Episodic and working memory function in Primary Progressive Aphasia: A meta-analysis
Number of pages
SourceNeuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 92, (2018), pp. 243-254
Article / Letter to editor
Display more detailsDisplay less details
SW OZ DCC NRP
PI Group Statistical Imaging Neuroscience
SW OZ DCC PL
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
SubjectDI-BCB_DCC_Theme 1: Language and Communication; DI-BCB_DCC_Theme 3: Plasticity and Memory; Neuropsychology and rehabilitation psychology; Psycholinguistics; Radboudumc 1: Alzheimer`s disease DCMN: Donders Center for Medical Neuroscience; Neuro- en revalidatiepsychologie
Objective: The distinction between Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA) variants remains challenging for clinicians, especially for the non-fluent (nfv-PPA) and the logopenic variants (lv-PPA). Previous research suggests that memory tests might aid this differentiation. This meta-analysis compares memory function among PPA variants. Method: Effects sizes were extracted from 41 studies (N = 849). Random-effects models were used to compare performance on episodic and working memory tests among PPA patients and healthy controls, and between the PPA variants. Results: Memory deficits were frequently observed in PPA compared to controls, with large effect sizes for lv-PPA (Hedges' g = -2.04 [-2.58 to -1.49]), nfv-PPA (Hedges' g = -1.34 [-1.69 to -1.00]), and the semantic variant (sv-PPA; Hedges' g = -1.23 [-1.50 to -0.97]). Sv-PPA showed primarily verbal memory deficits, whereas lv-PPA showed worse performance than nfv-PPA on both verbal and non-verbal memory tests. Conclusions: Memory deficits were more pronounced in lv-PPA compared to nfv-PPA. This suggests that memory tests may be helpful to distinguish between these PPA variants.
Upload full text
Use your RU credentials (u/z-number and password) tolog in with SURFconextto upload a file for processing by the repository team.