{"title":"Effects of Cognitive Demand and Imaginability on Semantic Cognition in Patients with Primary Progressive Aphasia.","authors":"Jonatan Ferrer Aragón, Bernarda Téllez-Alanís, Adela Hernández-Galván, Ana Luisa Sosa Ortiz","doi":"10.2174/0115672050395866250904102045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction/objective: </strong>Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a clinical syndrome characterized by progressive language impairment. Three subtypes have been identified: semantic (svPPA), nonfluent (nfPPA), and logopenic (lvPPA). Although clinical criteria exist to classify these subtypes, the specific ways in which semantic cognition is impaired across these variants have not yet been fully elucidated. This cross-sectional study aimed to analyze the effects of cognitive demand and imaginability on semantic cognition in patients with PPA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifteen patients with PPA (five per variant) and 20 healthy controls completed a semantic association task comprising 20 items. The task included two levels of cognitive demand (low and high) and two types of concepts (concrete and abstract). Participants selected the word with the strongest semantic link to a probe word, based on synonymy, categorical relations, or shared features. Accuracy and reaction times were recorded and analyzed using nonparametric statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All PPA groups performed significantly worse than controls, showing fewer correct responses and longer reaction times. svPPA patients exhibited the greatest impairment across all conditions. nfPPA patients performed similarly to controls with concrete concepts but showed deficits with abstract words. lvPPA patients experienced greater difficulty under high cognitive demand, particularly with abstract words, indicating impaired semantic control.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>These findings suggest that svPPA is characterized by global impairment of conceptual knowledge, whereas nfPPA and lvPPA exhibit more selective deficits depending on concept type and cognitive demand.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The research herein highlights the importance of considering cognitive demand and imaginability when assessing semantic cognition in PPA.</p>","PeriodicalId":94309,"journal":{"name":"Current Alzheimer research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Alzheimer research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/0115672050395866250904102045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction/objective: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a clinical syndrome characterized by progressive language impairment. Three subtypes have been identified: semantic (svPPA), nonfluent (nfPPA), and logopenic (lvPPA). Although clinical criteria exist to classify these subtypes, the specific ways in which semantic cognition is impaired across these variants have not yet been fully elucidated. This cross-sectional study aimed to analyze the effects of cognitive demand and imaginability on semantic cognition in patients with PPA.
Methods: Fifteen patients with PPA (five per variant) and 20 healthy controls completed a semantic association task comprising 20 items. The task included two levels of cognitive demand (low and high) and two types of concepts (concrete and abstract). Participants selected the word with the strongest semantic link to a probe word, based on synonymy, categorical relations, or shared features. Accuracy and reaction times were recorded and analyzed using nonparametric statistics.
Results: All PPA groups performed significantly worse than controls, showing fewer correct responses and longer reaction times. svPPA patients exhibited the greatest impairment across all conditions. nfPPA patients performed similarly to controls with concrete concepts but showed deficits with abstract words. lvPPA patients experienced greater difficulty under high cognitive demand, particularly with abstract words, indicating impaired semantic control.
Discussion: These findings suggest that svPPA is characterized by global impairment of conceptual knowledge, whereas nfPPA and lvPPA exhibit more selective deficits depending on concept type and cognitive demand.
Conclusion: The research herein highlights the importance of considering cognitive demand and imaginability when assessing semantic cognition in PPA.