Baseline Conceptual-Semantic Impairment Predicts Longitudinal Treatment Effects for Anomia in Primary Progressive Aphasia and Alzheimer’s Disease

ABSTRACT

Background

An individual’s diagnostic subtype may fail to predict the efficacy of a given type of treatment for anomia. Classification by conceptual-semantic impairment may be more informative.

Aims

This study examined the effects of conceptual-semantic impairment and diagnostic subtype on anomia treatment effects in primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

Methods & Procedures

At baseline, the picture and word versions of the Pyramids and Palm Trees and Kissing and Dancing tests were used to measure conceptual-semantic processing. Based on norming that was conducted with unimpaired older adults, participants were classified as being impaired on both the picture and word versions (i.e., modality-general conceptual-semantic impairment), the picture version (Objects or Actions) only (i.e., visual-conceptual impairment), the word version (Nouns or Verbs) only (i.e., lexical-semantic impairment), or neither the picture nor the word version (i.e., no impairment). Following baseline testing, a lexical treatment and a semantic treatment were administered to all participants. The treatment stimuli consisted of nouns and verbs that were consistently named correctly at baseline (Prophylaxis items) and/or nouns and verbs that were consistently named incorrectly at baseline (Remediation items). Naming accuracy was measured at baseline, and it was measured at three, seven, eleven, fourteen, eighteen, and twenty-one months.

Outcomes & Results

Compared to baseline naming performance, lexical and semantic treatments both improved naming accuracy for treated Remediation nouns and verbs. For Prophylaxis items, lexical treatment was effective for both nouns and verbs, and semantic treatment was effective for verbs, but the pattern of results was different for nouns – the effect of semantic treatment was initially nonsignificant or marginally significant, but it was significant beginning at 11 Months, suggesting that the effects of prophylactic semantic treatment may become more apparent as the disorder progresses. Furthermore, the interaction between baseline Conceptual-Semantic Impairment and the Treatment Condition (Lexical vs. Semantic) was significant for verb Prophylaxis items at 3 and 18 Months, and it was significant for noun Prophylaxis items at 14 and 18 Months.

Conclusions

The pattern of results suggested that individuals who have modality-general conceptual-semantic impairment at baseline are more likely to benefit from lexical treatment, while individuals who have unimpaired conceptual-semantic processing at baseline are more likely to benefit from semantic treatment as the disorder progresses. In contrast to conceptual-semantic impairment, diagnostic subtype did not typically predict the treatment effects.

KEYWORDS:

• anomia
• treatment
• primary progressive aphasia
• Alzheimer’s disease
• conceptual
• semantic

Disclosure Statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported by the NIDCD and NIA under grant number R01DC011317. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02675270