Skip to Content
Brain SciencesBrain Sciences
  • Systematic Review
  • Open Access

8 December 2024

Advancing Neuropsychological Rehabilitation in Primary Progressive Aphasia Based on Principles of Cognitive Neuroscience: A Scoping Review and Systematic Analysis of the Data

and
1
Department of Psychiatry, University General Hospital of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece
2
Department of Speech and Language Therapy, University of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Section Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

Background/Objectives: This systematic review of neuropsychological rehabilitation strategies for primary progressive aphasia will consider recent developments in cognitive neuroscience, especially neuroimaging techniques such as EEG and fMRI, to outline how these tools might be integrated into clinical practice to maximize treatment outcomes. Methods: A systematic search of peer-reviewed literature from the last decade was performed following the PRISMA guidelines across multiple databases. A total of 63 studies were included, guided by predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, with a focus on cognitive and language rehabilitation in PPA, interventions guided by neuroimaging, and mechanisms of neuroplasticity. Results: Integration of neuroimaging techniques contributes to the increase in the efficacy of interventions with critical information about the neural mechanisms underlying language deficits in the aphasias. Traditional rehabilitation strategies, technology-assisted interventions, and non-invasive brain stimulation techniques hold considerable promise for language improvement. Neuroimaging was also found to be necessary in subtype-specific differentiation toward tailoring therapeutic intervention. Evidence also shows that directed and sustained interventions using neuroplasticity can have long-term effects in managing the symptoms of PPA. Conclusions: The present review underlines the necessity of including cognitive neuroscience techniques within neuropsychological rehabilitation to enhance therapeutic outcomes in PPA. In addition, neuroimaging modalities such as EEG and fMRI are also of great importance in understanding the underlying neurobiology of language disturbances and guiding tailored interventions. Long-term benefits of these approaches should be evaluated, including their applicability in routine clinical practice.

1. Introduction

Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is an acquired neurodegenerative syndrome that leads to language disturbance and impacts quality of life. PPA decreases the life quality of patients since it causes impairments in social communication goals and ruptures important relations. Rehabilitation in people diagnosed with PPAS has been evolving in the latest years, providing insights for the appropriate methods as well as brain plasticity measures [1,2,3]. There are only a few intervention studies focused on PPA, and far less is known about the rehabilitation of scene descriptions in PPA than about rehabilitation of single-word processing. Research on neuropsychological rehabilitation for patients with PPA to promote communication has made some progress in recent years, but many questions remain, and developing interventions is often an iterative and exploratory process [4,5,6,7,8].
Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) refers to a syndromic entity whose clinical features are primary language deficits, except for agrammatism, presenting in a progressive and insidious manner. The 2011 classification established three variants for PPA, as follows: the non-fluent agrammatic variant (nfvPPA) defined by speech apraxia and/or agrammatism, the semantic variant (svPPA) delineated by the loss of word meanings and surface dyslexia, and the logopenic variant (lvPPA) characterized by speech hesitations, impaired repetition, and phonological awareness deficits. nfvPPA, svPPA, or lvPPA are also linked to different focal cortical atrophy and underlying proteinopathies, with nfvPPA correlated with the 4-repeat (4R) tau pathology, lvPPA associated with Alzheimer’s disease pathology, and svPPA related to the TDP-43 type C pathology [9,10]. Although variable labeling and research frameworks across history have been introduced, the nfvPPA/subcortical description is commonly identified as a progressive right hemisphere syndrome, with some subtle semantic impairment, especially in the domains of metaphor comprehension and complex sentence interpretation. Concerning its prevalence, cumulative global nfvPPA prevalence in prospective and retrospective multidomain dementias cohorts stands around 16%, representing almost a third of a miscellanea of presentations with impaired language and social cognition [11,12,13].
Individuals with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) display varying profiles of language and associated cognitive impairments related to different neurodegenerative diseases. The advent of therapies to treat aphasia associated with stroke has driven a more focused search for evidence-based interventions in PPA. However, evidence-based guidelines for neuropsychological interventions in PPA are not yet available, but they have the potential to impact the quality of life for a group of patients who are relatively young and previously unable to be helped by available treatments. In many cases, neuropsychological rehabilitation has been challenging and less effective because of the heterogeneity of the PPA syndrome and its clinical manifestations. Thus, the establishment of a consensus across different institutions and the promotion of training in this specific field can provide these undeniably needed standards in terms of practice and academic research [14].
PPA is a subset of progressive aphasias, rather than a variant of frontotemporal dementia, that is characterized by an insidious development of progressive decline affecting language-related activities of daily living over an interval of at least two years in the absence of other neurological or psychiatric illnesses, preceding the onset of memory, behavior, and visual impairments by at least two years. In the South African context, PPA is most seen in the older patient group and is often accompanied by additional signs of language deficits. Individuals with PPA have neurodegeneration, which primarily involves the language-dominant left half of the brain and is often right-handed. This supports the fact that language impairment is likely to considerably influence cognitive performance in these patients. To date, only two studies have considered the potential for rehabilitation in PPA, in the form of two case studies with conflicting results [15,16].
Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a disorder that primarily affects language, speech, and communication because of focal neurodegeneration. Neuropsychological deficits of PPA include language and communication impairments that affect listening, reading, speaking, and writing, cognitive impairments such as apraxia, visuospatial deficits, or executive control, and emotional recognition and production. The disorders in people with PPA lead to several potential social, psychological, and quality of life issues. Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a language-dominant, focal neurodegenerative disorder with a prevalence of 6 out of 100,000. Patients with PPA typically start the disease in their 50s/60s and typically survive another 8 years. The literature differentiates three clinical variants of PPA in accordance with the guidelines for the classification of PPA developed by a group of international experts. Regardless of the etiological heterogeneity, PPA has some consistent features, including decline in cognitive functions other than language and pervasive management of treatment and rehabilitation required to improve the quality of life of patients and caregivers. Therefore, the present study was performed to analyze the progress in the field of neuropsychological rehabilitation of individuals with PPA [1,17].
Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a devastating neurodegenerative syndrome that affects mostly younger individuals. The condition is slowly progressive and results in a variety of language and communication deficits. There are three broad classes of the condition: non-semantic PPA, semantic PPA, and logopenic PPA. Each of the PPA variants has somewhat unique features. Although people with non-fluent PPA are often hesitant, they can still produce powerful and effective communicative interactions. On the other hand, compared with people with non-fluent PPA, individuals with a severe form of the condition or with agrammatism or apraxia of speech in isolation become mostly silent. They show little voluntary communication and a striking paucity of speech (that is often termed “selective mutism”) [5,7].
Impairments in any or all of these associated domains can have marked consequences for the individual’s capacity for independence, social engagement, and well-being. Importantly, PPA results from progressive damage to neural networks that stretch well beyond “language areas”. This complexity in neuropsychological profile is an important contributory factor to “rehabilitation failure” when an exclusively neuropsychological approach is taken. Moreover, spared cognitive-linguistic abilities are necessary for a patient response to a rehabilitation program focused on those spared abilities. To address these complex cognitive-linguistic issues, a shift from insights informed by the field of neuropsychology to insights from cognitive neuroscience has occurred in the field of neurorehabilitation in the last five years. Neuropsychological rehabilitation incorporating insights from cognitive neuroscience is the field of neuropsychological rehabilitation that emphasizes patient-tailored treatments based on current knowledge on the normal, adaptive cognitive neuroscience at the root of an experimental rehabilitation intervention [11,18].
Cognitive impairments associated with PPA may affect individuals at different linguistic stages, which are not exclusive to brain areas but are synthetically presented by the current taxonomy. Impairments at the word and sentence level are likely to compromise the phonological, semantic, and morphosyntactic subcomponents due to the spread of degeneration in the connected networks that support single word and sentence processing. At the discourse level, PPA patients show word-finding difficulties, impeding topic development and integration, beyond a reduction in lexical-semantic fluency paralleled by a difficulty in manipulatable noun–attribute combinations and associative relationships. Non-linguistic performance may be normal, or those with logopenic PPA may show deficits in visual short-term memory and visuospatial function. Language comprehension of syntactically complex sentences is often impaired, even in agrammatic PPA types, unlike healthy elderly subjects showing syntactic deficits only when tasks become more demanding. Syntactic comprehension difficulty is mainly related to connected speech comprehension, but it can also appear when linguistic material is presented per modality (i.e., as a single linguistic input), as syntactic comprehension is intertwined with syntactic decoding processes [19,20,21].
Further impairments other than language are crucial for their subtle nature and role in shaping semantic access and word knowledge. Executive dysfunctions are reported in “phonological PPA” patients, a descriptive term used in this study to denote cases with prominent phonological processing deficits. These align with characteristics of the logopenic variant of PPA (lvPPA) but are emphasized here to highlight specific rehabilitation targets for phonological impairments. Patients with early executive deficits for verbal fluency tasks and an impetus for constraining semantic-access-driven behavior often show these features. Behavioral disturbances do occur and are potentially impairing. Apathy, depression, anxiety, and irritability occur at a similar frequency across the three PPA variants. Behavioral disturbances can consist of impulsiveness, disinhibition, and compulsivity, on the grounds of PPA patients being master processors. PPA patients have poor insight, and the decreased self-awareness is associated with specific areas of brain atrophy [21,22,23].
A handful of studies have suggested that speech and language therapy may confer potential benefits for some individuals with PPA, particularly those with the logopenic and nonfluent agrammatic syndromes. Traditional approaches to rehabilitation in PPA have taken a neurolinguistic framework, focusing on the use of semantic, phonological, pragmatic, and other language compensation techniques. A systematic analysis performed in 2023 [24] demonstrated promising results using traditional behavioral interventions (i.e., therapy, self-training) aimed at improving object naming performance. In comparison to the Randomized Control Trials (RCTs), the effects of traditional PPA rehabilitation are generally very mild (small effect sizes based on current meta-analysis) and the sustainability of these interventions is, however, very poorly investigated [24,25,26,27,28].
Within recent years, emerging technology-assisted interventions have recently shown preliminary evidence of feasibility, safety, and efficacy. New brain rehabilitation techniques for PPA include the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate the excitability of underlying cortical areas. Improvements on object naming following stimulation have extended up to 6 months for one individual with svPPA. However, larger-scale RCTs are needed before drawing any firm conclusion on the efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation rehabilitation on language in PPA. In agreement with the cognitive neuroscience literature on semantic regulation, recent attempts at cognitive neurostimulation combined with language therapy for single individuals with svPPA have also shown promising results. However, these findings need replication to ascertain the efficacy of this approach in larger cohorts of PPA patients and across PPA clinical syndromes [8,11,15].
Traditionally, the focus of therapy has been to train targeting skills that are least affected by pathology to perform compensatory strategies focused on improving the functional communication profile of PPA patients. In the next paragraph, we will describe the main rehabilitation strategies used for PPA. Some authors have proposed an aggressive approach that prioritizes verbal strategies, as well as emphasizing the importance of maintaining the autonomy and professional activities of individuals with PPA, bringing exclusive impairment in language. Most PPA rehabilitation techniques are related to speech and language therapy interventions aimed at minimizing limitations and maximizing functional speech and language skills. In addition, studies have focused attention on cognitive training, which encompasses various interventions that aim to maintain and/or improve cognitive, emotional, social, and communicative functions, as well as optimizing memory, attention, speed of psychological processes, executive functions, language, perception, and motor skills, among others. Other strategies range from semantic or naming exercises to strategies and techniques for maintaining and exploiting previously learned automatic communication skills and retrieval of general cognitive strategies. Robust studies confirm the positive influence of speech and language therapy on PPA outcomes. In general, neurocognitive interventions aiming to improve naming for objects are more effective with PPA patients [11,24,25,26].
One of the cognitive training strategies involves perilesional training, with the aim of compensating for the progressive failure in language and communication, preserving remaining functions, and improving language performance and other cognitive mechanisms. In addition, exercises based on the initial transmission by sub-lexical routes can activate alternative systems, inducing higher levels of the processing hierarchy for the treatment of reading words or directing the processing pattern in these patients, according to the lexical status of the stimulations. Incorporating a high number of potential targets in the treatment may result in non-target-specific benefit for word-finding [27,28,29].
In recent years, an increasing number of technology-assisted interventions have been introduced to academic literature that focus on the rehabilitation of people with PPA. The majority can be classified as digitally supported interventions, having used new innovative technologies and digital platforms, including teletherapy to support language and communication improvement or cognitive training with Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) or behavior therapy components. Language therapy primarily enhances multilingual skills or communication in the advanced stages of PPA; as such, these approaches fall outside the category of neuropsychological rehabilitation [30,31,32].

2. Methods

2.1. Research Questions

Despite major advances in understanding primary progressive aphasia (PPA), the critical interplay between language and cognitive impairments remains underexplored, limiting the development of comprehensive therapeutic strategies. The research questions posed below in this review will try to fill these gaps by leveraging neuroimaging advancements and targeted cognitive therapies to align rehabilitation strategies with the specific neurobiological profiles of PPA subtypes.
  • [RQ1] What are the most effective rehabilitation strategies to slow language decline and enhance communication in individuals with primary progressive aphasia (PPA), tailored to its variants?
  • Effective rehabilitation strategies for primary progressive aphasia (PPA) not only can slow language decline but also can enhance functional communication.
  • [RQ2] How do neuroplastic changes and functional reorganization contribute to language improvement in patients with PPA undergoing rehabilitation?
  • Evidence from neuroimaging studies supported that neuroplastic changes and functional reorganization contribute crucially to language improvement.
  • [RQ3] What are the long-term effects of speech and cognitive training in primary progressive aphasia (PPA) patients, and how do key prognostic factors influence the progression of neurodegeneration and therapy outcomes?
  • Speech and cognitive training can influence long-term outcomes in PPA patients, focusing on sustaining language and cognitive abilities over time (for instance, white matter integrity, cortical atrophy, and biomarkers like tau and amyloid).
  • [RQ4] How do structural and metabolic brain changes differ across subtypes of PPA, and how can they inform treatment?
  • Neuroimaging studies reveal distinct patterns of cortical atrophy across PPA subtypes, which inform therapeutic interventions targeting the affected brain regions.
  • [RQ5] What role does non-invasive brain stimulation (e.g., TMS, tDCS) play in improving language function in PPA patients?
  • Techniques like TMS and tDCS significantly improve speech production and naming when applied to language-related brain regions, inducing neuroplasticity.
  • [RQ6] How do changes in functional brain networks relate to the progression of language deficits in PPA?
  • Disruption in functional brain networks correlates with the severity of language deficits, with decreased connectivity contributing to deteriorating language abilities.
  • [RQ7] How can neuroimaging techniques be used to differentiate PPA subtypes and guide individualized treatment approaches?
  • MRI and PET scans differentiate PPA subtypes, guiding customized treatment plans, including targeted brain stimulation and cognitive rehabilitation.
  • [RQ8] How can cognitive rehabilitation and neuroimaging-guided therapeutic interventions work together to optimize outcomes for PPA patients?
Combining cognitive rehabilitation with neuroimaging allows for personalized treatment plans that evolve with disorder progression, incorporating brain stimulation and adaptive therapy based on structural changes.
By addressing these research questions, this paper provides a comprehensive roadmap for advancing PPA treatment, emphasizing the integration of cognitive rehabilitation, neuroimaging techniques, and personalized therapeutic strategies to improve patient outcomes.
This study will be guided by several research questions (RQs) that cumulatively address the major conundrums of primary progressive aphasia with reference to understanding and managing it. The RQs are designed in such a manner as to build all aspects of comprehensive research, including diagnostic, treatment, and long-term healthcare for patients. The questions cover key areas, such as identifying effective cognitive and language rehabilitation strategies (RQ1), the role played by neuroplasticity in language improvement (RQ2), and long-term effects of such interventions and also prognostic factors predicting disorder progression (RQ3). Another area that has stressed the use of neuroimaging techniques in the differentiation of the subtypes of PPA is RQ4, and RQ7 addresses the underlying mechanisms of the language deficits, including brain structural and functional changes—RQ5, RQ6. It will also be important to understand how cognitive rehabilitation can be integrated within neuroimaging-guided therapeutic approaches (RQ8). This will, therefore, bridge the gaps between neurobiological insights, diagnostic advancements, and practical therapeutic applications, ultimately establishing a basis for more personalized, evidence-based intervention in PPA.

2.2. Scope

The scope of this research focuses on understanding and optimizing therapeutic interventions for primary progressive aphasia (PPA) through cognitive rehabilitation and neuroimaging-guided strategies. Specifically, it aims to explore how different subtypes of PPA respond to targeted language and cognitive therapies, assess the role of neuroplasticity in language improvement, and investigate the use of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques like TMS and tDCS. By utilizing neuroimaging techniques such as MRI, fMRI, PET, and DTI, this research examines how structural and functional brain changes can inform personalized treatment approaches. This study also aims to differentiate PPA subtypes based on neuroimaging findings and track how changes in brain networks correlate with the progression of language deficits. Additionally, it seeks to identify key prognostic factors that predict neurodegeneration and evaluate how cognitive rehabilitation can be tailored to optimize outcomes for PPA patients. Overall, the research integrates in the analysis cognitive and language therapy with advanced neuroimaging techniques to provide a comprehensive understanding of how these interventions can be combined to slow the progression of PPA and improve patient quality of life. It also contributes to developing individualized, data-driven therapeutic strategies for each PPA subtype. For this purpose, it addresses several key research questions that aim to enhance the understanding of PPA and optimize therapeutic strategies.

2.3. Search Strategy

This systematic review has been conducted according to the reporting guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA), to ensure both methodological rigor and transparency throughout the collection and analysis process. The search strategy that led to the collection of the 63 papers included in the table started with a clearly defined research objective, which was to gather studies on cognitive and language rehabilitation in primary progressive aphasia (PPA), along with related neuropsychological and neuroimaging insights. Several academic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PsycINFO have been used to search for relevant literature across medical, neuropsychological, and cognitive neuroscience fields. The search focused on key terms related to PPA, rehabilitation, and neuroimaging. Keywords and phrases such as Primary Progressive Aphasia, Cognitive Rehabilitation in PPA, Language Therapy in PPA, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, Speech and Language Training in Neurodegenerative Disorders, Neuroplasticity in PPA, Functional MRI in PPA, Brain Stimulation in PPA, PPA Subtypes (e.g., Agrammatic PPA, Logopenic PPA, Semantic PPA), Metabolic Brain Changes in PPA, White Matter Changes in PPA, and Long-term Outcomes of Cognitive Training in PPA were used. These terms were combined to create comprehensive search strings aimed at retrieving the most relevant studies. Search strings combining terms such as (“Primary Progressive Aphasia” OR “PPA”) AND (“cognitive rehabilitation” OR “language therapy” OR “speech training”), (“Primary Progressive Aphasia”) AND (“TMS” OR “tDCS” OR “brain stimulation”) AND (“language improvement” OR “cognitive training”), and (“PPA subtypes” OR “agrammatic” OR “logopenic” OR “semantic”) AND (“neuroimaging” OR “fMRI” OR “PET” OR “white matter integrity”) were employed to cover various facets of PPA treatment and neuroimaging. These queries helped to retrieve research on neuroplasticity and how it contributes to brain recovery in PPA patients undergoing different types of rehabilitation.

2.4. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

To achieve a comprehensive, methodologically rigorous review, predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were established according to PRISMA guidelines. The criteria were designed to capture the most relevant studies addressing neuropsychological rehabilitation in primary progressive aphasia (PPA) while maintaining the review’s focus on high-quality, peer-reviewed evidence. These criteria were applied in the systematic search of multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PsycINFO, to identify the studies consistent with the aims of this review. Every one of the criteria has been carefully selected to ensure the included studies provide relevant insights into cognitive rehabilitation, neuroimaging-guided interventions, and mechanisms of neuroplasticity in PPA.
Inclusion Criteria:
  • Studies that focus specifically on primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and its subtypes.
  • Research examining cognitive and language rehabilitation interventions in PPA.
  • Articles exploring neuroplasticity mechanisms or utilizing neuroimaging techniques (e.g., MRI, PET, DTI) to study PPA.
  • Peer-reviewed articles published in English.
  • Studies published between 2000 and 2023, ensuring relevance to current research trends and methodologies.
  • Research with clearly defined methodologies, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, or meta-analyses.
  • Studies presenting original data or findings directly related to the review’s objectives.
  • Exclusion Criteria:
  • Non-peer-reviewed articles, including opinion pieces, editorials, or commentaries.
  • Studies not directly addressing PPA or its subtypes, such as those focusing on broader neurodegenerative disorders.
  • Research on rehabilitation or neuroimaging unrelated to cognitive or language deficits.
  • Articles published in languages other than English.
  • Studies with insufficient methodological rigor, such as those with small sample sizes or lacking appropriate controls.
  • Publications focusing solely on theoretical frameworks or computational modeling without empirical validation.
This comprehensive search strategy produced a set of studies addressing cognitive and language rehabilitation, neuroimaging-guided interventions, and brain plasticity in PPA patients. These papers were instrumental in answering the key research questions related to PPA subtypes, their treatment, and the mechanisms of neuroplasticity that support language improvement.

2.5. Analytical Search Process

The search process began by identifying 520 records through database searches across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PsycINFO. After removing duplicates, 419 unique records remained. These records were then screened based on title and abstract, which led to the exclusion of 270 articles that were off-topic or irrelevant to the focus on PPA and cognitive rehabilitation. This left 149 articles for further review. A full-text assessment was conducted on these 149 articles. After careful review, 39 articles were excluded for focusing on other neurodegenerative diseases without direct relevance to PPA. An additional series of 30 articles was excluded for not addressing cognitive rehabilitation or neuroimaging in PPA, and 17 articles were removed due to insufficient data or lack of detailed outcomes. After this eligibility review, 63 articles met the inclusion criteria and were selected for qualitative synthesis (Figure 1). In summary, the process started with 520 records, and after screening and eligibility reviews, 63 articles were included in the final review (Table 1). These studies provided insights into PPA-related cognitive rehabilitation and neuroimaging, forming the basis for the systematic analysis [33]. This study is registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF) under doi: 10.17605/osf.io/mh72p, ensuring transparency and reproducibility.
Figure 1. Flowchart of PRISMA methodology.
Table 1. Research articles of systematic analysis (N = 63).

3. Results

Research on primary progressive aphasia has recently developed in two main directions: one dealing with cognitive and linguistic rehabilitation and the other dealing with neurological and therapeutic insights. Research on cognitive rehabilitation includes behavioral interventions, like naming exercises and speech-language therapy, but also encompasses neuroplasticity and personalized approaches based on the subtypes. In contrast, neurological insights examine changes in the brain through neuroimaging techniques—e.g., MRI, PET—and brain stimulation methods, such as TMS and tDCS, to improve language function for individualized treatment. Taken together, these categories present a comprehensive overview of the treatment modalities in PPA by combining practical rehabilitation with neurological techniques. Specific research questions regarding these categories are discussed in detail in the following section.

3.1. Cognitive and Language Rehabilitation [36 Papers]

  • [RQ1]: What are the most effective rehabilitation strategies to slow language decline and enhance communication in individuals with primary progressive aphasia (PPA), tailored to its variants?
Most of the cognitive and language rehabilitation in PPA patients stress the need for a more focused, individualized approach. More than ever, intensive language therapies, such as naming tasks and speech production exercises, have considerably improved language improvement among these PPA patients. The study [55] documented behavioral and neuroimaging changes following the treatment of naming therapy, which significantly eased the conditions of patients with word retrieval difficulties. Further, this supports the proposition that consistent language practice matched to the patient’s deficit can substantially improve communication. Another major characteristic is the individualization and flexibility of interventions. For example, researchers in the study [73] reported that personalized speech and language therapy adapted to the patients’ changing needs managed to slow down the deterioration of language functions. Adaptive therapy allows ongoing adjustments in the treatment of the patient as the PPA continues, with the purpose of sustaining the essential skills of language for as long as possible.
Cognitive training programs that engage the patient both in linguistic and non-linguistic cognitive exercises add to better language outcomes and cognitive reserve. For instance, researchers in their study [60] have shown that cognitive training promoted neuroplasticity, with functional MRI showing increased brain activity in language-related regions even in advanced stages of PPA. This would indicate that, let alone the fact that cognitive exercises support language function, they also enhance the resilience of the brain against neurodegeneration. In fact, the effectiveness of language rehabilitation depends upon a specific subtype of PPA. For example, it was shown by the study [76] that persons with the agrammatic variant respond better to interventions focused on sentence construction and speech production, while persons with the logopenic variant responded better to working memory and phonological training. Therapy should be individualized according to the linguistic difficulties of each PPA subtype for optimal treatment outcomes [75].
Novel approaches to language rehabilitation include the use of emerging technologies such as Brain–Computer Interface (BCIs). Specifically, the study [36] illustrated how BCIs could engage patients more with exercises on language to thus yield better word retrieval and sentence construction. These findings bring out the potential that technology exists to assist traditional strategies of rehabilitation. Other studies have supported the application of both behavioral and cognitive rehabilitation strategies together with neuroimaging techniques that monitor progress, allowing specific adaptation of the intervention. For example, studies like [49,62] have used neuroimaging to assess changes in brain structure over the course of therapy, showing that some rehabilitation strategies are associated with specific changes in the brain, thereby further informing refinement of treatment approaches. These findings, taken together, suggest that the multidimensional approach is the best practice for cognitive and language rehabilitation in PPA. This includes personalized, adaptive therapy combined with neuroplasticity-enhancing cognitive training, as well as emerging technologies such as BCIs that may offer a potentially profoundly enhancing effect on language function. Such strategies—especially those tailored to the PPA subtype—offer the most promise for slowing the progression of language deficits and optimizing patient outcomes.
Different variants of PPA tend to show somewhat divergent responses to cognitive and linguistic rehabilitation according to characteristic patterns of impairment. In the case of the agrammatic variant, where the impact of the disease falls on speech production and grammar, interventions that address sentence construction and motor speech are remarkably successful. For instance, the study [76] showed how speech and language therapy focused on grammatical structure and articulation led to remarkable improvements in the same direction. This subtype tends to be related to lesions of the left inferior frontal gyrus, and therapies that engage these areas can enable patients to better handle syntactic deficits.
By contrast, word retrieval and phonological processing difficulties dominate in the logopenic variant. Working memory and phonological tasks are the most valuable interventions here. Researchers in their study [49] documented that, among logopenic PPA patients, training based on repetition of words and phonological skills became effective in the case of language outcome improvements. This variant typically involves the posterior temporoparietal junction, and therapies that have as a goal the stimulation of the remaining capacity of this region to process language emerge in improved word retrieval and sentence repetition.
Semantic memory exercises are, without doubt, necessary for rehabilitation in such a semantic variant, where the patients gradually lose the ability to understand and remember the meaning of words. Another study [78] found lexical retrieval tasks and exercises that enhanced comprehension of word meanings improved communicational ability in patients. Degeneration often involves the anterior temporal lobe in this variant, and therapy stimulating those areas can slow down the process of decline in word recognition and usage [44].
Research also shows the need to adjust therapy over time as the disorder progresses. According to the study [73] persons with early-stage agrammatism benefited from speech production-focused interventions, while in later stages, a broader focus is necessary on maintaining communication ability when motor speech deteriorates. This adaptive approach could maintain the patient’s interest and ensure that outcomes are optimized over time.
Less invasive brain approaches, including BCIs and non-invasive stimulation techniques such as TMS, also offer hope across PPA variants. Researchers in their study [35] reported improved word retrieval across PPA variants after BCIs, which had been used in conjunction with language exercises, although the effects differed depending on the type of impairment. These technologies offer one means to supplement conventional therapy and further engage the brain’s capacity for recovery. Tailoring rehabilitation approaches to the specific impairments of each variant therefore ensures therapies target the most relevant neural circuits, leading to better language outcomes. Indeed, improvements have been demonstrated in agrammatic patients with grammar and speech production treatments, in logopenic patients with phonological and memory treatments, and in semantic variant patients with semantic memory treatments. Such targeted approaches optimize treatment effectiveness and help the patient maintain communication abilities for as long as possible.
  • [RQ2]: How do neuroplastic changes and functional reorganization contribute to language improvement in patients with PPA undergoing rehabilitation?
In this aspect, neuroplasticity has been a significant determinant of language improvement among patients with PPA undergoing rehabilitation. It has been observed that cognitive and linguistic treatments induce neuroplastic changes in the brain to enable patients to retain their language or even improve it, despite the progressive nature of the disorder. The study [60] indicates that specific cognitive rehabilitative programs in linguistic deficiencies may be able to engage alternative neural pathways. Functional MRI scans have demonstrated increased activity in the language areas after treatment, indicating that the brain has the capability to reorganize and make up for a damaged area. Behavioral therapies, such as naming and word-retrieval therapies, have also been associated with neuroplastic changes [43].
For instance, the study [55] demonstrated that following intensive naming therapy, patients indeed improved not only in language production but also in neural activity supported through neuroimaging. Such changes indicate that the neuroplasticity of regions of the intact brain can be stimulated through appropriate interventions to take over some functions of the affected areas. Consistent with the hypothesis that rehabilitation promotes neuroplasticity, longitudinal neuroimaging has, in fact, documented changes in language networks: for example, researchers in their study [49] followed patients undergoing speech and cognitive therapy using structural and functional MRI studies [41]. The results revealed compensatory activity in both hemispheres following the treatment. Such post-injury redistribution of neural activity is a classic manifestation of the brain’s tendency to reorganize and optimize residual resources to support language improvement [47].
Another conclusion drawn from the research [76] is that different variants of PPA may be associated with different forms of neuroplastic change. For example, in the agrammatic variant, speech production therapy was combined with the recruitment of surrounding areas into motor and syntactic activity. Working memory treatment of logopenic patients allowed them to activate alternative neural networks working on phonological processing. That would mean neuroplasticity, although contributing to language improvement itself, might be employed and utilized differently depending on the specific deficits of each PPA subtype [74,78].
In addition, the integration of conventional treatment methods with non-invasive stimulation procedures, such as tDCS, increased neuroplasticity to the fullest extent. Researchers [35] studied that tDCS, together with cognitive training, enhanced the brain’s ability to form new connections and hence increased the pace of language improvement. These studies focus on how the use of brain stimulation procedures is equally important as that of the actual rehabilitation programs for full neuroplasticity and revelation of the hidden language improvement [40].
Evidence supports the fact that neuroplasticity can be considered the main mechanism of language improvement in PPA patients. This might be even more facilitated by rehabilitation programs challenging the brain with cognitive and linguistic exercises, especially when combined with neuroimaging and cortical stimulation to permit compensation by the brain for the degenerative effect of PPA. This underlines the need for an individualized and intensive therapy that focuses on specific neural pathways to enable long-lasting recovery [48].
  • [RQ3]: What are the long-term effects of speech and cognitive training in primary progressive aphasia (PPA) patients, and how do key prognostic factors influence the progression of neurodegeneration and therapy outcomes?
Long-term effects of speech and cognitive training in PPA patients reveal that not only does sustained engagement in targeted interventions slow down the decline of the language of these people, but its effectiveness also diminishes as the disorder progresses. These studies underlined how the course of continuous therapy may be needed to sustain communication abilities over time.
Speech and language training are quite helpful early during the disorder. Regular naming and word-retrieval exercises, according to the study [26], allowed patients with such treatment to sustain verbal abilities longer than those not so treated. This agrees with the study [73], which showed that early treatment in the agrammatic variant of PPA slowed sentence generation and motor speech skill loss. Similarly, targeted therapy in the study [34] to specific linguistic deficits allowed patients to improve their word-retrieval and reduce hesitation in speech, hence facilitating their daily communication.
Positive effects of language and cognitive therapy often diminished during the middle to late stages of PPA, although benefits remained. Indeed, patients in advanced stages of PPA, especially those with significant motor speech difficulties, benefited less from traditional speech therapy according to the study [76]. The ongoing therapy provided ongoing strategies for the patients to manage communication breakdowns and improve quality of life. This agrees with the study [62] which further observed that language treatment in the semantic variant of PPA continued to aid in word comprehension, though at a reduced rate of improvement.
Cognitive training, especially when embedded in speech language therapy, supports the long-term maintenance of cognitive-linguistic competencies. Researchers in their study [60] provided evidence that the integration of cognitive exercises within language rehabilitation strengthened word-retrieval abilities and supported neuroplasticity changes associated with preserving executive functions. These findings were reinforced by the results of the study [59], which demonstrated that cognitive training programs that targeted memory and language functions contributed to slowing the rate of cognitive deterioration even at advanced PPA stages.
For instance, speech language therapy must be adapted to the progressive decline in the patient’s capabilities. This is the time when the study [32] showed that interventions must change from early speech production into later stages of using augmentative tools. Similarly, as the language competencies declined, researchers in their study [62] showed that patients with PPA needed more integrated approaches that combine cognitive and behavioral therapies.
Over the past several years, interventions with various technologies have prolonged the therapeutic effects of rehabilitation in PPA. Furthermore, the studies [35,53] mentioned BCIs and TMS use in the prolongation of conventional therapy therapeutic efficacy. These techniques have shown promise in improving word-retrieval and sentence-construction tasks, particularly during the early and mid-stages of the disease, thus offering a ray of hope for prolonging therapeutic benefits.To sum up, speech and cognitive training over long periods in PPA may defer language deterioration, particularly in early and middle stages of the disorder. While the effectiveness of therapy is reduced in later stages of the disease, adaptive approaches to therapy, including integration of new technologies, help maintain communication abilities. Continuous, personalized interventions evolve to keep up with the changes in the patient’s condition, providing the most important long-term benefits as demonstrated in the series of studies [59,60,73].
Important predictors of the course of neurodegeneration have provided insight into how specific biological markers and brain changes may indicate the rate of decline and help guide treatment approaches in PPA. Indeed, unique factors such as genetic markers, neuroimaging findings, and cognitive testing have been identified from various literatures that provide an early warning of the pace and pattern of degeneration across variants of PPA. The main prognosis factors are the presence of tau and amyloid proteins. These pathologic proteins, associated also with other neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, have been found in various concentrations in PPA patients. For example, the study [56] confirms that higher levels of tau pathology in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) were predictive of a faster decline in language function, especially in the logopenic variant of PPA. This might reflect that tau burden is a great factor in progression neurodegeneration, and it would be clinically useful to identify those patients showing a faster decline.
Another important factor is integrity of white matter. Researchers [73] conducted DTI studies, which quantify the white matter tracts in the brain, and found out the degree of destruction of white matter, especially within the language-related arcuate fasciculus strongly related to the rate of decline in speech and comprehension. Those patients with more white matter loss showed linguistic and other, non-linguistic cognitive abilities dropping more swiftly. This underlines white matter degeneration as a crucial biomarker able to predict the general course of the disease.
Cortical atrophy patterns also provide important information with respect to prognosis. Researchers in their study [38] examined the relationship between atrophy in specific brain regions and the course of language decline. The investigators found that individuals showing marked atrophy in the left anterior temporal lobe, a common pattern for the semantic variant of PPA, experienced a faster decline in semantic memory. Those subjects with greater atrophy within the posterior parietal regions of the logopenic variant manifested a significantly faster decline in phonological processing and sentence repetition. This would suggest that localization and extent of atrophy have some predictive value about which cognitive functions will show the fastest decline.
This also includes the study of genetic mutations. For example, the study [74] has demonstrated that carriers of mutations in the frontotemporal lobar degeneration-related gene GRN (progranulin) exhibit faster neurodegeneration, particularly in the non-fluent variants of PPA. Indeed, mutations in GRN have been associated with faster rates of brain atrophy and more severe language impairment early in the course of the disease. This genetic marker holds very useful predictive information that allows earlier and more aggressive interventions [63].
Functional neuroimaging techniques, such as positron emission tomography (PET), have been paramount in identifying declines in metabolism that predict the progression of a disease. Researchers in their study [62] used PET imaging to explore glucose metabolism across key language areas and found that lower metabolic activity in the left frontal and temporal lobes was associated with faster progression in speech production and comprehension. This reflects low metabolic activity that is considered as an early biomarker for neurodegeneration, normally preceding significant structural atrophy.
Finally, there is evidence that cognitive testing at baseline is predictive of long-term outcomes. Those patients who present with significant deficits in specific language performance such as sentence repetition or comprehension at the time of diagnosis tend to decline more quickly. Indeed, the research [59] confirmed that poor scores in those language tasks at initial testing were most likely to show an accelerated decline in related cognitive abilities, thus indicating that early cognitive profiles are a very useful prognostic tool for clinicians.
In a nutshell, tau pathology, white matter integrity loss, cortical atrophy patterns, genetic mutation, low PET metabolic activity, and early cognitive test results are the integrated factors in prognosis when neurodegenerative course prediction is made in PPA. These represent important points of view on how the disorder would likely progress, represented in the studies [56,73] allowing for earlier intervention and permitting a treatment approach to be better personalized.

3.2. Neurological and Therapeutic Insights [27 Papers]

  • [RQ4]: How do structural and metabolic brain changes differ across subtypes of PPA, and how can they inform treatment?
Such research on the variability of structural and metabolic brain changes among subtypes of PPA informs critical insights for tailored therapeutic approaches. Previous neuroimaging has documented that different subtypes affect different areas of the brain, and such patterns may inform more specific treatments.
In the agrammatic variant of PPA, structural imaging has consistently shown atrophy of the left inferior frontal gyrus and insula, which are critical sites for syntactic processing and motor speech control. The study [49] pointed out that this is due to localized atrophy in those regions using MRI scans, which directly leads to impaired sentence construction and motor speech deficits. Regarding therapy within the context of agrammatic PPA, it has often focused on the improvement of speech production and grammatical processing with the aim of activating the left frontal lobe functional residues. Researchers in their study [73] went on to overemphasize the fact that such an atrophy pattern further informs the application of language production exercises based on the motor speech circuits, slowing down syntactical ability decline.
Brain imaging within the logopenic variant reveals prominent atrophy and metabolic changes at the posterior temporoparietal junction, predominantly within structures involved in phonological processing and working memory. These regions have been demonstrated in the study [62], both through structural and functional imaging techniques, to be affected by decreased connectivity and hypometabolism, ultimately deriving into impaired word retrieval and sentence repetition. This variant’s specific neural patterns indicate the necessity for treatments focused on phonological loop training and exercises of working memory that would enable such patients to preserve word-retrieval abilities. The study [78] agrees with such a suggestion, stating that treatments targeted at improving working memory and matched for the logopenic variant result in higher success.
In direct contrast, the semantic variant of PPA presents remarkable atrophy in the anterior temporal lobes of the brain accountable for storage and retrieval of semantic knowledge. As shown, the study [76] presents this atrophy as being closely related to disturbances in word comprehension and object recognition. Functional neuroimaging, in fact, reduces metabolism further in these areas, contributing to hallmark symptoms typical of this semantic variant. According to the study [73], some cognitive therapies targeted at the strengthening of semantic networks have been engineered in hopes of stimulating the remaining portions of the temporal lobe to slow the loss of word meaning. These findings show that, if nurtured through specific cognitive exercises, semantic memory allows a person to retain his language comprehension for a longer period.Another important aspect is the use of a multi-modality of imaging techniques during the study to monitor disorder progression and, when appropriate, changes to treatment. Other research, such as the study [59], used a combination of MRI and PET scans to examine structural atrophy and metabolic decline to understand how each subtype changes over time comprehensively. These various imaging techniques allow the clinician to tailor therapy to the specific patterns of decline demonstrated by the patient-a much more active and sensitive approach to treatment. For example, in the agrammatic variant of PPA, greater atrophy of the frontal lobes may suggest a focus on motor speech exercises, whereas, in the logopenic variant, reduced connectivity within the parietal regions may indicate a greater emphasis on working memory exercises [45].
Such developing techniques include methods of brain stimulation, such as TMS, which in turn have already been informed by neuroimaging findings. Additionally, the study [35] used structural imaging data to target the left inferior frontal gyrus in agrammatic PPA patients with TMS, thus stimulating residual areas capable of compensating for language deficits. Another study [53] also investigated the use of tDCS in logopenic PPA individuals; the stimulation of the temporoparietal junction improved working memory and phonological processing. All these kinds of brain stimulation importantly depend on accurate neuroimaging to determine which regions can be activated for assisting the sustaining of language [79,80,81,82,83].
In all, the spread of structural and metabolic changes within PPA subtypes is such that each variant might assume a characteristic pattern of atrophy and hypometabolism. These differences guide targeted therapeutic interventions that address the specific linguistic and cognitive challenges posed by each variant. Such treatments are informed and further refined by neuroimaging studies [49,62,76]. Innovative techniques, such as TMS and tDCS, hold promise for even further gains in patient outcomes using neuroimaging data to stimulate remaining functioning.
  • [RQ5]: What role does non-invasive brain stimulation (e.g., TMS, tDCS) play in improving language function in PPA patients?
Non-invasive stimulation of the brain, especially TMS and tDCS, is a treatment modality of increasing significance in effecting improvement in the language function of PPA patients by directly addressing disrupted neural pathways. These techniques have produced encouraging temporary language enhancements and, in some cases, long-term gains facilitated through the process of neuroplasticity.
For example, the study [76] suggested that TMS to the left inferior frontal gyrus in the agrammatic variant of PPA was able to activate areas of the brain responsible for creating grammatically appropriate sentences. Significant gains in fluency and grammatical accuracy were measured for patients receiving TMS in concert with conventional speech therapy. The most likely explanation for this mechanism is through stimulation of underused neural pathways that have begun to deteriorate, enabling the patient to continue maintaining language functions longer.
Logopenic PPA causes relatively different problems, as phonological processing and working memory are the more prominent impairments. Researchers in their study [86] the option of using tDCS to activate the posterior parietal region responsible for phonological retrieval to improve sentence repetition and word retrieval in patients. After some time, the routine use of tDCS resulted in consistent improvement in language performance due to the increased synaptic plasticity at the temporoparietal junction.
For example, some PPA variants have undergone a technique of multimodal brain stimulation, which uses different forms of non-invasive stimulation together, such as the use of simultaneous TMS and tDCS. In a study [67], researchers reported that dual stimulation over the frontal and parietal regions provided additive improvements for patients showing mixed features of PPA. This could be a novel approach in simultaneously enhancing grammatical processing and word retrieval functions by targeting multiple neural networks involved in language [39].
Neuroimaging methods, such as functional MRI, have been particularly helpful in the investigation of aftereffects of brain stimulation. Using fMRI, researchers in the study [84] were able to show that, following several weeks of tDCS treatment, PPA patients exhibited increased activity in both hemispheres, which reflects language processing being redistributed to less-affected areas. This increased bilateral activity is another important index of recruiting by the brain of a compensatory mechanism after the loss of function in the language areas, again pointing to neuroplasticity as a key role player in the efficacy of non-invasive stimulation techniques.
Another interesting development concerns personalized stimulation protocols, with the exact site and dosage of the stimulation matched individually based on neuroimaging profiles. As debated by the study [56], this allows the clinician to target only the most viable regions for each patient’s pattern of atrophy. Individualized tDCS protocols, adjusted to the individual’s cortical anatomy, might have caused less diffuse modulation of neural circuits and better outcomes in language retention compared to generalized stimulation protocols.
Less studied in the case of semantic variant PPA has been brain stimulation; however, some emerging evidence shows benefits. The study [38] showed that tDCS over the temporal lobes can help delay word comprehension abilities deterioration by enhancing residual portions of activity in the anterior temporal lobe. Although the deep-seated degeneration in semantic PPA makes direct stimulation challenging, targeting surrounding cortical areas seems to offer a certain level of protection.
Conclusion: Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques of TMS and tDCS are promising avenues toward the improvement of language functions in PPA patients by promoting neuroplasticity and enhancing compensatory neural mechanisms. Studies like [67,76,86] have shown that these techniques can be targeted to address language deficits related to specific variants of PPA and offer new hopes for long-term therapeutic benefit. In this regard, probable future brain stimulation in PPA should be more personalized and multimodal to increase treatment precision.
  • [RQ6]: How do changes in functional brain networks relate to the progression of language deficits in PPA?
Research into how functional brain network changes relate to the progression of language deficits in PPA has pointed out the critical role that neural connectivity plays in maintaining language abilities. Indeed, functional disconnections within and between brain networks involved in the language process gradually deteriorate linguistic capabilities of various types during progressive impairments in PPA. Specifically, neuroimaging has used fMRI and resting-state functional connectivity analyses, which have provided key insights into the changes corresponding to the progression of language deficits.
One of the most significant results appears to be the following: A strong correlation existed among functional disconnection between left hemisphere regions, particularly the frontotemporal language network, and speech production/comprehension reduction. Indeed, the study [82] reported reduced connectivity between the left inferior frontal gyrus (Broca’s area) and posterior temporal regions in patients with the agrammatic variant of PPA. Such a loss of connectivity disrupts the normal integration of syntactic processing, leading to a breakdown in sentence production and grammatical comprehension. This decline in functional connectivity between these regions is a biomarker for speech deficit development in which the reduced interaction between those regions directly relates to the worsening of language output.
More specifically, in the logopenic variant, functional changes in brain networks are more significant in those regions implicated in phonological processing and working memory. Researchers in their study [78] investigated, using resting-state fMRI, how disruption of the left temporoparietal junction, an area importantly implicated in phonological processing, relates to declines in word retrieval and repetition abilities. They found reduced connectivity between that region and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was associated with decreased performance of working memory and sentence repetition tasks, both symptoms indicative of logopenic PPA. The current study suggests that language impairments in this variant progress not only due to structural atrophy but also to the gradual loss of functional connections between critical language and working memory networks [54].
The semantic variant of PPA also exhibits salient functional network changes. The anterior temporal lobes responsible for word meaning and semantic processing progressively disengage from other temporal and frontal regions involved in higher-order language comprehension. Furthermore, researchers in the study [42] reported that with the rise in the severity of the disease, functional isolation within the anterior temporal lobe resulted in more impaired object recognition, word comprehension, and category fluency. They have also suggested that such isolation may be aggravated by the disruption of connections with regions typically involved in semantic memory retrieval, such as the left temporal pole and medial prefrontal cortex. This correspondence of such network disruptions was underlined to correspond with a steep decline in semantic memory; similarly, greater disconnection predicts faster progression of deficits.
The other information comes from studies of changes in whole-brain connectivity patterns using graph theory analysis applications [46]. The study [87] had also demonstrated a general loss of integration within the language network during PPA, with increased segregation between the residual functional parts of the brain. In patients with severe language deficits, brain networks became more modular; that is, different regions were less likely to interact with one another. Such a shift toward modularity reflects the diminished capacity of the brain for integrating complex language functions across multiple areas—a keystone for coherent speech and comprehension. Therefore, the study [87] underlined that such general network architecture modifications do represent, as a matter of fact, the hallmark of the progressive nature of PPA in so far as these point toward a general decline in cognitive and linguistic competencies.
Another compensatory role of the right hemisphere is seen as a response to the disconnect of the left hemisphere. In some patients, especially in agrammatic PPA, increased activity and connectivity can be observed in the right hemisphere’s homologous regions of the left language areas. This compensatory mechanism was explored by the study [77], which noted that during the early stages, stronger functional connectivity between the right inferior frontal gyrus and right posterior temporal regions was associated with slower declines in speech production. As the disorder progressed, even this compensatory activity began to decline, signaling limits to the capacity of the brain to adapt to ongoing neurodegeneration.
Lastly, the default mode network (DMN), which is generally related to resting-state brain activity and engaged with higher-order cognitive functions, is also affected in PPA. The study [85] showed that the connectivity of the DMN progressively decreases in people with PPA, especially within areas like the posterior cingulate cortex and medial prefrontal cortex. These regions play an important role in maintaining cognitive flexibility and overall cognitive control that in turn is having an indirect influence on language performance. Loss of DMN connectivity is associated with faster progression of both linguistic and non-linguistic cognitive decline, pointing to its broader role in cognitive resilience in neurodegenerative conditions.
In summary, it is the disturbed functional brain networks, namely, the disturbance in the frontotemporal language network, phonological processing circuits, and semantic processing regions, that set the milestones during the progression of language deficits in PPA. The studies [42,82,87] have all been able to show that the loss of connectivity within and between such networks leads to acceleration in the decline of language functions. Both the increasing disconnection of the left hemisphere and the brain’s decreasing ability to compensate through right-hemisphere activity and global network reorganization with advancing PPA contribute to worsening language deficits.
  • [RQ7]: How can neuroimaging techniques be used to differentiate PPA subtypes and guide individualized treatment approaches?
Neuroimaging techniques have become an absolute necessity in the differential diagnosis of the different subtypes of primary progressive aphasia and in making treatment decisions due to their capability to provide information on detailed structural and functional alterations in the brain. It would therefore allow the identification of the exact detailing of atrophy patterns, metabolic deficits, and disrupted connectivity to help direct appropriate targeted therapeutic intervention for each PPA subtype [50].
Probably the most widely employed technique of structural neuroimaging in distinguishing PPA subtypes is MRI. MRI scans offer highly differentiated images of cortical atrophy that differ significantly across subtypes. The study [49] pointed out that agrammatic PPA is characterized by atrophy mainly in the left posterior frontal regions, especially in the inferior frontal gyrus, a site critical for speech production and grammatical processing. By comparison, the semantic variant reveals far more significant atrophy of the anterior temporal lobes responsible for semantic memory and word understanding. Conversely, in the logopenic variant, atrophy predominates in the left posterior temporoparietal junction that takes part in phonological treatment and working memory. These variant patterns of atrophy result in quite a correct diagnosis relevant while developing a subtype specific treatment plan targeting the most affected areas.
These changes can precede or accompany structural degeneration and thus can be detected using functional neuroimaging techniques such as positron emission tomography. Researchers in their study [53] examined glucose metabolism across different areas of the brain using PET imaging and reported that hypometabolism of the anterior temporal lobe is indeed a feature of the semantic variant, while subjects showing metabolic deficits within the temporoparietal region exhibited logopenic PPA. Early detection of metabolic decline serves the clinician well in anticipating the progression of a disease and developing appropriate interventions aimed at preserving function in areas that may be at risk from further degeneration.
DTI is also one of the effective ways of neuroimaging, which enables distinguishing between subtypes of PPA by means of tracing integrity of white matter tracts. For instance, the study [78] pointed out that in patients with logopenic PPA, the arcuate fasciculus is a white matter tract that connects Wernicke’s and Broca’s areas and is severely damaged. Such disruption to white matter integrity is consistent with the phonological and working memory deficits that characterize this variant. By contrast, DTI in patients with agrammatic PPA reveals damage to the superior longitudinal fasciculus—a tract critical for language production and syntactic processing. This kind of selective white matter degeneration pattern is informing targeted treatment strategies, including therapies aimed at improving residual phonological abilities in logopenic PPA or motor speech therapy in the agrammatic variant.
Resting-state fMRI has become a very useful approach in the investigation of the changes in functional connectivity that distinguish the PPA subtypes. Using resting-state fMRI, researchers in the study [78] were able to show that agrammatic PPA is characterized by lower connectivity between the left inferior frontal gyrus and the supplementary motor area. In contrast, the semantic variants of PPA have disrupted connectivity between bilateral ATLs and posterior temporal cortices forming the basis for their impairments in word comprehension and semantic memory. Logopenic patients are present with reduced network connectivity into networks involving posterior temporoparietal regions corresponding to difficulties in word retrieval and sentence repetition. Resting-state fMRI will, therefore, be able to indicate such specific connectivity patterns and inform therapeutic strategies either by stimulating the remaining functional networks through brain stimulation or cognitive exercises to enhance connectivity in specific circuits [52].
Moreover, magnetic resonance spectroscopy, a technique used to quantify the concentration of specific metabolites in the brain, has also emerged as a promising modality in differentiating subtypes. For example, among such studies was the study [76], in which MRS showed that Nacetylaspartate, an amino acid marker of neuronal health, had different concentrations between subtypes in a region-specific fashion. Patients with agrammatic PPA showed lower NAA in the left inferior frontal gyrus, while metabolic changes in the anterior temporal lobes were observed in semantic PPA. These metabolic profiles add further depth to diagnostic specificity in an effort toward even finer tuning of the treatment methodology based on specific biochemical changes unique to each variant [65].
Neuroimaging is also important in developing treatment that is individualized, as this helps clinicians to monitor how interventions affect cerebral response. For example, in the study [82] researchers conducted fMRI to monitor the brain activity progression in patients undergoing speech therapy for agrammatic PPA. They found that patients with increased activity within their right hemisphere homologs of traditional left hemisphere language areas showed better outcomes; thus, they concluded that therapies aimed at engaging in the right hemisphere may be most helpful. Similarly, neuroimaging-guided brain stimulation—e.g., TMS or tDCS—can be customized to stimulate those, but only those, regions that have been highlighted through MRI or PET as being atrophied or disconnected, thereby enhancing this kind of intervention.
In summary, neuroimaging modalities, such as structural MRI, PET, DTI, resting state fMRI, and MRS, are important in differential diagnosis among variants of PPA and allows the implementation of different therapeutic strategies. Indeed, studies like [49,53,76] suggest that imaging can reveal subtype specific patterns of atrophy, metabolic changes, and connectivity disruptions. These insights allow for more specific diagnosis and the creation of focused interventions. Treatments will be informed by the neural deficits associated with each PPA subtype.
  • [RQ8]: How can cognitive rehabilitation and neuroimaging-guided therapeutic interventions work together to optimize outcomes for PPA patients?
It has ensured that cognitive rehabilitation, combined with neuroimaging-guided therapeutic interventions, shall enable treatment for Primary Progressive Aphasia to stay in step with real-world brain changes for optimal therapy and the best performance. In this way, such a combined approach exploits the strengths of both rehabilitation and neuroimaging to create an individualized treatment path that optimizes neuroplasticity and slows down cognitive decline [90,91,92].
Neuroimaging offers important information on structural and functional integrity that may inform tailored cognitive rehabilitation programs. A researcher in the study [95] says, “fMRI data can further define residual neural networks that remain intact in the setting of neurodegeneration.” This enables clinicians to focus cognitive training on those remaining areas, allowing them to maximize their use and compensate for other regions damaged by disease. Neuroimaging in agrammatic PPA, for instance, may indicate that the right hemisphere starts to take over part of the language processing typically controlled by the left hemisphere. Then, cognitive rehabilitation could be conducted in accordance with this and serves to activate these compensatory networks through exercises that stimulate speech production and motor planning [51].
Real-time neurofeedback during cognitive training may improve the effectiveness of rehabilitation in PPA. Researchers in their study [56] discussed how this technology can be combined with cognitive therapy. Direct feedback to patients as to the extent they are engaging certain brain regions during such therapy tasks allows the patient to focus better on exercises likely to help recover language. This closed-loop system especially favors PPA patients as much as the therapeutic experience is more interactive and adaptive, thereby allowing for real-time adjustments based on how the brain responds [68].
Neuroimaging also allows clinicians to follow the changes in brain plasticity that are important for understanding how cognitive rehabilitation reshapes the brain networks over time. Researchers in their study [37] established that speech outcomes significantly improved in PPA patients when cognitive therapy was integrated with neuroimaging-based insights. Their study used PET to observe metabolic changes in the brain; areas of increased metabolic activity consequent to therapy sessions corresponded with improved linguistic performance. In this respect, the idea is supported that neuroimaging can confirm cognitive rehabilitation because, through the treatment, certain brain regions are becoming more active or connected [66].
Another significant positive consequence of the combination of cognitive rehabilitation and neuroimaging is that the non-invasive brain stimulation either with TMS or tDCS, if guided by the results of imaging, can be administered as adjuvants during rehabilitation. Researchers in their study [85] report on a study in which higher linguistic gains were recorded after the combination of cognitive rehabilitation with MRI-based structural and functional TMS than after pure cognitive rehabilitation. In this study, TMS was given in regions of the brain that neuroimaging showed still had some activity, thereby maximizing the effect of speech language therapy. Such synergy between stimulation and cognitive rehabilitation maximizes results by amplifying the potential of the brain to reorganize and compensate for damaged areas [64].
Neuroimaging can also chart the course of atrophy and help change cognitive rehabilitation over time [94,95,96]. According to the study [60], with the progression in PPA, the brain areas that might have shown some recuperation potential may become less responsive, thereby shifting the therapeutic focus. For example, in the early stages of treatment, therapies may target language production regions in the left hemisphere; as those regions begin to atrophy and deteriorate, therapy would shift to emphasize the right hemisphere. MRI and DTI allow clinicians to continually update and adjust rehabilitation based on structural changes in the brain so that treatment matches a patient’s ever-changing needs.
This combination of cognitive rehabilitation and neuroimaging not only allows for personalized interventions but also helps optimize the timing and intensity of treatment. As reported by the study [42], patients receiving earlier delivery of cognitive therapy in their disease course, with guidance from neuroimaging data, evinced slower declines in language function. Early neuroimaging can specify regions at risk of degeneration, thus allowing for pre-emptive cognitive rehabilitation that fortifies neural circuits before significant atrophy occurs. This kind of proactive approach would keep away more serious language deficits and allow a better quality of life for a longer time.
This points to the incorporation of cognitive rehabilitation with neuroimaging-guided therapeutic interventions; the latter raises overall benefits for PPA patients by providing direct intervention on specified changes in the brain. Specific studies like [36,88,89,95] summarize that neuroimaging identifies compensatory brain networks, detects brain plasticity, guides adjunct therapies such as TMS, and adapts interventions as the disease progresses. The combined approach not only maximizes the capacity for brain recovery but also ensures the treatments remain dynamic to respond to the neurodegenerative trajectory of the respective patient.

3.3. Neuroanatomical Impact of PPA Variants

To better understand the neuroanatomical differences between the primary variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA), a heat map (Figure 2) was created to visualize the intensity of atrophy and hypometabolism in key brain regions. The analysis draws on neuroimaging data from fMRI, PET, and DTI studies, highlighting the differential brain region involvement across the three main PPA variants: Semantic PPA (svPPA), Non-Fluent PPA (nfvPPA), and Logopenic PPA (lvPPA).
Figure 2. Heat map of brain regions affected by PPA variants.

3.3.1. Semantic Variant PPA (svPPA)

Patients with the semantic variant of PPA (svPPA) exhibit significant atrophy predominantly in the left anterior temporal lobe. This area, which is critical for semantic processing and word meaning, shows the highest intensity of degeneration (score of 9) in the heat map. This degeneration results in impaired object recognition, word finding difficulties, and loss of conceptual knowledge. The right temporal lobe also shows moderate involvement, though less severe than the left hemisphere [61].

3.3.2. Non-Fluent Variant PPA (nfvPPA)

In non-fluent variant PPA (nfvPPA), the greatest degree of atrophy is found in Broca’s area and the left frontal lobe. These regions are responsible for speech production and grammatical processing, which explains the characteristic speech apraxia and agrammatism observed in patients with nfvPPA. Broca’s area, with an intensity score of 8, is significantly affected, correlating with the motor speech impairments typical of this variant.

3.3.3. Logopenic Variant PPA (lvPPA)

The logopenic variant (lvPPA) is primarily associated with degeneration in the left temporoparietal junction and related white matter tracts, particularly the superior longitudinal fasciculus and uncinate fasciculus. The heat map shows these areas with high intensity scores, reflecting the involvement in phonological processing and verbal memory, which are core deficits in lvPPA. Patients with this variant often experience speech hesitations, impaired repetition, and difficulties with word retrieval, linked to these anatomical changes.

3.3.4. Broader Clinical Implications

The heat map not only emphasizes the unique brain regions affected in each PPA variant but also underscores the necessity of variant-specific rehabilitation approaches. Understanding the neuroanatomical underpinnings of each subtype is critical in tailoring cognitive and language interventions. For instance, rehabilitation strategies focusing on the temporal lobe in svPPA could prioritize semantic training, while non-fluent PPA patients may benefit more from therapies targeting speech production mechanisms associated with Broca’s area. Similarly, lvPPA interventions could focus on phonological and memory support to address the deficits linked to temporoparietal degeneration.

3.4. Intervention Effectiveness in PPA Rehabilitation

The analysis of 63 research papers highlights distinct trends in the effectiveness of rehabilitation strategies for primary progressive aphasia (PPA), which vary according to the type of intervention employed. These strategies range from traditional therapies to more advanced neuroscience-guided and technology-assisted interventions. The evidence consistently supports the notion that while all interventions contribute to some improvement in language abilities, the magnitude and speed of recovery differ significantly across methods.

3.4.1. Traditional Therapy: Steady but Limited Progress

Traditional rehabilitation strategies, such as speech and language therapy and cognitive training, continue to form the foundation of PPA treatment. However, several studies indicate that these methods lead to gradual improvements over time, with diminishing returns as therapy progresses. For instance, the study [62] assessed the effects of traditional speech therapy in 118 PPA patients and found improvements in spontaneous speech, but these gains were slow and modest.
Moreover, studies like [55] demonstrated that while naming therapy can yield behavioral changes in patients with semantic variant PPA (svPPA), the overall improvements plateau after a certain period. These outcomes highlight the limitations of traditional approaches, particularly in more advanced stages of the disease, where neurodegeneration becomes widespread [57].

3.4.2. Neuroscience-Guided Therapy: Faster and More Targeted Improvement

Neuroscience-guided rehabilitation, which incorporates neuroimaging techniques like fMRI and EEG, has emerged as a more tailored approach to PPA rehabilitation. By identifying specific brain regions affected by PPA variants, these interventions provide personalized therapy designed to strengthen neural networks that are less impacted by the disorder.
For example, the study [77] demonstrated that combining structural, microstructural, and metabolic neuroimaging data with language rehabilitation in patients with logopenic variant PPA (lvPPA) led to faster improvement in phonological processing and verbal memory tasks [77]. This was further supported by findings from the study [49] that emphasized the potential for neuroimaging to guide therapy by pinpointing the most affected areas in non-fluent variant PPA patients [49,58].

3.4.3. Technology-Assisted Interventions: Substantial Early Gains

The use of non-invasive brain stimulation technologies such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has become an increasingly prominent tool in enhancing neuroplasticity and accelerating language improvement. These methods have shown significant early improvements, particularly when combined with traditional therapies [69,93].
For example, the study [55] reported that the use of rTMS significantly enhanced language production and comprehension in svPPA patients, with marked gains observed within the first few weeks of treatment [55]. Additionally, researchers in their study [76] noted that patients undergoing tDCS therapy showed improvements in sentence processing and naming tasks, particularly in non-fluent variant PPA [76].
The rapid gains achieved through technology-assisted methods are further corroborated, highlighting the role of combining tDCS with cognitive exercises to accelerate progress in patients with logopenic PPA, noting substantial improvements in word retrieval and sentence repetition [77]. These findings suggest that the integration of advanced technological interventions into the rehabilitation framework can greatly enhance patient outcomes, particularly in the early stages of treatment [70,71,72,73].

3.4.4. Synthesis of Evidence

The comparison of traditional, neuroscience-guided, and technology-assisted interventions reveals clear distinctions in their effectiveness over time. Traditional therapy, though valuable, often leads to gradual and limited improvements. Neuroscience-guided therapies provide more targeted interventions with faster results, while technology-assisted interventions offer the most rapid early gains due to their ability to stimulate neuroplasticity (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Trend line of intervention effectiveness in PPA rehabilitation.
The collective findings from the 63 studies underscore the importance of adopting a multi-modal approach to PPA rehabilitation, integrating traditional techniques with advanced, personalized methods to maximize patient outcomes.
As shown in the Venn diagram below (Figure 4), combining these approaches provides a more comprehensive rehabilitation strategy. The intersection of traditional therapy with neuroscience-guided approaches enables more targeted cognitive and language interventions, while integrating technology-assisted interventions further enhances patient outcomes by leveraging neuroplasticity and AI-driven tools. This multi-modal approach aligns with the growing body of research advocating for personalized rehabilitation strategies that adapt to the individual neuroanatomical and cognitive profiles of PPA patients. By combining these approaches, clinicians can offer more personalized, effective treatments that address the complex cognitive and communication challenges of PPA.
Figure 4. Venn diagram of PPA rehabilitation approaches.

4. Discussion

4.1. Cognitive Neuroscience Insights in PPA Rehabilitation

A growing number of cognitive rehabilitation studies have explored the restorative potential of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) patients at behavioral level. The relearning mechanisms in PPA are based on the concept of neural communication-driven, and especially synaptogenesis-, gliogenesis-, and neurogenesis-driven, neuroplasticity. The aim of the present study was to analyze the extent to which the neuropsychological rehabilitation of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) has applied cognitive neuroscience insights, beyond just drawing on principles of healthy cognition. PPA is labeled a neurodegenerative condition, and the damage is progressive, which makes it uncertain whether the neurobiological mechanisms of neural relearning observed in the rehabilitation of acquired PPA also apply to primary PPA and to the same extent. Thus far, only one neurobiologically focused study showed a better outcome in the phonological training group, which is consistent with the reduced activation in the left temporal language network reported in functional imaging studies in phonologically impaired versus semantically impaired PPA patients. However, alongside these neuroplastic processes of pruning and declining structural connectivity, functional imaging studies in PPA have revealed the recruitment of a small subset of brain areas in the dominant and non-dominant hemispheres, which could be harnessed to facilitate the behavioral outcome of rehabilitation. Evidence from the neurobiology of memory and restorative learning in acquired aphasia may also be of use in orienting rehabilitation in PPA. Longitudinal, pre-post rehabilitation studies could also provide valuable insights into the potential for neuroplastic adaptation in PPA [5,97,98,99,100,101].

4.2. Neuroplasticity Mechanisms

Intuitively, one of the main functions of neuropsychological rehabilitation is to harness the brain’s plasticity. Machine learning meta-analyses supported the idea that plasticity or neuroplasticity incorporates several different mechanisms, such as endophenotypic and adaptive neuroplasticity. In neurodegenerative disorders, definitions of optimal, successful, or more pathological use of plasticity are necessary, which are valuable in explaining non-stable/reduced/gain damages and can guide interventions. Unfortunately, most of the neuropsychological rehabilitations for post-stroke aphasia have not benefited much from cognitive neuroscience advances and have not systematically utilized different types of neural plasticity to guide rehabilitation. In primary progressive aphasia (PPA) patients, their reserve (reserve mechanisms) can help in better conducting compensatory and reserve mechanisms in addition to this pure compensatory mechanism. This also applies to PPA and rehabilitation. For patients diagnosed with PPA, early intensive language training is relatively more common after diagnosis. Previous studies have systematically investigated the neural representations of various language abilities in brain lesions in PPA. Notably, recent neuroimaging studies have also found that aphasia due to stroke can partially restore damaged language-related brain areas through compensation mechanisms. In other words, in PPA neuropsychological rehabilitation, the same language-related areas as stroke aphasia are also expected to have neural reorganization [5,97,99,102].

4.3. Theoretical Contributions and Connections

The findings of this systematic review identify the complex interplay between the insights from neuroimaging and neuropsychological rehabilitation perspectives for primary progressive aphasia (PPA). Although it makes a significant contribution to the theoretical landscape, not simply an overview of existing literature, this review synthesizes disparate findings and situates them within established cognitive neuroscience frameworks. One of its major contributions is the introduction of neuroplasticity as a foundational concept underlying language improvement in PPA. Neuronal plasticity, the brain’s ability to adapt and reorganize, underlies the mechanisms by which cognitive and language therapies induce compensatory changes. The present review underscores that the most effective rehabilitation strategies are those that harness neuroplasticity, especially by using targeted interventions tailored to the structural and functional integrity of neural circuits specific to PPA subtypes.
The present research furthers the currently lively theoretical discussion between restorative versus compensatory models of rehabilitation. Under restorative approaches, therapy aims to reactivate dormant but intact neural networks; this is well in line with early-stage interventions in PPA. On the other hand, compensatory strategies, most notably, recruiting alternative pathways, become more applicable as the disease progresses. These dual approaches are further supported by evidence of subtype-specific patterns of atrophy and functional disconnection that determine the neural resources available for recovery. For example, patients with the non-fluent variant (nfvPPA) have been found to take greater advantage of therapeutic approaches targeting the speech production circuitry, whereas the logopenic variant (lvPPA) individuals might respond better to intervention programs based on working memory. This variability underlines the need for precision medicine, in which rehabilitation strategies may be tailored to the unique neural profiles of each subtype of PPA.
It also addresses some of the discrepancies found to date in the literature on the effectiveness of these non-invasive brain stimulation techniques: transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Divergent findings may be systematically contextualized in the larger framework of individual variability of neurodegeneration, regarding baseline atrophy, differences in functional connectivity, and cognitive reserve affecting treatment response. This is in line with new network-based theories of neurodegeneration stipulating that cognitive decline cannot solely be a result of structural atrophy but should also mirror disruptions in dynamic neural network interactions. Such a review, therefore, goes beyond summarizing interventions to critically evaluate their mechanisms and potential limitations based on these theories.
The theoretical contributions of this review are further evidenced in its emphasis on cognitive reserve as a mediating factor in rehabilitation outcomes. According to the cognitive reserve theory, greater neural and cognitive resilience allows the individual to better compensate for brain pathology. This perspective provides a framework for understanding why some patients sustain functional communication despite massive neural loss. The results suggest that interventions to bolster cognitive reserve, such as cognitively stimulating activity or using social support networks, may extend the long-term efficacy of rehabilitation and delay functional decline.
Another important theoretical insight from this review is that PPA provides a model for the study of the dynamic relationship of structural and functional changes in neurodegenerative diseases. Traditional models have generally placed emphasis on the effects of cortical atrophy that drive cognitive decline, though this review highlights the critical role played by functional network disruptions and compensatory mechanisms. Functional connectivity studies have now clearly shown that even when there is severe structural damage, other neural pathways can still be recruited to support residual cognitive functions. This calls for a change in the paradigm of rehabilitation in which not only deficit-based interventions are carried out, but also compensatory mechanisms are enhanced by neurostimulation and focused therapies.
This review also addresses the long-term sustainability of rehabilitation strategies and clinically important questions. While most interventions show initial efficacy, their long-term benefits are less clear, especially in progressive conditions such as PPA. This then raises critical questions about how therapeutic gains can be sustained as the disease advances. Adaptive therapies that evolve together with the changing neurobiological and functional needs of the patient are therefore offered as a solution, informing models that emphasize the dynamic nature of brain-behavior relationships in neurodegenerative diseases.
Finally, this review provides evidence of the importance of incorporating neuroimaging into practice in rehabilitation. Advanced imaging techniques such as MRI, PET, and DTI make it possible for clinicians to better understand the neural substrates underlying language deficits and to develop interventions that target specific brain regions or networks. Indeed, this has brought about a theoretical shift from the traditional one-size-fits-all approach to personalized medicine, where treatment plans are tailored following an individual’s neural and cognitive profile.
In summary, the review synthesizes current evidence but also pushes forward theoretical understanding by connecting the findings to broader frameworks of neuroplasticity, cognitive reserve, and network-based models of neurodegeneration. The work addresses the inconsistencies in the literature, placing emphasis on the necessity of personalized, adaptive interventions and thereby setting a road map for future research and clinical innovation in PPA rehabilitation.

4.4. Challenges and Future Directions

It is critical to recognize that these are initial considerations, and the findings reviewed here emphasize that the small sample size and differences between cases make individualized rehabilitation a necessity. We emphasize that the importance of considering the potential for short-term and long-term deficits cannot be overstated, as these can severely complicate an apparent stabilization of language skills [17,24]. For PPA, treatment must also involve addressing the neurodegenerative nature of the clinical condition, and such treatments can be related to multidisciplinary strategies in the future [26,103].
One brain-behavior relation likely to be of importance is the association between individual differences in abilities that support cognitive reserve and the likelihood of a response to rehabilitation. We therefore note that this is an area of research that may open new avenues for the development of treatments, should a larger series of cases show that supporting residual networks can unmask language processing when systems are degraded [104,105,106,107].
Addressing these issues has the potential to extract valuable insights from the success and failure of existing rehabilitation treatments and contributes to a refinement in our understanding of which treatments are most likely to benefit individuals at different stages of the disorder presentation. This is clearly important for PPA, but by examining this evidence, we may also be able to identify treatment candidates in patients who present with related or overlapping symptoms to those described specifically as PPA, thus the impact of these analyses could be far-reaching [108,109,110,111,112,113].

5. Conclusions

This comprehensive review underlines the major benefits of the integration of cognitive neuroscience insights—EEG and fMRI, in particular—into neuropsychological rehabilitations of PPA patients, since that could offer important insights not only into the neural mechanisms underlying language deficits but also allow tailored interventions that maximize recovery in PPA patients. These findings recommend that evidence-based guidelines be enacted and uniform training across institutions be utilized to contribute to the patient’s quality of life. In addition, this review emphasizes that more research into finding the long-term efficacy of these neuroimaging-guided therapies is needed, along with refining individualized treatment strategies. This approach, considering the promising bridge between cognitive neuroscience and clinical practice, may constitute a new avenue for managing PPA—a hope toward better therapeutic outcome and sustained language function in affected individuals.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.G. and E.M.; methodology, E.G. and E.M.; software, E.G. and E.M.; validation, E.G. and E.M.; formal analysis, E.G. and E.M.; investigation, E.G. and E.M.; resources, E.G.; data curation, E.G. and E.M.; writing—original draft preparation E.G. and E.M.; writing—review and editing, E.G. and E.M.; visualization, E.G. and E.M.; supervision, E.G. and E.M.; project administration, E.G. and E.M.; funding acquisition, E.G. and E.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Research Council of the University of Patras, Greece.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

PPAPrimary Progressive Aphasia
nfvPPANon-fluent/Agrammatic Variant of Primary Progressive Aphasia
svPPASemantic Variant of Primary Progressive Aphasia
lvPPALogopenic Variant of Primary Progressive Aphasia
FDG-PETFluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography
MRIMagnetic Resonance Imaging
fMRIFunctional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
FAFractional Anisotropy
MDMean Diffusivity
ROIRegion of Interest
TMSTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation
tDCSTranscranial Direct Current Stimulation
DTIDiffusion Tensor Imaging
BCIBrain-Computer Interface
TDP-43TAR DNA-binding Protein 43
GRNProgranulin
CSFCerebrospinal Fluid
CAMComplementary and Alternative Medicine

References

  1. Volkmer, A.; Cartwright, J.; Ruggero, L.; Beales, A.; Gallée, J.; Grasso, S.; Hersh, D. Principles and philosophies for speech and language therapists working with people with primary progressive aphasia: An international expert consensus. Disabil. Rehabil. 2023, 45, 1063–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Suárez-González, A.; Savage, S.A.; Bier, N.; Henry, M.L.; Jokel, R.; Nickels, L.; Taylor-Rubin, C. Semantic variant primary progressive aphasia: Practical recommendations for treatment from 20 years of behavioural research. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Davies, K.; Howe, T. Experiences of living with primary progressive aphasia: A scoping review of qualitative studies. Am. J. Alzheimers Dis. Other Dement. 2020, 35, 1533317519886218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Gauch, M.; Corsten, S.; Köb, A.L.; Tüscher, O.; Heinrich, I.; Geschke, K. Cope PPA—Adaptation of the Biographic-Narrative Approach for Persons with Primary Progressive Aphasia: Protocol for Clinical Trial Design. Brain Sci. 2024, 14, 692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ruksenaite, J.; Volkmer, A.; Jiang, J.; Johnson, J.C.; Marshall, C.R.; Warren, J.D.; Hardy, C.J. Primary progressive aphasia: Toward a pathophysiological synthesis. Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 2021, 21, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sanches, C.; Stengel, C.; Godard, J.; Mertz, J.; Teichmann, M.; Migliaccio, R.; Valero-Cabré, A. Past, present, and future of non-invasive brain stimulation approaches to treat cognitive impairment in neurodegenerative diseases: Time for a comprehensive critical review. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2021, 12, 578339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Goldberg, Z.L.; El-Omar, H.; Foxe, D.; Leyton, C.E.; Ahmed, R.M.; Piguet, O.; Irish, M. Cognitive and neural mechanisms of social communication dysfunction in primary progressive aphasia. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ho, T.; Whitworth, A.; Hersh, D.; Cartwright, J. “They are dealing with people’s lives…”: Diagnostic and post-diagnostic healthcare experiences in primary progressive aphasia. Int. J. Speech-Lang. Pathol. 2023, 25, 449–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Epelbaum, S.; Saade, Y.M.; Flamand Roze, C.; Roze, E.; Ferrieux, S.; Arbizu, C.; Teichmann, M. A reliable and rapid language tool for the diagnosis, classification, and follow-up of primary progressive aphasia variants. Front. Neurol. 2021, 11, 571657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tastevin, M.; Lavoie, M.; de la Sablonnière, J.; Carrier-Auclair, J.; Laforce, R., Jr. Survival in the three common variants of primary progressive aphasia: A retrospective study in a tertiary memory clinic. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mouton, A.; Plonka, A.; Fabre, R.; Tran, T.M.; Robert, P.; Macoir, J.; Gros, A. The course of primary progressive aphasia diagnosis: A cross-sectional study. Alzheimers Res. Ther. 2022, 14, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Gkintoni, E. Clinical neuropsychological characteristics of bipolar disorder, with a focus on cognitive and linguistic pattern: A conceptual analysis. F1000Research 2023, 12, 1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ulugut, H.; Stek, S.; Wagemans, L.E.; Jutten, R.J.; Keulen, M.A.; Bouwman, F.H.; Pijnenburg, Y.A. The natural history of primary progressive aphasia: Beyond aphasia. J. Neurol. 2022, 269, 1375–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Santi, G.C.; Conca, F.; Esposito, V.; Polito, C.; Caminiti, S.P.; Boccalini, C.; Catricalà, E. Heterogeneity and overlap in the continuum of linguistic profile of logopenic and semantic variants of primary progressive aphasia: A profile analysis based on multidimensional scaling study. Alzheimers Res. Ther. 2024, 16, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Suárez-González, A.; Cassani, A.; Gopalan, R.; Stott, J.; Savage, S. When it is not primary progressive aphasia: A scoping review of spoken language impairment in other neurodegenerative dementias. Alzheimers Dement. Transl. Res. Clin. Interv. 2021, 7, e12205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Macoir, J.; Légaré, A.; Lavoie, M. Contribution of the cognitive approach to language assessment to the differential diagnosis of primary progressive aphasia. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Belder, C.R.; Marshall, C.R.; Jiang, J.; Mazzeo, S.; Chokesuwattanaskul, A.; Rohrer, J.D.; Warren, J.D. Primary progressive aphasia: Six questions in search of an answer. J. Neurol. 2024, 271, 1028–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Singh-Reilly, N.; Botha, H.; Duffy, J.R.; Clark, H.M.; Utianski, R.L.; Machulda, M.M.; Whitwell, J.L. Speech-language within and between network disruptions in primary progressive aphasia variants. NeuroImage Clin. 2024, 43, 103639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Faroqi-Shah, Y.; Treanor, A.; Ratner, N.B.; Ficek, B.; Webster, K.; Tsapkini, K. Using narratives in differential diagnosis of neurodegenerative syndromes. J. Commun. Disord. 2020, 85, 105994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Arslan, S.; Plonka, A.; Mouton, A.; Lemaire, J.; Cogordan, M.P.; Sacco, G.; Meunier, F. Sentence repetition span in primary progressive aphasia and Alzheimer’s disease: Insights from preliminary results. Front. Commun. 2022, 7, 934487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Karpathiou, N.; Kambanaros, M. Comparing individuals with PPA to individuals with AD: Cognitive and linguistic profiles. Front. Commun. 2022, 7, 934485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Basaglia-Pappas, S.; Laurent, B.; Getenet, J.C.; Boulangé, A.; Rendón de la Cruz, A.; Simoes Loureiro, I.; Lefebvre, L. Executive profile of the logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia: Comparison with the semantic and non-fluent variants and Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Sci. 2023, 13, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Foxe, D.; Cheung, S.C.; Cordato, N.J.; Burrell, J.R.; Ahmed, R.M.; Taylor-Rubin, C.; Piguet, O. Verbal short-term memory disturbance in the primary progressive aphasias: Challenges and distinctions in a clinical setting. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Wauters, L.D.; Croot, K.; Dial, H.R.; Duffy, J.R.; Grasso, S.M.; Kim, E.; Henry, M.L. Behavioral treatment for speech and language in primary progressive aphasia and primary progressive apraxia of speech: A systematic review. Neuropsychol. Rev. 2024, 34, 882–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Loizidou, M.; Brotherhood, E.; Harding, E.; Crutch, S.; Warren, J.D.; Hardy, C.J.; Volkmer, A. ‘Like going into a chocolate shop, blindfolded’: What do people with primary progressive aphasia want from speech and language therapy? Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2023, 58, 737–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Volkmer, A.; Walton, H.; Swinburn, K.; Spector, A.; Warren, J.D.; Beeke, S. Results from a randomised controlled pilot study of the Better Conversations with Primary Progressive Aphasia (BCPPA) communication partner training program for people with PPA and their communication partners. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2023, 9, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Themistocleous, C.; Webster, K.; Tsapkini, K. Effects of tDCS on sound duration in patients with apraxia of speech in primary progressive aphasia. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Norata, D.; Motolese, F.; Magliozzi, A.; Pilato, F.; Di Lazzaro, V.; Luzzi, S.; Capone, F. Transcranial direct current stimulation in semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia: A state-of-the-art review. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2023, 17, 1219737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Herbet, G.; Duffau, H. Revisiting the functional anatomy of the human brain: Toward a meta-networking theory of cerebral functions. Physiol. Rev. 2020, 100, 1181–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ash, S.; Nevler, N.; Phillips, J.; Irwin, D.; Mcmillan, C.; Rascovsky, K.; Grossman, M. A longitudinal study of speech production in primary progressive aphasia and behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. Brain Lang. 2019, 194, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Basilakos, A.; Stark, B.; Johnson, L.; Rorden, C.; Yourganov, G.; Bonilha, L.; Fridriksson, J. Leukoaraiosis Is Associated with a Decline in Language Abilities in Chronic Aphasia. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair. 2019, 33, 718–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Berthier, M.; Torres-Prioris, M.J.; López-Barroso, D.; Thurnhofer-Hemsi, K.; Paredes-Pacheco, J.; Roé-Vellvé, N.; Alfaro, F.; Pertierra, L.; Dávila, G. Are you a doctor? … Are you a doctor? I’m not a doctor! A reappraisal of mitigated echolalia in aphasia with evaluation of neural correlates and treatment approaches. Aphasiology 2018, 32, 784–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Berthier, M.; Edelkraut, L.; López-González, F.; López-Barroso, D.; Mohr, B.; Pulvermüller, F.; Starkstein, S.; Jorge, R.; Torres-Prioris, M.J.; Dávila, G. Donepezil alone and combined with intensive language-action therapy on depression and apathy in chronic post-stroke aphasia: A feasibility study. Brain Lang. 2023, 236, 105205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Caso, F.; Mandelli, M.; Henry, M.; Gesierich, B.; Bettcher, B.M.; Ogar, J.; Filippi, M.; Comi, G.; Magnani, G.; Sidhu, M.; et al. In vivo signatures of nonfluent/agrammatic primary progressive aphasia caused by FTLD pathology. Neurology 2014, 82, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Coenen, V.A.; Schlaepfer, T.; Várkuti, B.; Schuurman, P.R.; Reinacher, P.; Voges, J.; Zrinzo, L.; Blomstedt, P.; Fenoy, A.J.; Hariz, M. Surgical decision making for deep brain stimulation should not be based on aggregated normative data mining. Brain Stimul. 2019, 12, 1345–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dazzan, P.; Fusté, M.; Davies, W. Do Defective Immune System-Mediated Myelination Processes Increase Postpartum Psychosis Risk? Trends Mol. Med. 2018, 24, 942–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Di Lorenzo, L.; Muccio, F.C. Diffusion tensor imaging magnetic resonance imaging (DTI-MRI) helps to tailor speech therapy: A case report with a short narrative review. NeuroRehabilitation 2023, 53, 397–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Díez-Cirarda, M.; Ibarretxe-Bilbao, N.; Peña, J.; Ojeda, N. Efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation in Parkinson’s disease. Neural Regen. Res. 2018, 13, 226–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dragoy, O.; Akinina, Y.S.; Dronkers, N. Toward a functional neuroanatomy of semantic aphasia: A history and ten new cases. Cortex 2017, 97, 164–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Duffau, H. The death of localizationism: The concepts of functional connectome and neuroplasticity deciphered by awake mapping, and their implications for best care of brain-damaged patients. Rev. Neurol. 2021, 177, 1093–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Duncan, G.; Yarnall, A.; Marrinan, S.; Burn, D. New horizons in the pathogenesis, assessment and management of movement disorders. Age Ageing 2013, 42, 2–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Edison, P. Brain Connectivity: A Journal of Clinical Neurology, Neuroscience, & Neuroimaging Advancing the Field of Neurology. Brain Connect. 2023, 13, 117–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Fickling, S.; Greene, T.; Greene, D.; Frehlick, Z.; Campbell, N.; Etheridge, T.; Smith, C.J.; Bollinger, F.; Danilov, Y.; Rizzotti, R.; et al. Brain Vital Signs Detect Cognitive Improvements During Combined Physical Therapy and Neuromodulation in Rehabilitation from Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Case Report. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2020, 14, 347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Gangemi, A.; Luca, R.D.; Fabio, R.; Lauria, P.; Rifici, C.; Pollicino, P.; Marra, A.; Olivo, A.; Quartarone, A.; Calabrò, R.S. Effects of Virtual Reality Cognitive Training on Neuroplasticity: A Quasi-Randomized Clinical Trial in Patients with Stroke. Biomedicines 2023, 11, 3225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Gorno-Tempini, M.; Miller, B. Primary Progressive Aphasia as a model to study the neurobiology of language. Brain Lang. 2013, 127, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  46. Goschke, T. Dysfunctions of decision-making and cognitive control as transdiagnostic mechanisms of mental disorders: Advances, gaps, and needs in current research. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 2014, 23, 41–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Ho, J.K.; Nation, D. Neuropsychological Profiles and Trajectories in Preclinical Alzheimer’s Disease. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 2018, 24, 693–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Holland, R.; Johns, S.L.; Woollams, A. The impact of phonological versus semantic repetition training on generalisation in chronic stroke aphasia reflects differences in dorsal pathway connectivity. Neuropsychol. Rehabilitation 2018, 28, 548–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Iaccarino, L.; Crespi, C.; Rosa, P.D.D.; Catricalà, E.; Guidi, L.; Marcone, A.; Tagliavini, F.; Magnani, G.; Cappa, S.; Perani, D. The Semantic Variant of Primary Progressive Aphasia: Clinical and Neuroimaging Evidence in Single Subjects. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0120197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jobson, D.; Hase, Y.; Clarkson, A.; Kalaria, R. The role of the medial prefrontal cortex in cognition, ageing and dementia. Brain Commun. 2021, 3, fcab125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jokel, R.; Kielar, A.; Anderson, N.; Black, S.; Rochon, E.; Graham, S.; Freedman, M.; Tang-Wai, D. Behavioural and neuroimaging changes after naming therapy for semantic variant primary progressive aphasia. Neuropsychologia 2016, 89, 191–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Khedr, E.; El-Fetoh, N.A.; Ali, A.M.; El-Hammady, D.; Khalifa, H.; Atta, H.; Karim, A. Dual-Hemisphere Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Rehabilitation of Poststroke Aphasia. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair 2014, 28, 740–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Leonard, C.; Laird, L.; Burianova, H.; Graham, S.; Grady, C.; Simic, T.; Rochon, E. Behavioural and neural changes after a “choice” therapy for naming deficits in aphasia: Preliminary findings. Aphasiology 2015, 29, 506–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lockhart, S.; DeCarli, C.; Fama, R. Neuroimaging of the Aging Brain: Introduction to the Special Issue of Neuropsychology Review. Neuropsychol. Rev. 2014, 24, 267–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  55. Mandelli, M.; Vilaplana, E.; Hubbard, H.; Brown, J.A.; Santos, M.; Binney, R.J.; Attygalle, S.; Henry, M.; Henry, R.; Rosen, H.; et al. Longitudinal Progression of Atrophy in Non-Fluent Primary Progressive Aphasia Follows the Functional/Structural Speech Motor Network (P4.031). Neurology 2016, 86 (Suppl. S16), P4-031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Marcotte, K.; Laird, L.; Bitan, T.; Meltzer, J.A.; Graham, S.; Leonard, C.; Rochon, E. Therapy-Induced Neuroplasticity in Chronic Aphasia After Phonological Component Analysis: A Matter of Intensity. Front. Neurol. 2018, 9, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Marinescu, R.V.; Eshaghi, A.; Lorenzi, M.; Young, A.; Oxtoby, N.; Garbarino, S.; Crutch, S.; Alexander, D. DIVE: A spatiotemporal progression model of brain pathology in neurodegenerative disorders. NeuroImage 2019, 192, 166–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Matias-Guiu, J.A.; Suárez-Coalla, P.; Yus, M.; Pytel, V.; Hernández-Lorenzo, L.; Delgado-Alonso, C.; Delgado-Álvarez, A.; Gómez-Ruiz, N.; Polidura, C.; Cabrera-Martín, M.; et al. Identification of the main components of spontaneous speech in primary progressive aphasia and their neural underpinnings using multimodal MRI and FDG-PET imaging. Cortex 2021, 146, 141–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. McKenna, M.; Tahedl, M.; Lope, J.; Chipika, R.; Shing, S.L.H.; Doherty, M.A.; Hengeveld, J.C.; Vajda, A.; McLaughlin, R.; Hardiman, O.; et al. Mapping cortical disease-burden at individual-level in frontotemporal dementia: Implications for clinical care and pharmacological trials. Brain Imaging Behav. 2021, 16, 1196–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mendes, A.J.; Lema, A.; Soares, J.M.; Sampaio, A.; Leite, J.; Carvalho, S. Functional neuroimaging and behavioral correlates of multisite tDCS as an add-on to language training in a person with post-stroke non-fluent aphasia: A year-long case study. Neurocase 2024, 30, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Menéndez-González, M. Biomarkers in neurodegenerative disorders: Translating research into clinical practice. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2014, 6, 281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Müller-Dahlhaus, F.; Bergmann, T. Network perturbation-based biomarkers of depression and treatment response. Cell Rep. Med. 2023, 4, 101086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Musso, M.; Hübner, D.; Schwarzkopf, S.; Bernodusson, M.; LeVan, P.; Weiller, C.; Tangermann, M. Aphasia recovery by language training using a brain-computer interface: A proof-of-concept study. Brain Commun. 2022, 4, fcac008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Noort, M.V.D.; Vermeire, K.; Bosch, P.; Staudte, H.; Krajenbrink, T.; Jaswetz, L.; Struys, E.; Yeo, S.; Barisch, P.; Perriard, B.; et al. A Systematic Review on the Possible Relationship Between Bilingualism, Cognitive Decline, and the Onset of Dementia. Behav. Sci. 2019, 9, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Novakova, L.; Gajdos, M.; Rektorova, I. Theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation induced cognitive task-related decrease in activity of default mode network: An exploratory study. Brain Stimul. 2020, 13, 597–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Osiurak, F.; Massen, C. The cognitive and neural bases of human tool use. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pedersen, N.; Gerritsen, L. Genetics of Brain and Cognitive Aging: Introduction to the Special Issue of Neuropsychology Review. Neuropsychol. Rev. 2015, 25, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Penner, I.; Sastre-Garriga, J. One step forward in the quest for evidence of the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. J. 2014, 20, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Powers, J.; Mcmillan, C.; Brun, C.; Yushkevich, P.; Zhang, H.; Gee, J.; Grossman, M. White Matter Disease Correlates with Lexical Retrieval Deficits in Primary Progressive Aphasia. Front. Neurol. 2013, 4, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rajagopalan, V.; Pioro, E. Longitudinal 18F-FDG PET and MRI Reveal Evolving Imaging Pathology That Corresponds to Disease Progression in a Patient With ALS-FTD. Front. Neurol. 2019, 10, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Raji, C.A.; Tarzwell, R.; Pavel, D.; Schneider, H.; Uszler, M.; Thornton, J.; van Lierop, M.; Cohen, P.; Amen, D.G.; Henderson, T. Clinical Utility of SPECT Neuroimaging in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e91088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Rogalski, E.; Cobia, D.; Martersteck, A.; Rademaker, A.; Wieneke, C.; Weintraub, S.; Mesulam, M. Asymmetry of cortical decline in subtypes of primary progressive aphasia. Neurology 2014, 83, 1184–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Routier, A.; Habert, M.; Bertrand, A.; Kas, A.; Sundqvist, M.; Mertz, J.; David, P.; Bertin, H.; Belliard, S.; Pasquier, F.; et al. Structural, Microstructural, and Metabolic Alterations in Primary Progressive Aphasia Variants. Front. Neurol. 2018, 9, 766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Santos-Santos, M.; Rabinovici, G.; Iaccarino, L.; Ayakta, N.; Tammewar, G.; Lobach, I.; Henry, M.; Hubbard, I.; Mandelli, M.; Spinelli, E.; et al. Rates of Amyloid Imaging Positivity in Patients with Primary Progressive Aphasia. JAMA Neurol. 2018, 75, 342–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Seeley, W.W. Mapping Neurodegenerative Disease Onset and Progression. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2017, 9, a023622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Seniów, J.; Waldowski, K.; Leśniak, M.; Iwański, S.; Czepiel, W.; Członkowska, A. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Combined with Speech and Language Training in Early Aphasia Rehabilitation: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Pilot Study. Top. Stroke Rehabil. 2013, 20, 250–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sharma, B.; Changoor, A.T.; Monteiro, L.; Colella, B.; Green, R. Prognostic-factors for neurodegeneration in chronic moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury: A systematic review protocol. Syst. Rev. 2020, 9, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Spinelli, E.; Caso, F.; Agosta, F.; Gambina, G.; Magnani, G.; Canu, E.; Blasi, V.; Perani, D.; Comi, G.; Falini, A.; et al. A multimodal neuroimaging study of a case of crossed nonfluent/agrammatic primary progressive aphasia. J. Neurol. 2015, 262, 2336–2345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Suppa, A.; Fabbrini, A.; Guerra, A.; Petsas, N.; Asci, F.; Stasio, F.D.; Trebbastoni, A.; Vasselli, F.; Lena, C.D.; Pantano, P.; et al. Altered speech-related cortical network in frontotemporal dementia. Brain Stimul. 2020, 13, 765–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Szaflarski, J.; Griffis, J.C.; Vannest, J.; Allendorfer, J.; Nenert, R.; Amara, A.; Sung, V.; Walker, H.; Martin, A.N.; Mark, V.; et al. A feasibility study of combined intermittent theta burst stimulation and modified constraint-induced aphasia therapy in chronic post-stroke aphasia. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 2018, 36, 503–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Tao, Y.; Ficek, B.; Wang, Z.; Rapp, B.; Tsapkini, K. Selective Functional Network Changes Following tDCS-Augmented Language Treatment in Primary Progressive Aphasia. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2021, 13, 681043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Tella, S.D.; Cabinio, M.; Isernia, S.; Blasi, V.; Rossetto, F.; Saibene, F.L.; Alberoni, M.; Silveri, M.; Sorbi, S.; Clerici, M.; et al. Neuroimaging Biomarkers Predicting the Efficacy of Multimodal Rehabilitative Intervention in the Alzheimer’s Dementia Continuum Pathology. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2021, 13, 735508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Teo, W.; Muthalib, M.; Yamin, S.; Hendy, A.; Bramstedt, K.; Kotsopoulos, E.J.; Perrey, S.; Ayaz, H. Does a Combination of Virtual Reality, Neuromodulation and Neuroimaging Provide a Comprehensive Platform for Neurorehabilitation?—A Narrative Review of the Literature. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2016, 10, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Thierry, G.; Rebuschat, P. An Introduction to the Cognitive Neuroscience of Second and Artificial Language Learning. Lang. Learn. 2020, 70, 5–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Tsapkini, K.; Ficek, B.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Faria, A.; Frangakis, C. Electrical stimulation of the left IFG improves category fluency in primary progressive aphasia: Far-transfer effects and their neural mechanisms. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2019, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Upton, E.; Doogan, C.; Fleming, V.; Leyton, P.Q.; Barbera, D.; Zeidman, P.; Hope, T.; Latham, W.H.; Coley-Fisher, H.; Price, C.; et al. Efficacy of a gamified digital therapy for speech production in people with chronic aphasia (iTalkBetter): Behavioural and imaging outcomes of a phase II item-randomised clinical trial. EClinicalMedicine 2024, 70, 102483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Scuderi, C.; Valenza, M. How useful are biomarkers for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and especially for its therapy? Neural Regen. Res. 2022, 17, 2205–2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Vardy, J.; Bray, V.; Dhillon, H. Cancer-induced cognitive impairment: Practical solutions to reduce and manage challenges. Futur. Oncol. 2017, 13, 767–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Vieira, L.; Marques, D.; Melo, L.; Marques, R.C.; Monte-Silva, K.; Cantilino, A. Transcranial direct current stimulation effects on cognitive reappraisal: An unexpected result? Brain Stimul. 2020, 13, 650–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Vinogradov, S.; Fisher, M.; Nagarajan, S. Cognitive Training in Schizophrenia: Golden Age or Wild West? Biol. Psychiatry 2013, 73, 935–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  91. Woodard, J. A quarter century of advances in the statistical analysis of longitudinal neuropsychological data. Neuropsychology 2017, 31, 1020–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Yang, Q.; Chen, K.; Lv, Y.; Bi, Y.; Qihao, G. Longitudinal brain atrophy and its relationship with semantic function deterioration in a cohort of Chinese patients with semantic dementia. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2019, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kwan, Y.H.; Ong, Z.Q.; Choo, D.Y.X.; Phang, J.K.; Yoon, S.; Low, L.L. A mobile application to improve diabetes self-management using rapid prototyping: Iterative co-design approach in Asian settings. Patient Prefer. Adherence 2023, 17, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Liu, Y.; Su, M.; Lei, Y.; Tian, J.; Xue, L.; Zhang, L. Patient preferences for cardiac rehabilitation–A systematic review. Patient Prefer. Adherence 2023, 17, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005, 8, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Moher, D. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: Development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2021, 134, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Nissim, N.R.; Moberg, P.J.; Hamilton, R.H. Efficacy of noninvasive brain stimulation (tDCS or TMS) paired with language therapy in the treatment of primary progressive aphasia: An exploratory meta-analysis. Brain Sci. 2020, 10, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Halkiopoulos, C.; Gkintoni, E. Leveraging AI in E-Learning: Personalized Learning and Adaptive Assessment through Cognitive Neuropsychology—A Systematic Analysis. Electronics 2024, 13, 3762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Coemans, S.; Struys, E.; Vandenborre, D.; Wilssens, I.; Engelborghs, S.; Paquier, P.; Keulen, S. A systematic review of transcranial direct current stimulation in primary progressive aphasia: Methodological considerations. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2021, 13, 710818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kumar, J.; Patel, T.; Sugandh, F.; Dev, J.; Kumar, U.; Adeeb, M.; Syed, A.R.S. Innovative approaches and therapies to enhance neuroplasticity and promote recovery in patients with neurological disorders: A narrative review. Cureus 2023, 15, e42657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Stefaniak, J.D.; Halai, A.D.; Lambon Ralph, M.A. The neural and neurocomputational bases of recovery from post-stroke aphasia. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 2020, 16, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Volkmer, A.; Rogalski, E.; Henry, M.; Taylor-Rubin, C.; Ruggero, L.; Khayum, R.; Rohrer, J.D. Speech and language therapy approaches to managing primary progressive aphasia. Pract. Neurol. 2020, 20, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Falgàs, N.; Sacchi, L.; Carandini, T.; Montagut, N.; Conte, G.; Triulzi, F.; Fumagalli, G.G. Utility of visual rating scales in primary progressive aphasia. Alzheimers Res. Ther. 2024, 16, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Pagnoni, I.; Gobbi, E.; Premi, E.; Borroni, B.; Binetti, G.; Cotelli, M.; Manenti, R. Language training for oral and written naming impairment in primary progressive aphasia: A review. Transl. Neurodegener. 2021, 10, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Machado, T.H.; Carthery-Goulart, M.T.; Campanha, A.C.; Caramelli, P. Cognitive intervention strategies directed to speech and language deficits in primary progressive aphasia: Practice-based evidence from 18 cases. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Mesulam, M.M.; Coventry, C.; Kuang, A.; Bigio, E.H.; Mao, Q.; Flanagan, M.E.; Rogalski, E.J. Memory resilience in Alzheimer disease with primary progressive aphasia. Neurology 2021, 96, e916–e925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Clark, H.M.; Utianski, R.L.; Duffy, J.R.; Strand, E.A.; Botha, H.; Josephs, K.A.; Whitwell, J.L. Western Aphasia Battery–Revised profiles in primary progressive aphasia and primary progressive apraxia of speech. Am. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 2020, 29, 498–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Mack, J.E.; Barbieri, E.; Weintraub, S.; Mesulam, M.M.; Thompson, C.K. Quantifying grammatical impairments in primary progressive aphasia: Structured language tests and narrative language production. Neuropsychologia 2021, 151, 107713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Rao, L.A.; Roberts, A.C.; Schafer, R.; Rademaker, A.; Blaze, E.; Esparza, M.; Rogalski, E. The reliability of telepractice administration of the Western Aphasia Battery–Revised in persons with primary progressive aphasia. Am. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 2022, 31, 881–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Olfati, N.; Shoeibi, A.; Litvan, I. Clinical spectrum of tauopathies. Front. Neurol. 2022, 13, 1222971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Grasso, S.M.; Peña, E.D.; Kazemi, N.; Mirzapour, H.; Neupane, R.; Bonakdarpour, B.; Henry, M.L. Treatment for anomia in bilingual speakers with progressive aphasia. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Krajenbrink, T.; Croot, K.; Taylor-Rubin, C.; Nickels, L. Treatment for spoken and written word retrieval in the semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia. Neuropsychol. Rehabil. 2020, 30, 1097–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Dial, H.R.; Europa, E.; Grasso, S.M.; Mandelli, M.L.; Schaffer, K.M.; Hubbard, H.I.; Henry, M.L. Baseline structural imaging correlates of treatment outcomes in semantic variant primary progressive aphasia. Cortex 2023, 158, 158–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.