Table 2.

Neuropsychological test results for individual nfPPA patients which are pertinent to diagnosis, as well as classification with respect to agrammatism and AOS

Patient/case No.	Length of history, years	Frank agrammatism?	AOS?	WAB aphasia quotient, /100	Boston naming test, /60	Tests addressing subsidiary diagnostic criteria for nfPPA			Number of scores meeting subsidiary criteria, /3
						Test for Reception of Grammar, /80	Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, /204	Pyramids and Palm Trees, /52
44	2.3	no	no	95.4	56	76	184a	51a	2
17	4.3	no	no	88.0	23	73	175a	44	1b
22	2.3	no	no	86.8	46	50a	179a	46	2
31	1.7	no	no	86.4	45	44a	176a	46	2
8	3.8	no	no	82.6	49	57a	185a	50a	3
32	2.1	no	no	81.4	36	64a	142	48a	2
37	3.3	no	no	79.2	26	66a	176a	46	2
36	6.6	yes	yes	69.4	27	61a	169a	46	2
18	3.9	yes	yes	21.0	0c	46ad	117	48a	2
Control mean				99.1	55.1	78.1	193.6	50.8
Control range				92.4–100	42–60	73–80	163–201	47–52

For the purpose of characterizing each patient, length of history, WAB aphasia quotient and scores on the Boston Naming Test are included. Patients are ordered by their WAB aphasia quotient. For comparison, control means and ranges are included at the bottom of the table.

^aScore which meets a subsidiary diagnostic criterion for nfPPA (i.e., impaired syntactic comprehension, spared single-word comprehension, spared object knowledge).

^bAt the time of this study, case 17 met only one of the subsidiary diagnostic criteria, but on follow-up syntactic comprehension had dropped into the impaired range, and the participant then met (the required) two subsidiary criteria.

^cThis patient scored 0 on spoken naming due to severe apraxia of speech. On written naming of the same items, she scored 33/60.

^dThis score is from a nonstandard test administration, in which stimulus sentences were presented in written (rather than spoken) format. The participant refused the standard method of test administration due to her severe comprehension deficit.