The eyes speak when the mouth cannot: Using eye movements to interpret omissions in primary progressive aphasia.

Though it may seem simple, object naming is a complex multistage process that can be impaired by lesions at various sites of the language network. Individuals with neurodegenerative disorders of language, known as primary progressive aphasias (PPA), have difficulty with naming objects, and instead frequently say "I don't know" or fail to give a vocal response at all, known as an omission. Whereas other types of naming errors (paraphasias) give clues as to which aspects of the language network have been compromised, the mechanisms underlying omissions remain largely unknown. In this study, we used a novel eye tracking approach to probe the cognitive mechanisms of omissions in the logopenic and semantic variants of PPA (PPA-L and PPA-S). For each participant, we identified pictures of common objects (e.g., animals, tools) that they could name aloud correctly, as well as pictures that elicited an omission. In a separate word-to-picture matching task, those pictures appeared as targets embedded among an array with 15 foils. Participants were given a verbal cue and tasked with pointing to the target, while eye movements were monitored. On trials with correctly-named targets, controls and both PPA groups ceased visual search soon after foveating the target. On omission trials, however, the PPA-S group failed to stop searching, and went on to view many foils "post-target". As further indication of impaired word knowledge, gaze of the PPA-S group was subject to excessive "taxonomic capture", such that they spent less time viewing the target and more time viewing related foils on omission trials. In contrast, viewing behavior of the PPA-L group was similar to controls on both correctly-named and omission trials. These results indicate that the mechanisms of omission in PPA differ by variant. In PPA-S, anterior temporal lobe degeneration causes taxonomic blurring, such that words from the same category can no longer be reliably distinguished. In PPA-L, word knowledge remains relatively intact, and omissions instead appear to be caused by downstream factors (e.g., lexical access, phonological encoding). These findings demonstrate that when words fail, eye movements can be particularly informative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]