Assessing the Linguistic Capacity Across Alzheimer’s Disease and Its Preclinical Stages: Evidence from Narrative Macrostructure in Elderly Speakers of Greek
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August 20, 2024
Assessing the Linguistic Capacity Across Alzheimer’s Disease and Its Preclinical Stages: Evidence from Narrative Macrostructure in Elderly Speakers of Greek
The assessment of language deficits can be valuable in the early clinical diagnosis of neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD).
Objective:
The present study aims to explore whether language markers at the macrostructural level could assist with the placement of an individual across the dementia continuum employing production data from structured narratives.
Methods:
We administered a Picture Sequence Narrative Discourse Task to 170 speakers of Greek: young healthy controls (yHC), cognitively intact healthy elders (eHC), elder participants with subjective cognitive impairment (SCI), with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and with AD dementia at the mild/moderate stages. Structural MRIs, medical history, neurological examination, and neuropsychological/cognitive screening determined the status of each speaker to appropriately groupthem.
Results:
The data analysis revealed that the Macrostructure Index, Irrelevant Info, and Narration Density markers can track cognitive decline and AD (p < 0.001; Macrostructural Index: eHC versus AD Sensitivity 93.8%, Specificity 74.4%, MCI versus AD Sensitivity 93.8%, Specificity 66.7%; Narration Density: eHC versus AD Sensitivity 90.6%, Specificity 71.8%, MCI versus AD Sensitivity 93.8%, Specificity 66.7%). Moreover, Narrative Complexity was significantly affected for subjects with AD, Irrelevant Info increased in the narrations of speakers with MCI and AD, while Narration Length did not appear to indubitably differentiate between the cognitively intact groups and the clinical ones.
Conclusions:
Narrative Macrostructure Indices provide valuable information on the language profile of speakers with(out) intact cognition revealing subtle early signs of cognitive decline and AD suggesting that the inclusion of language-based assessment tools would facilitate the clinical process.
DuboisB, FeldmanHH, JacovaC, et al.Advancing research diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer’s disease: the IWG-2 criteria. Lancet Neurol2024; 13: 614–629.
2.
CummingsL. Language in dementia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2020.
3.
PettiU, BakerSandKorhonenA. A systematic literature review of automatic Alzheimer’s disease detection from speech and language. J Am Med Inform Assoc2020; 27: 1784–1797.
4.
Benítez-BurracoAandIvanovaO. Language in healthy and pathological ageing: Methodological milestones and challenges. Int J Lang Commun Disord2024; 59: 4–12.
5.
LindsayH, TrögerJandKönigA. Language impairment in Alzheimer’s disease— robust and explainable evidence for AD-related deterioration of spontaneous speech through multilingual machine learning. Front Aging Neurosci2021; 13: 642033.
6.
BeltramiD, GagliardiG, Rossini FavrettiR, et al.Speech analysis by natural language processing techniques: A possible tool for very early detection of cognitive decline?Front Aging Neurosci2018; 10: 369.
7.
BoschiV, CatricalaE, ConsonniM, et al.Connected speech in neurodegenerative language disorders: A review. Front Psychol2017; 8: 208495.
8.
DrummondC, CoutinhoG, FonsecaRP, et al.Deficits in narrative discourse elicited by visual stimuli are already present in patients with mild cognitive impairment. Front Aging Neurosci2015; 7: 96.
9.
SlegersA, FiliouRP, MontembeaultM, et al.Connected speech features from picture description in Alzheimer’s disease: A systematic review. J Alzheimers Dis2018; 65: 519–542.
10.
VarlokostaS, FragkopoulouK, ArfaniD, et al.Methodologies for assessing morphosyntactic ability in people with Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Lang Commun Disord2024; 59: 38–57.
11.
WilliamsE, McAuliffeMandTheysC. Language changes in Alzheimer’s disease: A systematic review of verb processing. Brain Lang2021; 223: 105041.
12.
JessenF, AmariglioRE, BuckleyRF, et al.The characterisation of subjective cognitive decline. Lancet Neurol2020; 19: 271–278.
13.
GauthierS, ReisbergB, ZaudigM, et al.Mild cognitive impairment. Lancet2006; 367: 1262–1270.
14.
GeslaniDM, TierneyMC, HerrmannN, et al.Mild cognitive impairment: An operational definition and its conversion rate to Alzheimer’s disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord2005; 19: 383–389.
15.
CannizzaroMS, DumasJ, PrelockP, et al.Organizational structure reduces processing load in the prefrontal cortex during discourse processing of written text: Implications for high-level reading issues after TBI. Perspect Neurophysiol Neurogenic Speech Lang Disord2012; 22: 67–78.
16.
DuongA, GirouxF, TardifA, et al.The heterogeneity of picture-supported narratives in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Lang2005; 93: 173–184.
17.
MarRA. , The neuropsychology of narrative: Story comprehension, story production and their interrelation. Neuropsychologia2004; 42: 1414–1434.
18.
CannizzaroMSandCoelhoCA. Analysis of narrative discourse structure as an ecologically relevant measure of executive function in adults. J Psycholinguist Res2013; 42: 527–549.
19.
de LiraJO, OrtizKZ, CampanhaAC, et al.Microlinguistic aspects of the oral narrative in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Int Psychogeriatr2011; 23: 404–412.
20.
LiD, YuYY, HuN, et al.A color-picture version of the Boston Naming Test outperformed the black-and-white version in discriminating amnestic mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s disease. Front Neurol2022; 13: 884460.
21.
Delgado-ÁlvarezA, Cabrera-MartínMN, PytelV, et al.Design and verbal fluency in Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia: Clinical and metabolic correlates. J Int Neuropsychol Soc2022; 28: 947–962.
22.
WrightLM, De MarcoM, VenneriA. Verbal fluency discrepancies as a marker of the pre-hippocampal stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychology2023; 37: 790–800.
23.
ShaftoMA, BurkeDM, StamatakisEA, et al.On the tip-of-the-tongue: Neural correlates of increased word-finding failures in normal aging. J Cogn Neurosci2007; 19: 2060–2070.
24.
WrightHH, CapiloutoGJ, SrinivasanC, et al.Story processing ability in cognitively healthy younger and older adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res2011; 54: 900–917.
25.
LinMC, HummertMLandHarwoodJ. Representation of age identities in on-line discourse. J Aging Stud2004; 18: 261–274.
26.
KaltsaM, TsimpliIMandRothmanJ. Exploring the source of differences and similarities in L1 attrition and heritage speaker competence: Evidence from pronominal resolution. Lingua2015; 164: 266–288.
27.
KaltsaM, PapadopoulouD, GialaouzidisM, et al.The processing of lexical ambiguity: The effect of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease in the monolingual lexicon. In: MarkopoulousTh, VlachosChr, ArhakisA, et al. (eds) Proceedings of 14th International Conference of Greek Linguistics (ICGL 14). Patra: Patra University Press, 2021, pp. 467–476.
28.
MadhavanKM, McQueenyT, HoweSR, et al.Superior longitudinal fasciculus and language functioning in healthy aging. Brain Res2014; 1562: 11–22.
29.
CaselliRJ, LockeDE, DueckAC, et al.The neuropsychology of normal aging and preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement2014; 10: 84–92.
30.
Lundholm-ForsK, FraserKandKokkinakisD. Automated syntactic analysis of language abilities in persons with mild and subjective cognitive impairment. In: MoenA, UgonA, KarlssonD, et al. (eds) Building Continents of Knowledge in Oceans of Data: The Future of Co-Created eHealth, eds. Amsterdam: IOS Press2018, pp. 705–709.
31.
López-HigesR, PradosJM, Rubio-ValdehitaS, et al.Factors explaining language performance after training in elders with and without subjective cognitive decline. Front Aging Neurosci2018; 10: 264.
32.
TalerVandPhillipsNA. Language performance in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment: A comparative review. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol2008; 30: 501–556.
33.
López-HigesR, PradosJM, MontejoP, et al.Is there a grammatical comprehension deficit in multidomain mild cognitive impairment?Univ Psychol2014; 13: 1569–1579.
34.
ManouilidouC, DolencB, MarvinT, et al.Processing complex pseudo-words in mild cognitive impairment: The interaction of preserved morphological rule knowledge with compromised cognitive ability. Clin Linguist Phon2016; 30: 49–67.
35.
TsantaliE, EconomidisDandTsolakiM. Could language deficits really differentiate mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from mild Alzheimer’s disease?Arch Gerontol Geriatr2013; 57: 263–270.
36.
ChapmanSB, ZientzJ, WeinerM, et al.Discourse changes in early Alzheimer disease, mild cognitive impairment, and normal aging. Alzheimers Dis Assoc Disord2002; 16: 177–186.
37.
MuellerKD, KoscikRL, HermannBP, et al.Declines in connected language are associated with very early mild cognitive impairment: Results from the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer’s Prevention. Front Aging Neurosci2018; 9: 437.
38.
CroisileB, SkaB, BrabantMJ, et al.Comparative study of oral and written picture description in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Lang1996; 53: 1–19.
39.
RogalskiE, SridharJ, RaderB, et al.Aphasic variant of Alzheimer disease: Clinical, anatomic, and genetic features. Neurology2016; 87: 1337–1343.
40.
WeekesBSH. Aphasia in Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias (ADOD): Evidence from Chinese. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Dement2020; 35: 1533317520949708.
41.
TeichmannMandFerrieuxS. Aphasia(s) in Alzheimer. Rev Neurol2013; 169: 680–686.
42.
SajjadiSA, PattersonK, TomekM, et al.Abnormalities of connected speech in semantic dementia vs Alzheimer’s disease. Aphasiology2012; 26: 847–866.
43.
JoubertS, BrambatiSM, AnsadoJ, et al.The cognitive and neural expression of semantic memory impairment in mild cognitive impairment and early Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychologia2010; 48: 978–988.
44.
MontembeaultM, ChapleauM, JarretJ, et al.Differential language network functional connectivity alterations in Alzheimer’s disease and the semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia. Cortex2019; 117: 284–298.
45.
CuetosF, Arango-LasprillaJC, UribeC, et al.Linguistic changes in verbal expression: a preclinical marker of Alzheimer’s disease. J Int Neuropsychol Soc2007; 13: 433–439.
46.
AhmedS, HaighAMF, de JagerCA, et al.Connected speech as a marker of disease progression in autopsy-proven Alzheimer’s disease. Brain2013; 136: 3727–3737.
47.
AshSandGrossmanM. Why study connected speech production. In: WillemsRM (ed) Cognitive neuroscience of natural language use. Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 29–58.
48.
YanchevaM, FraserKCandRudziczF. Using linguistic features longitudinally to predict clinical scores for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. In: Proceedings of SLPAT 6th Workshop on Speech and Language Processing for Assistive Technologies2015, pp. 134–139.
49.
RentoumiV, PaliourasG, DanasiE, et al.Automatic detection of linguistic indicators as a means of early detection of Alzheimer’s disease and of related dementias: A computational linguistics analysis In Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom), 2017 8th IEEE International Conference on. IEEE; 2017, pp. 000033–000038.
50.
NtrachaA, IakovakisD, HadjidimitriouS, et al.Detection of mild cognitive impairment through natural language and touchscreen typing processing. Front Digit Health2020; 2: 567158.
51.
LuzS, HaiderF, FrommD, et al.An overview of the ADReSS-M signal processing grand challenge on multilingual Alzheimer’s dementia recognition through spontaneous speech. IEEE Open J Signal Process2024; 5: 738–749.
52.
AdhikariS, ThapaS, NaseemU, et al.Exploiting linguistic information from Nepali transcripts for early detection of Alzheimer’s disease using natural language processing and machine learning techniques. Int J Hum Comput Stud2022; 160: 102761.
53.
LiuN, LuoK, YuanZ, et al.A transfer learning method for detecting Alzheimer’s disease based on speech and natural language processing. Front Public Health2022; 10: 772592.
54.
PappagariR, ChoJ, Moro-VelazquezL, et al.Using state of the art speaker recognition and natural language processing technologies to detect Alzheimer’s disease and assess its severity. Proc Interspeech2020; 2177–2181.
55.
YeungA, IaboniA, RochonE, et al.Correlating natural language processing and automated speech analysis with clinician assessment to quantify speech-language changes in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s dementia. Alzheimers Res Ther2021; 13: 109.
56.
BoseA, DashNS, AhmedS, et al.Connected speech characteristics of Bengali speakers with Alzheimer’s disease: Evidence for language-specific diagnostic markers. Front Aging Neurosci2021; 13: 707628.
57.
TsolakiM, TsataliM, GkiokaM, et al.Memory clinics and day care centers in Thessaloniki, Northern Greece: 30 years of clinical practice and experience. Front Neurol2021; 12: 683131.
58.
McKhannG, DrachmanD, FolsteinM, et al.Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA work group under the auspices of department of health and human services task force on Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology1984; 34: 939–944.
59.
PetersenRC, KnopmanDS, BoeveBF, et al.Mild cognitive impairment: ten years later. Arch Neurol2009; 66: 1447–1455.
60.
American Psychiatric Association, DSM-5 Task Force. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5™ (5th ed) Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. 2013.
61.
MolinuevoJL, RabinLA, AmariglioR, et al.Implementation of subjective cognitive decline criteria in research studies. Alzheimers Dement2017; 13: 296–311.
62.
RavenJ. The Raven’s progressive matrices: change and stability over culture and time. Cogn Psychol2000; 41: 1–48.
63.
FountoulakisKN, TsolakiM, ChantziH, et al.Mini mental state examination (MMSE): a validation study in Greece. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen2000; 15: 342–345.
64.
KonstantopoulosK, VogazianosPandDoskasT. Normative data of the montreal Cognitive Assessment in the Greek population and parkinsonian dementia. Arch Clin Neuropsychol2016; 31: 246–253.
65.
LazarouI, MoraitouD, PapatheodorouM, et al.Adaptation and validation of the Memory Alteration Test (M@T) in Greek middle-aged, older, and older-old population with subjective cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment. J Alzheimers Dis2021; 84: 1219–1232.
66.
KosmidisMH, VlahouCH, PanagiotakiP, et al.The verbal fluency task in the Greek population: normative data, and clustering and switching strategies. J Int Neuropsychol Soc2004; 10: 164–172.
67.
WechslerD. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS–IV). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation, 2008.
68.
ZalonisI, ChristidiF, BonakisA, et al.The Stroop effect in Greek healthy population: normative data for the Stroop Neuropsychological Screening Test. Arch Clin Neuropsychol2009; 24: 81–88.
69.
KochCandRoidG. Manual for the nonverbal Stroop card sorting task. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting Company, 2012.
70.
MessiniL, TsakonaI, MalefakiS, et al.Normative data and discriminant validity of Rey’s Verbal Learning Test for the Greek adult population. Arch Clin Neuropsychol2007; 22: 739–752.
71.
WilsonB, CockburnJ, BaddeleyA, et al.The development and validation of a test battery for detecting and monitoring everyday memory problems. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol1989; 11: 855–870.
72.
OsterriethPA. Le test de copie d’une figure complexe; contribution à l’étude de la perception et de la mémoire. Arch Psychol1944; 30: 206–256.
73.
TombaughTN. Trail Making Test A and B: normative data stratified by age and education. Arch Clin Neuropsychol2004; 19: 203–214.
74.
KountiF, TsolakiMandKiosseoglouG. Functional cognitive assessment scale (FUCAS): a new scale to assess executive cognitive function in daily life activities in patients with dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Hum Psychopharmacol2006; 21: 305–311.
75.
TsolakiM, FountoulakisK, NakopoulouE, et al.Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale: the validation of the scale in Greece in elderly demented patients and normal subjects. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord1997; 8: 273–280.
76.
YesavageJAandSheikhJI. Geriatric depression scale (GDS) recent evidence and development of a shorter version. Clin Gerontol1986; 5: 165–173.
77.
CummingsJL, MegaM, GrayK, et al.The Neuropsychiatric Inventory: comprehensive assessment of psychopathology in dementia. Neurology1994; 44: 2308.
78.
MohsRC, KnopmanD, PetersenRC, et al.Development of cognitive instruments for use in clinical trials of antidementia drugs: Additions to the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale that broaden its scope. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord1997; 11(Suppl 2), S13–S21.
79.
RosenWG, MohsRCandDavisKL. A new rating scale for Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry1984; 141: 1356–1364.
80.
MorrisJC. , The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): Current version and scoring rules. Neurology1993; 43: 2412–2414.
81.
RadfordKA, LahS, SayMJ, et al.Validation of a new measure of prospective memory: The Royal Prince Alfred Prospective Memory Test. Clin Neuropsychol2011; 25: 127–140.
82.
GalaskoD, BennettD, SanoM, et al.Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. An inventory to assess activities of daily living for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord1997; 11(Suppl 2), S33–S39.
83.
SchüßlerIandTzschoppeR. So ein Dackel! 22 Bildgeschichten für den Sprachunterricht, 1972.
84.
BoersmaPandWeeninkD. Praat: doing phonetics by computer, 1992–2007.
85.
GagarinaNV, KlopD, KunnariS, et al.MAIN: Multilingual assessment instrument for narratives. ZAS Pap Linguist2012; 56: 155.
86.
BlennowK, HampelH, WeinerM, et al.Cerebrospinal fluid and plasma biomarkers in Alzheimer disease. Nat Rev Neurol2010; 6: 131–144.
87.
SatheG, NaCH, RenuseS, et al.Quantitative proteomic profiling of cerebrospinal fluid to identify candidate biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease. Proteomics Clin Appl2019; 13: e1800105.
88.
McGrowderDA, MillerF, VazK, et al.Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease: current evidence and future perspectives. Brain Sci2021; 11: 215.
