Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Semantic storage loss calculation.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Core criteria used for classifying PPA sub-types.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Naming and neuropsychology data for PPA participants.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 2.

FDG PET results for the three PPA participant groups.

Differences in cerebellar gray-relative FDG ratios, calculated per vertex, superimposed onto an averaged, elderly cortical surface. Images are thresholded such that only ratio differences greater than 0.1 are mapped to the spectral color bar. (Top row) Areas in which the nfvPPA group demonstrated a larger magnitude FDG ratio, when compared to the average of the svPPA and lfPPA groups. (Middle row) Comparison of lvPPA group FDG ratios against the averaged svPPA and nfvPPA groups, and (Bottom row) comparison of svPPA group ratios against the averaged nfvPPA and lvPPA groups.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Bar graphs comparing the average semantic storage loss score found for each PPA group.

Consistent with the prediction that semantic storage loss scores would be indicative of temporal, rather than frontal lobe damage, those participants in the svPPA group had the lowest SSL scores.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Scatterplots display the relationship found between participants’ semantic loss scores and their found metabolism ratio in different brain areas.

Although semantic store loss scores are poor predictors of dorsolateral frontal lobe metabolism levels, they predicted metabolism levels in the left and right ATL.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 3.

Predicting ATL hypometabolism in PPA participants.

More »

Table 3 Expand