title: Phonological fluency strategy of switching differentiates relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis patients.
abstract: The strategies used to perform a verbal fluency task appear to be reflective of cognitive abilities necessary for successful daily functioning. In the present study, we explored potential differences in verbal fluency strategies (switching and clustering) used to maximize word production by patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) versus patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS). We further assessed impairment rates and potential differences in the sensitivity and specificity of phonological versus semantic verbal fluency tasks in discriminating between those with a diagnosis of MS and healthy adults. We found that the overall rate of impaired verbal fluency in our MS sample was consistent with that in other studies. However, we found no differences between types of MS (SPMS, RRMS), on semantic or phonological fluency word production, or the strategies used to maximize semantic fluency. In contrast, we found that the number of switches differed significantly in the phonological fluency task between the SPMS and RRMS subtypes. The clinical utility of semantic versus phonological fluency in discriminating MS patients from healthy controls did not indicate any significant differences. Further, the strategies used to maximize performance did not differentiate MS subgroups or MS patients from healthy controls.
authors: Neuropsychology Section, Department of Neurology, University of Patras Medical School, 265 04 Patras, Greece.
authors: L
authors: L
authors: Messinis
authors: M H
authors: MH
authors: Kosmidis
authors: C
authors: C
authors: Vlahou
authors: A C
authors: AC
authors: Malegiannaki
authors: G
authors: G
authors: Gatzounis
authors: N
authors: N
authors: Dimisianos
authors: A
authors: A
authors: Karra
authors: G
authors: G
authors: Kiosseoglou
authors: P
authors: P
authors: Gourzis
authors: P
authors: P
authors: Papathanasopoulos
references: Mult Scler. 2002 May;8(3):261-4
references: 12120700
references: Ann Neurol. 2009 Mar;65(3):239-48
references: 19334069
references: Neurologist. 2008 Mar;14(2):100-7
references: 18332839
references: Appl Neuropsychol. 2007;14(3):208-14
references: 17848131
references: Neurology. 2004 Jul 27;63(2):335-9
references: 15277630
references: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2005 Jan;27(1):65-77
references: 15814443
references: J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004 Mar;10(2):164-72
references: 15012836
references: Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(7):1166-74
references: 16293271
references: Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2007 Mar 30;31(2):517-24
references: 17218048
references: Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2008 Mar;23(2):189-99
references: 18053682
references: Arch Neurol. 2001 Oct;58(10):1602-6
references: 11594918
references: Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2000 Feb;15(2):115-36
references: 14590556
references: J Neurol Sci. 2008 Apr 15;267(1-2):100-6
references: 17997417
references: Neurology. 1983 Nov;33(11):1444-52
references: 6685237
references: Ann Neurol. 2001 Jul;50(1):121-7
references: 11456302
references: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2009 Jan;31(1):126-39
references: 18608652
references: Neuropsychologia. 1998 Apr;36(4):295-304
references: 9665640