBorroniBManentiR, et al.Action and object naming in frontotemporal dementia, progressive supranuclear palsy, and corticobasal degeneration. Neuropsychology2006; 20: 558–565.
73.
HillisAETuffiashECaramazzaA. Modality-specific deterioration in naming verbs in nonfluent primary progressive aphasia. J Cogn Neurosci2002; 14: 1099–1108.
74.
HillisAEOhSKenL. Deterioration of naming nouns versus verbs in primary progressive aphasia. Ann Neurol2004; 55: 268–275.
75.
HillisAEHeidler-GaryJNewhartM, et al.Naming and comprehension in primary progressive aphasia: the influence of grammatical word class. Aphasiology2006; 20: 246–256.
76.
SilveriMCCiccarelliN. Naming of grammatical classes in frontotemporal dementias: linguistic and nonlinguistic factors contribute to noun-verb dissociation. Behav Neurol2007; 18: 197–206.
77.
ThompsonCKLukicSKingMC, et al.Verb and noun deficits in stroke-induced and primary progressive aphasia: the Northwestern naming battery. Aphasiology2012; 26: 632–655.
78.
BakTHHodgesJR. Kissing and dancing—a test to distinguish the lexical and conceptual contributions to noun/verb and action/object dissociation. Preliminary results in patients with frontotemporal dementia. J Neurolinguist2003; 16: 169–181.
79.
MesulamMRogalskiEWienekeC, et al.Neurology of anomia in the semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia. Brain2009; 132: 2553–2565.
80.
GrossmanM. Linguistic aspects of primary progressive aphasia. Annu Rev Linguist2018; 4: 377–403.
81.
WangHWalenskiMLitcofskyK, et al.Verb production and comprehension in primary progressive aphasia. J Neurolinguist2022; 64: 101099.
WilliamsBWMackWHendersonVW. Boston Naming test in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychologia1989; 27: 1073–1079.
84.
MackWJFreedDMWilliamsBW, et al.Boston naming test: shortened versions for use in Alzheimer’s disease. J Gerontol1992; 47: P154–P158.
85.
BreiningBLFariaAVCaffoB, et al.Neural regions underlying object and action naming: complementary evidence from acute stroke and primary progressive aphasia. Aphasiology2022; 36: 732–760.
86.
HowardDHowardDPattersonK. The pyramids and palm trees test: a test of semantic access from words and pictures. Cambridge, UK: Pearson, 1992.
87.
BreiningBLTippettDCDavisC, et al.Assessing dissociations of object and action naming in acute stroke. In: Clinical aphasiology conference proceedings, Monterey, California, May 2015, p.3.
88.
HughesCPBergLDanzigerW, et al.A new clinical scale for the staging of dementia. Br J Psychiatry1982; 140: 566–572.
89.
MorrisJC. The clinical dementia rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules. Neurology1993; 43: 2412.
90.
ThemistocleousC. Open brain AI and language assessment. Front Hum Neurosci2024; 18: 1421435.
91.
TrupeEHHillisAE. Paucity vs. verbosity: another analysis of right hemisphere communication deficits. In: BrooksireRH (ed.) Clinical aphasiology. Minneapolis, MN: BRK Publishers, 1985, pp.83–96.
92.
AgisDGogginsMBOishiK, et al.Picturing the size and site of stroke with an expanded national institutes of health stroke scale. Stroke2016; 47: 1459–1465.
93.
LeechG. A glossary of English grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006.
94.
McArthurT. Concise Oxford companion to the English language. Oxford paperback reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
95.
KerteszAJessoSHarciarekM, et al.What is semantic dementia?: a cohort study of diagnostic features and clinical boundaries. Arch Neurol2010; 67: 483–489.
96.
AshSMoorePVeselyL, et al.Non-fluent speech in frontotemporal lobar degeneration. J Neurolinguist2009; 22: 370–383.
97.
StarkBCDuttaMMurrayLL, et al.Standardizing assessment of spoken discourse in aphasia: a working group with deliverables. Am J Speech Lang Pathol2021; 30: 491–502.
98.
BryantLSpencerEFergusonA. Clinical use of linguistic discourse analysis for the assessment of language in aphasia. Aphasiology2017; 31: 1105–1126.
99.
DaltonSGHHubbardHIRichardsonJD. Moving toward non-transcription based discourse analysis in stable and progressive aphasia. Semin Speech Lang2020; 41: 032–044.
100.
BerubeSNonnemacherJDemskyC, et al.Stealing cookies in the twenty-first century: measures of spoken narrative in healthy versus speakers with aphasia. Am J Speech Lang Pathol2019; 28: 321–329.
101.
GalléeJCordellaCFedorenkoE, et al.Breakdowns in informativeness of naturalistic speech production in primary progressive aphasia. Brain Sci2021; 11: 130.
102.
ButtsAMMachuldaMMDuffyJR, et al.Neuropsychological profiles differ among the three variants of primary progressive aphasia. J Int Neuropsychol Soc2015; 21: 429–435.
103.
GarrardP. The effects of very early Alzheimer’s disease on the characteristics of writing by a renowned author. Brain2004; 128: 250–260.
104.
LeXLancashireIHirstG, et al.Longitudinal detection of dementia through lexical and syntactic changes in writing: a case study of three British novelists. Lit LingComput2011; 26: 435–461.
105.
MarckxSVerhoevenBDaelemansW. The Claus case: exploring the use of propositional idea density for Alzheimer detection. Comput Linguistic Netherl J2018; 8: 66–82.
106.
RileyKPSnowdonDADesrosiersMF, et al.Early life linguistic ability, late life cognitive function, and neuropathology: findings from the Nun study. Neurobiol Aging2005; 26: 341–347.
107.
GallettaEEBarrettAM. Impairment and functional interventions for aphasia: having it all. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep2014; 2: 114–120.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
