C 2005) Neuropsychology Review, Vol. 15, No. 3, September 2005 ( DOI: 10.1007/s11065-005-7093-4 Neuropsychological Differences Between Frontotemporal Dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease: A Review Michal Harciarek1,2 and Krzysztof Jodzio1 This paper surveys the similarities and differences between frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The review covers findings primarily from neuropsychological studies on memory, language, attention/executive function, and visuospatial abilities. However, neuropsychiatric and neuroimaging data are also briefly discussed. Distinguishing features of both FTD and AD are described in order to present a comprehensive clinical picture of these dementing diseases, which is essential for the process of differential diagnosis. The cause of specific cognitive deficits is also considered. Our comprehensive review of the empirical literature reveals that AD is characterized by early memory loss and visuospatial problems, while among the main features of FTD are behavioral abnormalities and executive dysfunctions. KEY WORDS: frontotemporal dementia; Alzheimer’s disease; neuropsychological tests; differential diagnosis. including frontal lobe degeneration of non-Alzheimer’s type (Brun, 1987; Gregory et al., 1997; Gustafson, 1987; Risberg, 1987), frontal lobe degeneration (Miller et al., 1991), and dementia of frontal type (Neary et al., 1988). These diagnostic labels were initially coined mostly for the behavioral presentation but later on were also used to describe other components of the disease (Kertesz et al., 2003b). Recently, it has been shown that some cases of FTD present initially with comprehension and naming problems accompanied by a general loss of the meaning of words (Hodges, 2001). This constellation of symptoms with disproportionate language impairment is now recognized as semantic dementia (SD) (Snowden et al., 1989). Because neuroimaging typically shows atrophy involving the anterior temporal lobes, SD is often defined as the temporal variant of FTD (tv-FTD). Except severe multimodal naming and comprehension deficits, the cognitive profile of SD is also characterized by unique memory problems. SD patients have difficulty with recall of remote memories, while their day-to-day (episodic) memory is typically preserved (Hodges, 2001). Interestingly, many other cognitive processes like phonological and syntactic aspects of language, working memory, non-verbal problem solving, visuospatial and frontal executive functions are relatively preserved, at least during the early stages of the disease (Thompson et al., 2004). Although INTRODUCTION Both frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) have been recognized as distinct clinical syndromes for a number of years. In 1892, Arnold Pick described a patient with a unique dementing disease. The autopsy revealed frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) and argentophilic intranuclear inclusions (Pick bodies) (Mendez and Cummings, 2003). During the following years, a number of cases with similar pathological and clinical findings were reported (Hodges, 1994; Tissot et al., 1985). It subsequently turned out that only a small subset of cases of frontal lobe degeneration were, in fact, associated with Pick cells and Pick bodies (Brun, 1987; Gregory et al., 1997; Neary et al., 1988). Rather, the postmortem examination of the brains of these cases often revealed only neuronal loss, gliosis, tangles, or a combination of these changes (Kersaitis et al., 2004; Taniguchi et al., 2004). Moreover, it has later been shown that Pick bodies may also be found in other neurodegenerative conditions (Halliday et al., 2005). As a result, many other terms were proposed, 1 Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland. whom correspondence should be addressed at Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk, ul. Pomorska 68, 80-343 Gdansk, Poland; e-mail: mharciarek1@wp.pl. 2 To 131 C 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 1040-7308/05/0900-0131/0 132 the pathological correlates of SD include bilateral atrophy of the anterior temporal neocortex (Hodges, 2001), the clinical manifestations (loss of word meaning versus object recognition difficulties) appear to correlate with involvement of the left versus right temporal atrophy seen on magnetic resonance imagining (MRI) (Rosen et al., 2002a). Subsequently, some cases with frontal pathology accompanied by progressive nonfluent aphasia were reported and labeled as primary progressive aphasia (PPA) (Kertesz and Munoz, 2003; Mesulam, 1982, 1987; Selnes and Harciarek, in press). However, there is growing evidence that many of the clinical and pathological features of PPA and FTD overlap with each other (Kertesz, 2004). Moreover, the identification of mutations in the gene encoding the microtubule-associated protein tau in the inherited forms of FTD and Parkinsonism linked to chromosome 17 (FTDP-17) established an association between tau mutations and neurodegenerative syndromes (Hutton, 2001). Some patients diagnosed with FTD have prominent extrapyramidal features similar to what is typically seen in patients with corticobasial degeneration (CBD) and progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) (Kertesz, 1997). Interestingly, recent studies have shown that among patients with CBD and PSP, many had either language deficits or behavioral and personality changes associated with FTD (Kertesz et al., 2000). The above suggests a significant overlap among FTD, CBD, and PSP both clinically and pathologically. There is also evidence that FTD and PPA may be associated with motor neuron disease (MND), as well as cases of MND like amylotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) related to frontal type of dementia (Neary et al., 1990). Presently, FTD is the preferred term used to describe a spectrum of non-Alzheimer’s degenerative conditions associated with focal atrophy of the frontal lobes and/or temporal lobes (Bozeat et al., 2000). However, unlike the recently proposed term “Pick Complex” (which is a concept intended to unify the overlapping syndromes of FTD, PPA, SD, CBD, PSP, and FTD-MND), the label FTD does not encompass the extrapyramidal apractic disorders (Kertesz, 2003; Kertesz et al., 2003b). Based on neuroimaging studies, there are two principal variants of FTD: frontal variant of FTD (fv-FTD) and tv-FTD. The former is usually characterized by early behavioral disorders and executive dysfunction, the latter by significant language and semantic impairments (Gregory, 1999; Grossi et al., 2002; Hodges, 2001; Hodges et al., 1992). However, not only the clinical presentation but also the neuropathology of frontotemporal degeneration is variable and the distinction between variant with Pick bodies, specific genetically linked disorders, and other tau-opathies should be Harciarek and Jodzio made (Grossman, 2002). Importantly, although the neuropathology of FTD seems to be relatively diverse, there is no amyloid accumulation associated with this type of dementia, which at the postmortem examination helps in distinguishing FTD from AD (Gustafson et al., 2004). FTD is considered to be one of the most common neurodegenerative dementia syndrome after AD and dementia with Lewy bodies (Kertesz, 2004). The mean age of onset of FTD is about 52 years, and the syndrome may be somewhat more common in men than women (Ratnavalli et al., 2002). The specific cause of FTD is still unknown, but some investigators suggest that a positive family history of similar dementia might be one of the significant risk factors (Mendez and Cummings, 2003). Among other risk factors, thyroid disease and head trauma accompanied by loss of consciousness have been proposed (Rosso et al., 2003). The clinical course of FTD can be divided into three stages and begins with significant personality and behavioral alternations, lack of awareness, and poor judgment (Rossor, 1999). The second stage is characterized by increasing cognitive problems with language deficits being the most prominent. Patients often become aphasic and progress to complete muteness (third stage). Although the usual survival after symptom onset for FTD is about 10 years, in patients with FTDP-17 or those with MND the duration of the disease may be a bit shorter (Pasquier and Delacourte, 1998). The cause of death among these patients is often sudden and unexpected (Pasquier et al., 2004). A few years after Arnold Pick had described his patient with FTLD, Alois Alzheimer observed a 51-year-old woman who had impaired memory, topographical disorientation, persecutory delusions, and language abnormalities including dysnomia, paraphasias, and poor comprehension (Mendez and Cummings, 2003). After 4.5 years of gradual deterioration, the patient died. Autopsy revealed marked atrophy of her entire brain. Microscopic studies disclosed cortical cell loss, neurofibrillary degenerative changes in many neurons, and neuritic plaques across the cortex (Mendez and Cummings, 2003). These clinical and pathological findings remain to this day the core basic features of AD. Although the underlying cause of AD is unknown, there are some putative risk factors that include family history of AD, head trauma, low educational level, family history of Down’s syndrome (Mendez and Cummings, 2003), and smoking (Ott et al., 1998; Rosso et al., 2003). However, the highest and the most documented risk factor of AD seems to be the age. Many investigators show that AD is the most prevalent form of dementia in the elderly throughout the world with its onset usually after age 65. Some data also suggest that AD affects women Differential Diagnosis more frequently than men, and there are higher rates for AD among African-Americans compared to Caucasians and Africans (Hendrie et al., 1995; Heyman et al., 1991; Mendez and Cummings, 2003; Ogunniyi et al., 1992). Patients with an APOE e4 genotype, coded on chromosome 19, have a higher risk of AD and present with 3–7 years earlier onset of the disease than patients who are homozygous for APOE e3 or APOE e2 (Dal Forno et al., 2002; Goldstein et al., 2001; Heyman et al., 1996; Mendez and Cummings, 2003). Similarly to FTD, the clinical course of AD also can be divided into three stages. In AD, memory difficulties are among the first and the most striking cognitive manifestations of the disease. The preclinical stage of AD is characterized by mild and isolated memory problems recently labeled as “mild cognitive impairment” (MCI) (Petersen, 2003). Importantly, although patients with MCI do not meet criteria for dementia, many of them will meet criteria for AD as additional cognitive deficits emerge with time. As the disease progresses, other symptoms like agnosia, aphasia, and apraxia may appear (second stage); thus eventually progressing to a more severe dementia, with weight loss, motor impairment, and death (third stage) (Bullock and Hammond, 2003). The median duration of AD is approximately 10 years but the range can be variable and patients may survive from 2 up to 20 years since the first symptoms appear (Wolfson et al., 2001). Currently, there are approximately 4.5 million people affected by AD only in the United States (Hy and Keller, 2000). But despite its high prevalence, it is still difficult for health care providers to differentiate possible or probable AD from FTD at the very early stages of the disease. The accurate diagnosis of dementia subtypes has not only psychological consequences for the patients and their caregivers but also a major influence on the choice of pharmacological treatment. Although acetylcholinesterase inhibitors may improve cognitive deficits in AD, they do not appear to have similar benefits in FTD patients (Procter et al., 1999). Moreover, in FTD behavioral symptoms like aggressiveness, disinhibition, or verbal outbursts can be well controlled by small doses of antipsychotics, while similar pharmacological treatments may contribute to additional cognitive decline in AD (Mendez and Cummings, 2003). The purpose of this review is to describe both similarities and differences in neurocognitive functioning, behavior, and neuroimaging in these two forms of dementia, particularly during the early stages of the disease. A comprehensive clinical evaluation includes neuropsychiatric assessment (i.e., interview with family members or caregivers), neuropsychological testing, and neuroimaging (Hodges, 2001). A complete neurologic examination is 133 also important because cognitive symptoms can be associated with MND (ALS), producing one of the most common subtypes of dementia of frontal type. It is especially important if the disease progresses rapidly and if bulbar symptoms develop since the identification of additional language impairment like aphasia or mutism is very important for the appropriate management of such patients (Bak and Hodges, 1999; Hodges, 2001; Rakowicz and Hodges, 1998). CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS Although there are no definitive laboratory tests for either AD or FTD, specific clinical criteria for these diseases have been proposed. For the diagnosis of AD, there are at least two sets of clinical criteria. The first and commonly used is described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV (DSM-IV) (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). In order to meet the DSM-IV criteria, the patient must have not only memory impairment but also a deficit in at least one other cognitive domain, including praxis, visuospatial, language, or executive function. The symptoms of cognitive impairment should be present for at least 6 months and must be severe enough to have an impact on social, occupational, or other daily functions. The second broadly used criteria for the diagnosis of “probable AD” was developed by the National Institute of Neurologic and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the AD and Related Disorders Association Work Group (NINCDS-ADRDA) (McKhann et al., 1984). The diagnosis requires documentation of dementia with at least two areas of cognition being impaired: a progressive deterioration in these cognitive deficits, onset between age 40 and 90, the absence of delirium, and the completion of a negative work-up for other dementing diseases. The same set of criteria also describes “possible AD” if there is a comorbid systemic or brain disorder not thought to be the cause of the dementia, or a progressive deficit in only one cognitive domain (McKhann et al., 1984; Mendez and Cummings, 2003). However, even if these formal clinical criteria are met, the neuropathological examination may not always be consistent with AD. Some studies have found that the accuracy of clinical diagnosis was between 50% and 60% (Mendez et al., 1992). The same studies also found that using DSM-IV criteria together with NINCDS-ADRDA set can improve the accuracy of the clinical diagnosis to 85–95%, but postmortem examination of the brain is still necessary to confirm a diagnosis of definite AD. Similar difficulties with diagnostic criteria and accuracy of clinical diagnosis can be seen in FTD. In 134 this syndrome, personality changes may play a very important role, sometimes overshadowing the cognitive deficits (Mendez and Cummings, 2003; Pasquier and Delacourte, 1998). The diagnose of FTD is often based on the Lund and Manchester clinical criteria (The Lund and Manchester Groups, 1994) and frontotemporal atrophy as seen on neuroimaging (Boccardi et al., 2002, 2003; Varma et al., 2002). The core of the Lund and Manchester diagnostic features for FTD consists of insidious onset with slow progression; early loss of insight; early signs of disinhibition; loss of mental flexibility; stereotyped, perseverative and utilization behavior; hyperorality; distractibility, and impulsivity. Although these features were based on a group of over 60 patients and were proposed by clinicians highly experienced with FTD, clinicians may still fail to recognize FTD or may misdiagnose it as AD (Halliday et al., 2002; Litvan et al., 1997; McKahnn et al., 2001; Mendez and Cummings, 2003; Mendez et al., 1993). This is mostly because the features listed above may have high sensitivity but are often associated with poor specificity (Grossman, 2002). For instance, Miller et al. (1997) showed that criteria like loss of personal awareness, hyperorality, stereotyped and perseverative behavior, progressive reduction of speech were particularly useful in differentiating FTD from AD. Conversely, items relating to affect and physical findings failed to discriminate between these two dementing disorders. Moreover, the same investigators suggested that Lund and Manchester criteria should be modified to take into account the time course of the symptoms. A study of differentiation of AD and FTD using NINCDS-ADRDA criteria found that these criteria did not accurately distinguish the two disorders (Varma et al., 1999). Most patients with FTD fulfilled NINCDSADRDA criteria for AD, suggesting that the specificity of these diagnostic set of criteria could be improved. The mini mental state examination (MMSE) (Folstein et al., 1975) does not appear to be a useful tool for screening patients with FTD, since even severely impaired FTD patients can have a relatively normal MMSE (Gregory and Hodges, 1996a,b; Grossman, 2002; Miller et al., 1991). In a series of prospective studies by Gregory and Hodges (1996b), the majority of FTD patients scored above the classic cut-off of 24, while approximately one third of all FTD subjects obtained a maximum of 30/30. Even with impaired MMSE performance, it may still be difficult to differentiate between FTD and AD. For example, MMSE relies heavily on language. Therefore, the low scores obtained by some of FTD patients may be caused by language impairment as well as executive dysfunction. Conversely, in AD, MMSE scores are usually low because of early memory impairment as well as problems with Harciarek and Jodzio executive function (Kertesz et al., 2003a; Lezak, 1995). Although Clock Drawing Test (CDT) is another widely used example of a sensitive instrument to detect early cognitive decline in neurodegenerative diseases, this tool also seems to have a relatively poor specificity for distinguishing between FTD and AD. This might be due to the fact that CDT engages not only visuospatial and constructional abilities but also conceptual and executive functions (Mendez and Cummings, 2003). However, in a study by Cahn-Weiner et al. (1999), CDT showed significant associations with tests of semantic knowledge, executive function, visuoconstruction, and receptive language in AD subjects. Moreover, Rascovsky et al. (2002) revealed that AD patients perform poorly on CDT, while FTD subjects are typically less impaired on this particular measure. Interestingly, Kertesz et al. (2003a) have suggested that the behavioral quantitation may be more sensitive than neuropsychological testing in detecting FTD. This suggests that screening tests such as the MMSE or CDT may not be particularly helpful in the differential diagnoses and that use of other more specialized neuropsychological methods in combination with behavioral inventories and neuroimaging may be needed. Nevertheless, both FTD and AD can potentially be clinically distinguishable based on some specific deficits described below. MEMORY IMPAIRMENT AD is characterized by an insidious onset and gradual progression of memory loss and other cognitive changes (Katzman, 1986; Lange et al., 2002). AD patients have difficulty with memory of recent events, presumably due to their inability to encode and store information for later recall (Knopman and Selnes, 2003).The loss of newly learned verbal information is one of the defining aspects of the memory disturbance in AD (Kaltreider et al., 2000; Welsh et al., 1992). Among the most frequently used measures aimed at specific evaluation of these deficits are Auditory-Verbal Learning Test (AVLT), California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT), and Hopkins Verbal Learning TestRevised (HVLT-R) (Lezak, 1995). The early occurrence of episodic memory impairment in AD is consistent with neuropathologic and neuroimaging evidences, suggesting that the entorhinal cortex and hippocampus are affected in the earliest stage of the disease (Braak and Braak, 1991; Hyman et al., 1984; Jack et al., 1992; Killiany et al., 1993; Lange et al., 2002). In validation studies of the well-known neuropsychological battery used in The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD), delayed recall of a word list was the best discriminator between subjects with AD and normal control subjects, Differential Diagnosis and one of the few CERAD variables which consistently identified those in the early stages of AD (Kaltreider et al., 2000; Welsh et al., 1992). Many other studies have also suggested that list learning and recall seem to be impaired relatively early in AD (Fox et al., 1998). The neuropsychological features of FTD overlap to some extent with those of AD, since both FTD and AD patients may have problems in encoding and retention of newly learned verbal information in the earliest stages of disease (Broe et al., 2003). Nevertheless, FTD patients tend to be less impaired than AD patients on some tests of memory (Rascovsky et al., 2002). However, verbal and visual memory deficits appear to be present in FTD patients as well (Strong et al., 2003). The differences between FTD and AD may not relate only to the severity of forgetting symptoms but also to the different types of memory impairment. For instance, FTD patients performing significantly better than AD patients on word-list learning, and delayed verbal recall (Diehl and Kurz, 2002). In addition, there is some evidence to suggest that AD patients may have impaired access to semantic representation even in the earliest stages (Chan et al., 1995; Martin and Fedio, 1983; Nebes, 1989). This finding might explain why AD subjects are often able to recall only the last presented words on tasks of verbal learning (the recency effect) (Lezak, 1995). Semantic deficits seen in AD seem to influence the performance on recognition trial as well. On the HVLT-R, patients with AD often tend to make falsepositive identifications, particularly of nontarget words that are semantically related to the targets (Brandt and Benedict, 1998). These differences in access to semantic representation may be useful in distinguishing FTD patients from AD patients, early in the course of the dementia. The memory changes seen in FTD may be in part due to frontal-executive impairments such as lack of active strategies for learning and retrieval (Mendez and Cummings, 2003). The same authors suggest that in FTD there is a relative preservation of recognition compared to free recall. Unlike patients with AD, FTD patients are also able to use cues or production priming to improve memory and appear to have lower rates of forgetting (Mendez and Cummings, 2003). There are some data to suggest that in the first stage of AD, patients often do not have problems with retrieval of old remote memories, and perceptual memory also seems to be preserved (Jodzio and Lenart, 2003). However, some investigators claim that it is not unusual even for patients early in the course of AD to show impaired performance on tests of autobiographical memory, although the degree of this impairment is certainly less than that seen on test of anterograde memory (Gregory and Hodges, 1996b). Tallberg (2001) has argued that the retrieval problems in 135 AD are the consequence of poor encoding and storage of recent episode memories, while in FTD (particularly the right hemisphere variant) this can be due to problems with disinhibition. However, Gregory and Hodges (1996b) have provided alternate explanations of the progressive amnestic disorder seen in AD, showing that it can be followed by breakdown in attentional, perceptual, and visuospatial abilities. These investigators have argued that the deficits found on tests of semantic memory are due to a breakdown in the structure of semantic memory. According to Gregory and Hodges (1996b), this hypothesis is supported by previous research using a battery of tests of semantic memory which tests knowledge about the same consistent set of items via differing modalities of sensory input and/or output. Based on that, the authors have established that the majority of patients presenting with even minimal AD (MMSE > 24) show impairment on tests of semantic memory. This is particularly true as the disease progresses into the moderate stage (MMSE < 18) and becomes a ubiquitous finding which is reflected in the increasing anomia, emptiness of language, and failure on general knowledge tests. The above explanation is also consistent with the major locus of pathology seen in AD, namely the medial temporal lobe. In conclusion, the qualitative analyses of the memory impairment seem to be helpful in distinguishing FTD from AD. In the early stages of the disease, FTD patients tend to have better performance on word-list learning and the delayed verbal recall than AD patients who may be more likely to have impaired access to semantic representations. Well-preserved recognition memory among FTD patients can also be a helpful feature for the differential diagnosis. LANGUAGE ABNORMALITIES Both AD and FTD typically present with language disturbances but the profile of linguistic abnormalities may be somewhat different in these syndromes. Although in the first stage of AD, memory deficits may overshadow the language problems, there is evidence of an early anomia as well (Galton et al., 2000). At the beginning of AD, patients are often unable to retrieve words and show poor word-list generation, especially for a given semantic category (Cerhan et al., 2002). Early in the course of the illness, conversational speech is usually well preserved (Jodzio, 1999), but in the mid-stage AD, naming difficulty typically becomes more pronounced (usually measured with the Boston Naming Test), and spontaneous speech becomes increasingly empty (Mendez and Cummings, 2003). However, in this kind of dementia object naming seems to be impaired to a significantly greater extent than 136 action naming (Williamson et al., 1998). With further progression of AD, impaired comprehension of speech and writing with relatively preserved verbal repetition and reading aloud is often seen. This suggests a clinical picture similar to that of transcortical sensory aphasia (Gates et al., 2002; Mendez and Cummings, 2003). Progressive deterioration involves semantic aspects, grammatical complexity, and prepositional content but basic syntactic and phonologic aspects of language seem to be less vulnerable in AD (Backman and Small, 1998; Harasty et al., 2001; Kemper et al., 2001). In the more severe stage of AD, additional speech disturbances can also appear. Among the most common are echolalia, logoclonia, and in some cases even complete mutism may occur (Mendez and Cummings, 2003). The language abnormalities associated with FTD appear more variable, in part because of the distinct frontal or temporal variants that can occur, as well as the asymmetric cortical atrophies. In general, FTD patients tend to have decreased verbal output that may progress to complete mutism (Snowden et al., 1992). One of the most sensitive early measures of language impairment in FTD is verbal fluency measure, particularly the word generation beginning with the same letter (Kertesz, 2003). The speech output is usually characterized by aspontaneity, decreased conversation with impoverished utterance (single word or short phrase) as well as decreased verb comprehension (Mendez and Cummings, 2003; Rhee and Grossman, 2001). Dysexecutive problems seen in FTD can also have an impact on tasks like action naming on which FTD patients are particularly impaired (Cappa et al., 1998). Ostberg et al. (2001) suggest that pressure of speech can also occur on rare occasions. Patients often interrupt, monopolizing a conversational interchange, or manifest a jargonaphasia. Many FTD patients present reiterative speech disorders such as logoclonic, festinant speech, palilalia, echolalia, and verbal stereotypy, or prominent automatic speech (Mendez and Cummings, 2003) what often can make them similar to AD patients. Among the early symptoms of FTD can be empty speech, semantic anomia, better written naming than oral naming, and difficulty with sentence comprehension that can be due to impaired processing of grammatical structure (Cappa et al., 1998; Grossman et al., 1996; Tainturier et al., 2001). Some patients with FTD and AD present with a progressive aphasia (Grossman, 2002; Jodzio, 1999). Although these patients do not present with deficits restricted to a single domain of impaired functioning, more detailed characterization of the language dysfunction can play an important role in finding clues to the underlying nature of the patient’s decline. Also cases of anomic aphasia or SD are initially very similar to the language impair- Harciarek and Jodzio ment of AD, only multimodal loss of semantic knowledge can help to classify these patients independently (Kertesz, 2004; Snowden, 1999). Moreover, language abnormalities seen in SD also often overlap with FTD, emphasizing that their description deserves special attention and should be discussed separately. In summary, language problems are often seen in AD and FTD. Both dementing diseases can lead to aphasia with preserved repetition abilities. Although the occurrence of transcortical aphasia and word-finding problems seems to be equally common for both conditions, FTD patients are more likely to present with impoverished spontaneous speech. In contrast, AD subjects have more severe comprehension difficulties and their discourse is usually disturbed. The different pattern of language abnormalities seen in AD and FTD can therefore be a helpful feature distinguishing between these two kinds of dementing diseases and should be taken into account during the neuropsychological evaluation. ATTENTION/EXECUTIVE IMPAIRMENT Although both AD and FTD patients appear to have impaired executive functions, these deficits appear to be much more subtle in patients with AD. Lindau et al. (2000), for instance, examined AD and FTD patients with a battery of neuropsychological tests. The results showed that FTD group exhibited significantly greater impairment on executive tasks compared to AD subjects. However, Gregory and Hodges (1996b) assumed that although the performance of FTD patients on executive tasks such as Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Trail Making Test, Stroop Test, Shallice’s Cognitive Estimates Test, and Verbal Fluency (FAS) is often markedly impaired, there are many FTD subjects with severe neurobehavioral abnormalities but relatively normal neuropsychological profile. Also some recently conducted studies did not find a difference on executive measures when these groups of patients were directly compared (Grossman, 2002; Kertesz et al., 2003a). Pachana et al. (1996) performed withingroup comparisons and found that FTD patients were more impaired in the executive functioning (FAS, Stroop Test) than their memory performance (Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure delayed recall), while AD subjects exhibited the reverse pattern. The profile of performance on verbal fluency task can be another distinguishing feature in early differential diagnosis. FTD patients (especially with fv-FTD) tend to generate less words beginning with the letter “f,” “a,” and “s” in comparison to the total number of words generated with a given semantic category (animals, supermarket), while the opposite pattern Differential Diagnosis is usually observed in AD (Gregory and Hodges, 1996b; Lezak 1995; Mendez and Cummings, 2003). These findings are particularly valuable because they underline the importance of within-subject comparisons instead of analyzing the performance on executive tasks alone. Although both AD and FTD patients generally present with impaired insight, planning, goal-oriented behavior, abstraction, and judgment (Mendez and Cummings, 2003), there is some evidence to suggest that even subjects with fv-FTD may sometimes perform at the relatively normal level on goal-oriented tasks requiring planning such as Tower of London (Rahman et al., 1999). Patients with FTD are usually concrete when tested on proverb interpretation and tests assessing comprehension of differences and similarities. Loss of awareness of their disabilities or the consequences of their behavior is also often seen in FTD and AD (Mendez and Cummings, 2003). There is some evidence to suggest that FTD patients have deficits in the area of attention that can range from mild to severe (Neary et al., 1986) but not all investigators have confirmed this (Miller et al., 1991). AD patients often display impairments in sustained or divided attention, disengagement of attention, impaired working memory, set changing, response inhibition, and motor programming (Baddeley et al., 2001; Cherry et al., 2002; Mendez and Cummings, 2003). AD patients are also less motivated than normal, which results in decreased initiation of activity (Friedland et al., 2001; Mendez and Cummings, 2003). However, the last finding seems to be equally true for FTD patients as well. Changes in attention may be one of the earliest cognitive manifestations of AD, with impaired performance on tasks like Digit Span, Symbol Digit, and Stroop Test (Lezak, 1995). Foldi et al. (2002) as well as Jodzio and Lenart (2003) showed that the severity of AD is strongly correlated with decline in performance of measures of attention. These investigators attribute a disruption of attentional functions due to increased load of a task. Moreover, Jodzio (1999) and others have suggested that attentional deficits may have a marked influence on performance in other cognitive domains such as memory, visuospatial functions, and language. In a study by Perry and Hodges (2000), the assessment of attention/executive function was found to aid the early differentiation of FTD and AD. Lindau et al. (2000) also suggested that loss of executive function can be a distinguishing feature and is more common in FTD than AD even in the very early disease stage. However, AD patients are often impaired on executive tasks like Trail Making Test B (Chen et al., 2000) but not to the same extent as FTD patients. Attention/executive function testing is also very useful in differentiating tv-FTD from fv-FTD. The above study by Perry and Hodges showed well-preserved 137 attention and executive function in group with tv-FTD, while patients with fv-FTD were very impaired in this domain. Lately, quantifiable tasks that involve processes like decision making and risk taking have been developed (Hodges, 2001; Rahman et al., 1999). These tests are sensitive for detecting orbitobasial frontal function and are based on the ability to make inferences about the mental state of others, which can be especially useful for the differential diagnosis. In conclusion, although changes in attention are believed to be one of the earliest cognitive manifestations of AD, FTD subjects are relatively more impaired on executive functions tasks requiring planning. Patients with fv-FTD have particularly severe difficulties on tests of attention and executive function, especially when compared with other cognitive tests scores. Therefore, the assessment of deficits in these domains facilitate not only the early differentiation of FTD and AD, but can also distinguish fv-FTD from tv-FTD as well. VISUOSPATIAL IMPAIRMENT Perhaps one of the most striking neuropsychological features is how well FTD subjects perform on visuospatial tests. Studies using the CERAD-NP have shown that FTD patients perform consistently better than AD subjects on measures of visuospatial construction (Diehl and Kurz, 2002) thus confirming that patients with FTD tend to be less impaired than AD patients on some tests of visuospatial abilities (Rascovsky et al., 2002). However, a study conducted by Pachana et al. (1996) showed that FTD subjects had mild impairments in constructional skills that could be attributed to poor planning or lack of strategy. Visuospatial deficits are among the earliest manifestations of AD. Patients have particular problems with drawing, constructions, and orientation in their own surrounding (Mendez and Cummings, 2003; Mendez et al., 1990b; Smith et al., 2001). Although the previously described CDT is one of the most widely used instruments sensitive to visuospatial impairment, it is often applied as a general measure of cognitive decline since it engages more than visuospatial functions. Copying tasks also do not appear to reliably distinguish between FTD, especially its frontal variant, and AD. Grossi et al. (2002) reported a study in which fv-FTD and AD at mild and moderate stage of the disease had similar scores on copying tasks, presented similar drawing procedure in copying Rey Complex Figure, and made nearly the same quantitative and qualitative pattern of errors in copying simple geometric drawings. They also did not find a significant difference on a specific battery for visuospatial abilities. These results 138 suggest that basic visuospatial and constructional skills may not be a differentiating sign in diagnosis of AD or FTD. Moreover, authors suggest that the clinical belief of preserved spatial abilities in fv-FTD is due to the lack of topographic disorientation in comparison to AD. However, Hodges (2001) and Warrington and James (1991) explain that the poor performance on copying Rey Figure by FTD patients is caused by the impulsiveness and a poor strategy formation. Furthermore, these subjects can perform perfectly on subtests of the Visual Object and Space Perception Battery even at an advanced stage of the illness (Hodges, 2001). In summary, in contrast to AD patients, FTD subjects usually perform relatively well on measures of visuospatial abilities. Visuospatial deficits are among the first manifestations of AD, thus making AD patients significantly impaired on tests like CDT and Rey Complex Figure. Hence, the differential diagnosis should be based not only on the results of memory, language, and attentional/executive function tasks, but should also take into account the assessment of visuospatial abilities as a reliable measurement distinguishing AD from FTD. BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY CHANGES Another distinguishing features are the behavioral and personality changes. These symptoms are different in FTD and AD, particularly during the early stages of the disease. In the early stages of AD, usually neither personality nor social behavior are significantly altered, whereas there is a considerable range of such changes seen in FTD patients (Bozeat et al., 2000). The slow development of mood abnormalities in AD can often cause the underestimation of the cognitive disabilities. Another distinguishing feature is the affective profile. As the disease progresses, most AD patients become indifferent and increasingly apathetic (Mendez and Cummings, 2003), while patients with FTD are more likely to be impulsive and disinhibited, with a decline of social and interpersonal skills (Bozeat et al., 2000; Mendez and Cummings, 2003). Mychack et al. (2001) suggest that the early appearance of socially inappropriate behavior in FTD might help differentiate patients with predominantly right-sided from left-sided degeneration. Their results emphasize the importance of right frontotemporal regions in the mediation of social behavior. Nonetheless, as the disease progresses, there may be considerable overlap in personality and behavior changes seen in FTD and AD patients. Although many AD patients develop apathy, others are prone to euphoria and loss of anxiety. The lack of awareness of their impairment can also be apparent in many cases (Mendez and Cummings, Harciarek and Jodzio 2003). However, the same authors suggest that patients with AD might be also aggressive, irritated, anxious, and present a limited impulsive control. The more the disease progresses, the more apparent these personality and behavioral changes become. In advanced stages of AD, aggression can not only be verbal but also sometimes be physical (Mendez and Cummings, 2003; Mendez et al., 1990a). A study using the Columbia University Scale for Psychopathology in Alzheimer’s Disease found that the symptoms of psychopathology in AD change somewhat over time (Devanand, 1999), with agitation being the most frequent and persistent symptom. Consistent with previous findings, agitation, aggression, and disinhibited behaviors may appear during the later stages of the illness. No association was found between depressive features and either cognitive or functional impairment among patients with AD (Devanand, 1999). Other emotional disturbances, such as depression, can be also seen among both AD and FTD patients (Mendez and Cummings, 2003). Although the frequency of depression in AD has been reported to occur in up to 87% of patients (Wragg and Jeste, 1989), most of these patients have mild dysthymia rather than major depression (Mendez and Cummings, 2003). Patients with FTD have lower prevalence of depression in comparison with AD patients (Levy et al., 1996) but disturbances like mania, anger, and irritability appear to be very common in this type of dementia (Mendez and Cummings, 2003; Miller et al., 1991). It is still unclear how often cognitive decline may mask depression and to what extent depression itself can impair cognitive performance on neuropsychological testing. Delusions appear in almost half of the AD patients (Wragg and Jeste, 1989) and occur more frequently in the middle stage of AD, accompanied by progressive cognitive decline (Mendez and Cummings, 2003). Patients with AD often develop paranoia and suspiciousness which may be related to right medial temporal lobe dysfunction (Geroldi et al., 2000). They sometimes misinterpret the behavior of their family members or caregivers, and this may be less common among patients with FTD. Nevertheless, there have been FTD patients with an initial schizophrenia-like psychosis or psychotic affective disorder (Mendez and Cummings, 2003). Rankin et al. (2003) tried to differentiate FTD from AD on the basis of both degree and type of personality changes using the Interpersonal Adjectives Scales. Interestingly, they found distinctly different patterns of change in social functioning in two subtypes of FTD: patients with temporal variant shifted toward severe interpersonal coldness with mild loss of dominance, whereas patients with frontal variant showed the opposite pattern. Differential Diagnosis Compulsive-like behavior are often seen in patients with FTD (Mendez and Cummings, 2003). In a study by Miller et al. (1997), stereotypical and preservative behaviors were among the five features that best discriminated AD from FTD. Unfortunately they did not distinguish between fv-FTP and tv-FTP. In a more recent study, Bozeat et al. (2000) found stereotypic and altered eating behaviors but also loss of social awareness to be distinguishing between AD and FTD patients regardless of disease severity. The results showed increased rigidity and depression in patients with tv-FTD (SD) compared to those with fv-FTD. Conversely, the fv-FTD group revealed greater disinhibition. Mendez and Cummings (2003) describe the most common preservative and stereotyped behaviors in FTD. They consist of simple repetitive acts and verbal or motor stereotypies, such as lip smacking, hand rubbing or clapping, counting aloud, humming, wandering a fixed route, and collecting and hoarding objects. Both AD and FTD patients can have problems with demonstrating and identifying basic emotions. Lavenu et al. (1999) had AD patients, FTD patients, and control group recognize and point out the name of one of seven basic emotions (anger, disgust, happiness, fear, sadness, surprise, and contempt) for a set of 28 faces. The three groups were equally able to distinguish a face displaying effect from one not displaying effect. The investigators found that naming of emotion was worse in patients with FTD than in patients with AD who did not differ significantly from control subjects. Anger, sadness, and disgust were less often recognized in FTD than in AD patients who did not differ from normal participants, whereas fear and contempt were poorly recognized by both groups of patients compared with control subjects. They also showed that patients with FTD are frequently unable to demonstrate these basic emotions and that the perception of facial and vocal emotions is also often impaired in FTD (Mendez and Cummings, 2003). This seems to be consistent with Lavenu et al. (1999) who go so far as to the behavioral disturbance in FTD may be due partly to an impaired interpretation of the emotional environment. In summary, there are some behavioral features that can help to differentiate AD from FTD especially in the early stages of these diseases. Although most FTD patients present with impulsiveness and disinhibition, some of them seem to be indifferent and apathetic as well. Nevertheless, indifference and apathy are mainly observed in AD. However, in contrast to FTD, AD subjects are usually very anxious and suspicious often developing paranoia. Moreover, AD patients present with other psychopathological syndromes like hallucinations and delusions, which can be the useful features in distinguishing between AD and FTD. AD patients are also less likely 139 to develop stereotypical and preservative behaviors which are more often seen in FTD. NEUROIMAGING FEATURES Although there is no specific laboratory test either for AD or for FTD, some neuroimaging methods such as MRI, computerized tomography (CT), single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), and positron emission tomography (PET) may help clinicians to distinguish AD from FTD. MRI is more sensitive than CT in evaluating patients with brain pathology and often can be helpful in the diagnosis of suspected AD or FTD (Knopman et al., 1989). However, both AD and FTD patients may have normal results on these scans or show nonspecific generalized cerebral atrophy with sulcal and ventricular enlargement or focal atrophy in mesiotemporal regions and hippocampal structures (Mendez and Cummings, 2003). Therefore, structural neuroimaging may not always be helpful in the earliest clinical stages (Kirshner, 1999). In AD, the degree of hippocampal atrophy and/or volume loss seen on MRI corresponds with the rate and degree of cognitive decline and amount of hippocampal pathology on autopsy (Mendez and Cummings, 2003; Petersen et al., 2000; Wolf et al., 2001).The reduction of size of the entorhinal cortex and limbic structures can be also visible on MRI, but these alternations do not seem to be as evident as the degree of hippocampal volume loss (Csernansky et al., 2000; Killiany et al., 2000). By comparison, in patients with FTD, MRI usually reveals frontal or anterior temporal atrophy, enlargement of the Sylvian fissures, anterior callosal atrophy, and sometimes hippocampal and entorhinal volume loss (Friedland et al., 1993; Frisoni et al., 1999; Kaufer et al., 1997; Kitagaki et al., 1998; Mendez and Cummings, 2003; Miller et al., 2000, 1991; Rosen et al., 2002b; Yamauchi et al., 2000). Degree of entorhinal cortex atrophy does not appear to be a sufficiently reliable feature to differentiate FTD from AD, while hippocampal atrophy, which appears to be more prominent in AD, can be a distinguishing feature (Frisoni et al., 1999; Laakso et al., 2000). Boccardi et al. (2003) also tried to identify specific MRI features that could differentiate FTD and AD. They found that FTD patients had mild atrophy in the hippocampus, severe in the frontal, and very severe in the temporal lobes. AD patients appeared to have moderate atrophy in hippocampus and temporal lobe and very mild in frontal regions. More asymmetrical atrophy was seen in FTD than AD patients, especially in the temporal lobes. Because of its sensitivity, functional MRI (fMRI) can be also very useful, especially in cases with early 140 onset. Rombouts et al. (2003) reported results of a study in which patients with FTD and AD had mild cerebral atrophy on structural MRI with no difference between these groups. Using a task that requires working memory abilities, the investigators activated a network that, in both FTD and AD, included frontal, parietal lobe, and thalamus. In FTD patients, brain activity was significantly decreased in frontal and parietal cortex. Also, the FTD group showed less linear activation in frontal regions that increased with working memory load than in AD group. There was a stronger response observed in the cerebellum of FTD patients, which was attributed to a possible compensation mechanism. This study showed that even when the results of structural MRI are not diagnostic, fMRI can help differentiate FTD from AD in the early stage of the disease. Anatomical (MRI) and functional (SPECT) imaging of early onset patients with AD and FTD was performed by Varma et al. (2002). They found that severe frontal atrophy (unilateral or bilateral) and/or asymmetrical atrophy on MRI, turned out to be highly diagnostic of FTD. Mild or more severe parietal atrophy with signficant reduction in parietal regional cerebral blood flow on SPECT was diagnostic of AD. The authors suggest that the different information provided from MRI and SPECT and the combination of these modalities can significantly improve the diagnostic specificity. There are several research studies using SPECT and PET showing decreased cerebral blood flow and hypometabolism in the frontal cortex and anterior temporal lobes among FTD patients (Alexander et al., 1995; Friedland et al., 1993; Mendez and Cummings, 2003; Miller and Gearhart, 1998). In comparison to FTD, AD patients present decreased metabolism in parietotemporal regions bilaterally, followed later by reduction in frontal association fields, on PET scan, and decreased cerebral perfusion especially in the posterior parietal cortex presented on SPECT (Masterman et al., 1997; Mendez and Cummings, 2003; Merello et al., 1994; Wolfe et al., 1995). Also other findings suggest that SPECT might be very useful in differentiating FTD from AD (Charpentier et al., 2000; Lojkowska et al., 2002). Nevertheless, Mendez and Cummings (2003) argue that although PET and SPECT can distinguish AD from normal or even from some other dementing diseases, the imaging findings are not specific to AD and may be seen in other dementing illnesses. Recently, PET studies with F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) have been published, showing particular promise in differential diagnosis (Foster, 2003; Grimmer et al., 2004; Higdon et al., 2004; Jeong et al., 2005). Several investigators have demonstrated that although dementing diseases may have overlapping clinical features, Harciarek and Jodzio they often have significantly different patterns of regional glucose metabolism. Moreover, Foster (2003) has claimed that FDG-PET can be a diagnostic biomarker in clinical identification of FTD, rather than AD, since the high pretest probability of AD in elderly patients with dementia decreases the possibility of a high likelihood ratio (a key indicator of the value of a diagnostic test). In studies conducted by Jeong et al. (2005), hypometabolism in patients with FTD, similar to hypoperfusion seen in SPECT studies described above, was found mainly in frontal and anterior temporal regions. These investigators also showed that hypometabolism in FTD subjects was frequently asymmetrical and lateralized to the left hemisphere. This pattern was common (90%) and intense in FTD, even after patients with PPA and SD were excluded from the study. However, although these results can help to decrease diagnostic errors and hasten accurate diagnosis, imaging will never be substituted for a careful clinical history and examination. Therefore, the real diagnostic power of FDG-PET is realized when other clues like clinical information and structural imaging are available. Foster (2003) suggests that in some cases use of FDG-PET may not be crucial to an accurate diagnosis but can be of significant help when there is an atypical or incompletely developed presentation. In summary, several lines of data suggest that temporal atrophy is often seen in both dementing diseases. However, there is a specific pattern of brain cell degeneration that helps in distinguishing between AD and FTD. In AD especially medial parts of the posterior cortex as well as hippocampal structures are initially affected, while in FTD the severe frontal atrophy, hypoperfusion, and hypometabolism (mostly in the left hemisphere) in the frontal regions are mainly observed on neuroimaging. These findings show that new neuroimaging techniques are useful tools in the process of differential diagnosis and should be included in the clinical evaluation. CONCLUSIONS Although both AD and FTD are common forms of dementia, there are no specific tests that can accurately distinguish these two degenerative diseases. This review of the literature has aimed to show both similarities and discrepancies between AD and FTD, especially in the very early stages of these disorders. Table 1 shows some of the specific features of AD and FTD that should be taken into account when formulating the differential diagnosis. However, caution must be exercised in interpreting separately only behavioral changes, neuroimaging, memory impairment, or other neuropsychological findings in order to find a single sign distinguishing AD from FTD. It is Differential Diagnosis 141 Table 1. Features that Distinguish Dementia of Frontal Type and Dementia of Alzheimer’s Type in the Early Stage of the Disease Feature Memory Frontotemporal dementia Initially relatively spared DAT (dementia of Alzheimer’s type) Impaired encoding and storage of new information with preserved retrieval of remote memories Poor recognition Well-preserved recognition Language Verbal fluency Speech Comprehension Repetition Naming Attention/executive function Visuospatial abilities Behavioral Neuroimaging findings Very poor Better for categories than letters Decreased spontaneous conversation, stereotyped speech with shortened phrase length, and articulation problems Relatively preserved; noun comprehension > verb comprehension Spared Poor Severely impaired; loss of planning Preserved Early personality changes; more behavioral than psychotic features Frequent compulsive—like behaviors Frontal hemispheric atrophy highly recommended that all of the features described above should be taken into consideration. Only a comprehensive clinical evaluation is capable of providing the differential diagnosis of possible or probable AD or FTD, with its positive confirmation in autopsy. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Authors are grateful to Dr. Jason Brandt and Dr. Ola A. Selnes from Johns Hopkins Hospital and School of Medicine for their help and comments. REFERENCES Alexander, G. E., Prohovnik, I., Sackeim, H. A., Stern, Y., and Mayeux, R. (1995). Cortical perfusion and gray matter weight in frontal lobe dementia. J. Neuropsychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 7: 188–196. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edn., American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC. Backman, L., and Small, B. J. (1998). Influences of cognitive support on episodic remembering: Tracing the process of loss from normal aging to Alzheimer’s disease. Psychol. Aging 13: 267–276. Baddeley, A. D., Baddeley, H. A., Bucks, R. S., and Wilcock, G. K. (2001). Attentional control in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain 124: 1492–1508. Bak, T., and Hodges, J. R. (1999). Cognition, language, behaviour in motor neurone disease: Evidence of frontotemporal dementia. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 10(Suppl 1): 29–32. Boccardi, M., Laakso, M. P., Bresciani, L., Galluzzi, S., Geroldi, C., Beltramello, A., et al. (2003). The MRI pattern of frontal and temporal brain atrophy in fronto-temporal dementia. Neurobiol. Aging 24: 95–103. Boccardi, M., Pennanen, C. M., Laakso, M. P., Testa, C., Geroldi, C., Soininen, H., et al. (2002). Amygdaloid atrophy in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Neurosci. Lett. 335: 139–143. Poor Better for letters than categories Moderate disturbances of discourse with word-finding problems Poor; noun comprehension < verb comprehension Spared Poor Moderately impaired; deficits of divided attention Severely impaired Late personality changes; more psychotic than behavioral features Suspiciousness and paranoia Posterior hemispheric atrophy associated by rapid loss of hippocampal cells Bozeat, S., Gregory, C. A., Lambon Ralph, M. A., and Hodges, J. R. (2000). Which neuropsychiatric and behavioural features distinguish frontal and temporal variants of frontotemporal dementia from Alzheimer’s disease? J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 69: 178–186. Braak, H., and Braak, E. (1991). Neuropathological staging of Alzheimer-related changes. Acta Neuropathol. 82: 239–259. Brandt, J., and Benedict, R. H. B. (1998). Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised: Professional Manual, Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc., Lutz, Florida. Broe, M., Hodges, J. R., Schofield, E., Shephard, C. E., Kril, J. J., and Halliday, G. M. (2003). Staging disease severity in pathologically confirmed cases of FTD. Neurology 60: 1005–1011. Brun, A. (1987). Frontal lobe degeneration of non-Alzheimer type. I. Neuropathol. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 6: 209–233. Bullock, R., and Hammond, G. (2003). Realistic expectations: The management of severe Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis. Assoc. Disord. 17(Suppl 3): 80–85. Cahn-Weiner, D. A., Sullivan, E. V., Shear, P. K., Fama, R., Lim, K. O., Yesayage, J. A., et al. (1999). Brain structural and cognitive correlates of clock drawing performance in Alzheimer’s disease. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 5: 502–509. Cappa, S. F., Binetti, G., Pezzini, A., Padovani, A., Rozzini, L., and Trabucchi, M. (1998). Object and action naming in Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 50: 351–355. Cerhan, J. H., Ivnik, R. J., Smith, G. E., Tangalos, E. C., Petersen, R. C., and Boeve, B. F. (2002). Diagnostic utility of letter fluency, category fluency, and fluency difference scores in Alzheimer’s disease. Clin. Neuropsychol. 16: 35–42. Chan, A. S., Butters, N., Salmon, S. P., Johnson, S. A., Paulsen, J. S., and Swenson, M. R. (1995). Comparison of the semantic networks in patients with dementia and amnesia. Neuropsychology 9: 177–186. Charpentier, P., Lavenu, I., Defebvre, L., Duhamel, A., Lecouffe, P., and Steinling, M. (2000). Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia are differentiated by discriminant analysis applied to 99m Tc HmPAO SPECT data. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 69: 661– 664. Chen, P., Ratcliff, G., Belle, S. H., Cauley, J. A., DeKosky, S. T., and Ganguli, M. (2000). Cognitive tests that best discriminate between presymptomatic AD and those who remain nondemented. Neurology 55: 1847–1853. 142 Cherry, B. J., Buckwalter, J. G., and Henderson, V. W. (2002). Better preservation of memory span relative to supraspan immediate recall in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychologia 40: 846–852. Csernansky, J. G., Wang, L., Joshi, S., Miller, J. P., Gado, M., Kido, D., et al. (2000). Early DAT is distinguished from aging by highdimentional mapping of hippocampus: Dementia of Alzheimer type. Neurology 55: 1636–1643. Dal Forno, G., Carson, K. A., Brookmeyer, R., Troncoso, J., Kawas, C. H., and Brandt, J. (2002). APOE genotype and survival in men and women with Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 58: 1045–1050. Devanand, D. P. (1999). The interrelations between psychosis, behavioral disturbance, and depression in Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis. Assoc. Disord. 13(Suppl 2): 3–8. Diehl, J., and Kurz, A. (2002). Frontotemporal dementia: Patient’s characteristic, cognition and behavior. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 17: 914–918. Foldi, N. S., Lobosco, J. J., and Schaefer, L. A. (2002). The effect of attentional dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease: Theoretical and practical implications. Semin. Speech Lang. 23: 139–150. Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. F., and McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini Mental State: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J. Psychiatr. Res. 12: 189–198. Foster, N. L. (2003). Validating FDG-PET as a biomarker for frontotemporal dementia. Exp. Neurol. 184(Suppl 1): 2–8. Fox, L. S., Olin, J. T., Erblich, J., Ippen, C. G., and Schneider, L. S. (1998). Severity affects list learning using the CVLT. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 13: 544–549. Friedland, R. P., Koss, E., Lerner, A., Hedera, P., Ellis, W., Dronkers, N., et al. (1993). Functional imaging, the frontal lobes, and dementia. Dementia 4: 192–203. Friedland, R. P., Fritsch, T., Smyth, K. A., Koss, E., Lerner, A. J., Chen, C. H., et al. (2001). Patients with Alzheimer’s disease have reduced activities in midlife compared with healthy control-group members. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98: 3440–3445. Frisoni, G. B., Laakso, M. P., Beltramello, A., Geroldi, C., Bianchetti, A., Soininen, H., et al. (1999). Hippocampal and entorhinal cortex atrophy in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 52: 91–100. Galton, C. J., Patterson, K., Xuereb, J. H., and Hodges, J. R. (2000). Atipical and typical presentations of Alzheimer’s disease: A clinical, neuropsychological, neuroimaging and pathological study of 13 cases. Brain 123: 484–498. Gates, G. A., Beiser, A., Rees, T. S., D’Agostino, R. B., and Wolf, P. A. (2002). Central auditory dysfunction may precede the onset of clinical dementia in people with probable Alzheimer’s disease. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 50: 482–488. Geroldi, C., Akkawi, N. M., Galluzzi, S., Ubezio, M., Binetti, G., Zanetti, O., et al. (2000). Temporal lobe asymmetry in patients with Alzheimer’s disease with delusions. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 69: 187–191. Goldstein, F. C., Ashley, A. V., Gearing, M., Hanfelt, J., Penix, L., Freedman, L. J., et al. (2001). Apolipoprotein E and age at onset of Alzheimer’s disease in African Americans patients. Neurology 57: 1923–1925. Gregory, C. A. (1999). Frontal variant of frontotemporal dementia: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study of neuropsychiatric features. Psychol. Med. 29: 1205–1217. Gregory, C. A., and Hodges, J. R. (1996a). Frontotemporal dementia: Use of consensus criteria and prevalence of psychiatric features. Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol. Behav. Neurol. 9: 145–153. Gregory, C. A., and Hodges, J. R. (1996b). Clinical features of frontal lobe dementia in comparison to Alzheimer’s disease. J. Neural Transm. Suppl. 47: 103–123. Gregory, C. A., Orrell, M., Sahakian, B., and Hodges, J. R. (1997). Can frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease be differentiated using a brief battery of tests? Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 12: 375– 383. Grimmer, T., Diehl, J., Drzezga, A., Forstl, H., and Kurz, A. (2004). Region-specific decline of cerebral glucose metabolism in patients Harciarek and Jodzio with frontotemporal dementia: A prospective 18F-FDG-PET study. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 18: 32–36. Grossi, D., Fragassi, N. A., Chiacchio, L., Valoroso, L., Tuccillo, R., Perrotta, C., et al. (2002). Do visuospatial and constructional disturbances differentiate frontal variant of frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease? An experimental study of a clinical belief. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 17: 641–648. Grossman, M. (2002). Frontotemporal dementia: A review. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 8: 566–583. Grossman, M., D’Esposito, M., Hughes, E., Onishi, K., Biassou, N., White-Devine, T., et al. (1996). Language comprehension in Alzheimer’s disease, multi-infract dementia, and frontotemporal degeneration. Neurology 47: 183–189. Gustafson, L. (1987). Frontal lobe degeneration of non-Alzheimer type. II. Clinical picture and differential diagnosis. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 6: 209–233. Gustafson, L., Elfgren, C., and Passant, U. (2004). Frontotemporal dementia—differentiation from Alzheimer’s disease. Pol. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 4: 279–291. Halliday, G. M., Ng, T., Rodriguez, M., Harding, A., Blumbergs, P., Evans, W., et al. (2002). Consensus neuropathological diagnosis of common dementia syndromes: Testing and standardising the use of multiple diagnostic criteria. Acta Neuropathol. 104: 72–78. Halliday, G. M., Song, Y. J., Lepar, G., Brooks, W. S., Kwok, J. B., Kersaitis, C., et al. (2005). Pick bodies in a family with presenilin1 Alzheimer’s disease. Ann. Neurol. 57: 139–143. Harasty, J. A., Halliday, G. M., Xuereb, J., Croot, K., Bennett, H., and Hodges, J. R. (2001). Cortical degeneration associated with phonologic and semantic language impairments in AD. Neurology 56: 944–950. Hendrie, H. C., Osuntokun, B. O., Hall, K. S., Ogunniyi, A. O., Hui, S. L., Unverzagt, F. W., et al. (1995). Prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia in two communities: Nigerian Africans and African Americans. Am. J. Psychiatry 152: 1485–1492. Heyman, A., Fillenbaum, G., Prosnitz, B., Reiford, K., Burchett, B., and Clark, C. (1991). Estimated prevalence of dementia among elderly black and white community residents. Arch. Neurol. 48: 594–598. Heyman, A., Peterson, B., Fillenbaum, G., and Pieper, C. (1996). The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CEDAR). Part XIV. Demographic and clinical predictors of survival in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 46: 656–660. Higdon, R., Foster, N. L., Koeppe, R. A., DeCarli, C. S., Jagust, W. J., Clark, C. M., et al. (2004). A comparison of classification methods for differentiating fronto-temporal dementia from Alzheimer’s disease using FDG-PET imaging. Stat. Med. 23: 315–326. Hodges, J. R. (1994). Pick’s disease. In: Burns, A., and Levy, R. (eds.), Dementia, Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 739–752. Hodges, J. R. (2001). Frontotemporal dementia (Pick’s disease): Clinical features and assessment. Neurology 56(Suppl 4): 6–10. Hodges, J. R., Patterson, K., Oxbury, S., and Funnell, E. (1992). Semantic dementia. Progressive fluent aphasia with temporal lobe atrophy. Brain 115: 1783–1806. Hutton, M. (2001). Missense and splice site mutations in tau associated with FTDP-17: Multiple pathogenic mechanisms. Neurology 56(Suppl 4): 21–25. Hy, L. X., and Keller, D. M. (2000). Prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease among whites: A summary by levels of severity. Neurology 55: 198–204. Hyman, B. T., Van Hoesen, G. W., Damasio, A., and Barnes, C. L. (1984). Alzheimer’s disease: Cell-specific pathology isolates the hippocampal formation. Science 225: 1168–1170. Jack, C. R., Petersen, R. C., O’Brien, P. C., and Tangalos, E. G. (1992). MR-based hippocampal volumetry in the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 42: 183–188. Jeong, Y., Cho, S. S., Park, J. M., Kang, S. J., Lee, J. S., Kang, E., et al. (2005). 18F-FDG PET findings in frontotemporal dementia: An SPM analysis of 29 patients. J. Nucl. Med. 46: 233–239. Jodzio, K. (1999). Primary Progressive Aphasia, Gdansk University Press, Gdansk. (in Polish). Differential Diagnosis Jodzio, K., and Lenart, S. (2003). Cognitive account of working memory impairment in Alzheimer’s disease. Rocz. Psychologiczne 6: 77–90. (in Polish with English summary). Kaltreider, L. B., Cicerello, A. R., Lacritz, L. H., Weiner, M. F., and Munro Cullum, C. (2000). Comparison of CERAD and CLVT list learning task in Alzheimer’s disease. Clin. Neuropsychol. 14: 269– 274. Katzman, R. (1986). Alzheimer’s disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 10: 964–973. Kaufer, D. I., Miller, B. L., Itti, L., Fairbanks, L. A., Li, J., Fishman, J., et al. (1997). Midline cerebral morphometry distinguishes frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 48: 978– 985. Kemper, S., Marquis, J., and Thompson, M. (2001). Longitudinal change in language production: Effects of aging and dementia on grammatical complexity and propositional content. Psychol. Aging 16: 600–614. Kersaitis, C., Halliday, G. M., and Kril, J. J. (2004). Regional and cellular pathology in frontotemporal dementia: Relationship to stage of disease in cases with and without Pick bodies. Acta Neuropathol. 108: 515–523. Kertesz, A. (1997). Frontotemporal dementia, Pick disease, and corticobasal degeneration. One entity or 3? 1. Arch. Neurol. 54: 1427– 1429. Kertesz, A. (2003). Pick Complex: An integrative approach to frontotemporal dementia: Primary progressive aphasia, corticobasal degeneration, and progressive supranuclear palsy. Neurologist 9: 311–317. Kertesz, A. (2004). Frontotemporal dementia/Pick’s disease. Workshop Materials from 32nd INS Meeting, Baltimore. Kertesz, A., Davidson, W., McCabe, P., and Munoz, D. (2003a). Behavioral quantitation is more sensitive than cognitive testing in frontotemporal dementia. Alzheimer Dis. Assoc. Disord. 17: 223– 229. Kertesz, A., Martinez-Lage, P., Davidson, W., and Munoz, D. G. (2000). The corticobasal degeneration syndrome overlaps progressive aphasia and frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 14: 1368– 1375. Kertesz, A., and Munoz, D. G. (2003). Primary progressive aphasia and Pick complex. J. Neurol. Sci. 206: 97–107. Kertesz, A., Munoz, D. G., and Hillis, A. (2003b). Preferred terminology. Annals of Neurology 54(Suppl 5): 3–6. Killiany, R. J., Gomez-Isla, T., Moss, M., Kikinis, R., Sandor, T., Jolesz, F., et al. (2000). Use of structural magnetic resonance imaging to predict who will get alzheimer’s disease. Ann. Neurol. 47: 430–439. Killiany, R. J., Moss, M. B., Albert, M. S., Sandor, T., Tieman, J., and Joleaz, F. (1993). Temporal lobe regions on magnetic resonance imaging identify patients with early Alzheimer’s disease. Arch. Neurol. 50: 949–954. Kirshner, H. S. (1999). Frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 52: 1516. Kitagaki, H., Mori, E., Yamaji, S., Ishii, K., Hirono, N., Kobashi, S., et al. (1998). Frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer disease: Evaluation of cortical atrophy with automated hemispheric surface display generated with MR images. Radiology 208: 431–439. Knopman, D. S., Christensen, K. J., Schut, L. J., Harbaugh, R. E., Reeder, T., Ngo, T., et al. (1989). The spectrum of imaging and neuropsychological findings in Pick’s disease. Neurology 39: 362– 368. Knopman, D. S., and Selnes, O. A. (2003). Neuropsychology of dementia. In: Heilman, K. M., and Valenstein, E. (eds.), Clinical Neuropsychology, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 574– 616. Laakso, M. P., Frisoni, G. B., Kononen, M., Mikkonen, M., Beltramello, A., Geroldi, C., et al. (2000). Hippocampus and entorhinal cortex in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease: A morphometric MRI study. Biol. Psychiatry 47: 1056–1063. Lange, K. L., Bondi, M. W., Salmon, D. P., Galasko, D., Delis, D. C., Thomas, R. G., and Thal, L. J. (2002). Decline in verbal memory during preclinical Alzheimer’s disease: Examination on effect of APOE genotype. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 8: 943–955. 143 Lavenu, I., Pasquier, F., Lebert, F., Petit, H., and Van der Linden, M. (1999). Perception of emotion in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis. Assoc. Disord. 13: 96– 101. Levy, M. L., Miller, B. L., Cummings, J. L., Fairbanks, L. A., and Craig, A. (1996). Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementias: Behavioral distinctions. Arch. Neurol. 53: 687–690. Lezak, M. D. (1995). Neuropsychological Assessment, Oxford University Press, New York; Oxford. Lindau, M., Almkvist, O., Kushi, J., Boone, K., Johansson, S. E., Wahlund, L. O., et al. (2000). First symptoms—frontotemporal dementia versus Alzheimer’s disease. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 11: 286–293. Litvan, I., Agid, Y., Sastry, N., Jankovic, J., Wenning, G. K., Goetz, C. G., et al. (1997). What are the obstacles for an accurate clinical diagnosis of Pick’s disease? A clinicopathologic study. Neurology 49: 62–69. Lojkowska, W., Ryglewicz, D., Jedrzejczak, T., Sienkiewicz-Jarosz, H., Minc, S., Jakubowska, T., et al. (2002). SPECT as a diagnostic test in the investigation of dementia. J. Neurol. Sci. 203: 215– 219. Martin, A., and Fedio, P. (1983). Word production and comprehension in Alzheimer’s disease: The breakdown of semantic knowledge. Brain Lang. 19: 124–141. Masterman, D. L., Mendez, M. F., Fairbanks, L. A., and Cummings, J. L. (1997). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of technetium 99-HMPAO SPECT in discriminating Alzheimer’s disease from other dementias. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry Neurol. 10: 15–21. McKhann, G., Drachman, D., Folstein, M., Katzman, R., Price, D., and Stadlan, E. M. (1984). Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: Report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurology 34: 939–944. McKahnn, G. M., Albert, M. S., Grossman, M., Miller, B., Dickson, D., and Trojanowski, J. Q. (2001). Clinical and pathological diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia: Report of the Work Group on Frontotemporal Dementia and Pick’s Disease. Arch. Neurol. 58: 1801–1809. Mendez, M. F., and Cummings, J. L. (2003). Dementia-a Clinical Approach, 3rd edn., Butterworth-Heinemann (Elsevier), Philadelphia, PA. Mendez, M. F., Martin, R. J., Smyth, K. A., and Whitehouse, P. J. (1990a). Psychiatric symptoms associated with Alzheimer’s disease. J. Neuropsychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 2: 28–33. Mendez, M. F., Mastri, A. R., Sung, J. H., and Frey, W. H. (1992). Clinically diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease: Neuropathologic findings in 650 cases. Alzheimer Dis. Assoc. Disord. 6: 35–43. Mendez, M. F., Mendez, M. A., Martin, R., Smyth, K. A., and Whitehouse, P. J. (1990b). Complex visual disturbances in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 40: 439–443. Mendez, M. F., Selwood, A., Mastri, A. R., and Frey, W. H. (1993). Pick’s disease versus Alzheimer’s disease: A comparison of clinical characteristics. Neurology 43: 289–292. Merello, M., Sabe, L., Teson, A., Migliorelli, R., Petracchi, M., Leiguarda, R., et al. (1994). Extrapyramidalism in Alzheimer’s disease: Prevalence, psychiatric, and neuropsychological correlates. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 57: 1503–1509. Mesulam, M. M. (1982). Slowly progressive aphasia without generalized dementia. Ann. Neurol. 11: 592–598. Mesulam, M. M. (1987). Primary progressive aphasia—differentiation from Alzheimer’s disease. Ann. Neurol. 22: 533–534. Miller, B. L., Boone, K., Cummings, J. L., Read, S. L., and Mishkin, F. (2000). Functional correlates of musical and visual ability in frontotemporal dementia. Br. J. Psychiatry 176: 458–463. Miller, B. L., Cummings, J. L., Villanueva-Meyer, J., Boone, K., Mehringer, C. M., Lesser, I. M., et al. (1991). Frontal lobe degeneration: Clinical, neuropsychological, and SPECT characteristics. Neurology 41: 1374–1382. 144 Miller, B. L., and Gearhart, R. (1999). Neuroimaging in the diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 10(Suppl. 1): 71–74. Miller, B. L., Ikonte, C., Ponton, M., Levy, M., Boone, K., Darby, A., et al. (1997). A study of the Lund-Manchester research criteria for frontotemporal dementia: Clinical and single-photon emission CT correlations. Neurology 48: 937–942. Mychack, P., Kramer, J. H., Boone, K. B., and Miller, B. L. (2001). The influence of right frontotemporal dysfunction on social behavior in frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 56(Suppl 4): 11–15. Neary, D., Snowden, J. S., Bowen, D. M., Sims, N. R., Mann, D. M. A., Benton, J. S., et al. (1986). Neuropsychological syndromes in presenile dementia due to cerebral atrophy. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 49: 163–174. Neary, D., Snowden, J. S., Mann, D. M., Northen, B., Goulding, P. J., and Macdermott, N. (1990). Frontal lobe dementia and motor neuron disease. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 53: 23–32. Neary, D., Snowden, J. S., Northen, B., and Goulding, P. (1988). Dementia of frontal lobe type. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 51: 353–361. Nebes, J. C. (1989). Semantic memory in Alzheimer’s disease. Psychol. Bull. 106: 377–394. Ogunniyi, A. O., Osuntokun, B. O., Lekwauwa, U. B., and Falope, Z. F. (1992). Rarity of dementia (by DSM-III-R) in an urban community in Nigeria. East Afr. Med. J. 69: 64–68. Ostberg, P., Bogdanovic, N., Fernaeus, S. E., and Wahlund, L. O. (2001). Jargonagraphia in a case of frontotemporal dementia. Brain Lang. 79: 333–339. Ott, A., Slooter, A. J., Hofman, A., van Harskamp, F., Witteman, J. C., Van Broeckhoven, C., van Duijn, C. M., et al. (1998). Smoking and risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease in a populationbased cohort study: The Rotterdam Study. Lancet 351: 1840– 1843. Pachana, N. A., Boone, K., Miller, B. L., Cummings, J. L., and Berman, N. (1996). Comparsion of neuropsychological functioning in Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia. J. Int. Neuropsychol. 2: 505–510. Pasquier, F., and Delacourte, A. (1998). Non-Alzheimer degenerative dementias. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 11: 417–427. Pasquier, F., Richard, F., and Lebert, F. (2004). Natural history of frontotemporal dementia: Comparison with Alzheimer’s disease. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 17: 253–257. Perry, R. J., and Hodges, J. R. (2000). Differenting frontal and temporal variant frontotemporal dementia from Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 54: 2277–2284. Petersen, R. C. (2003). Conceptual overview. In: Petersen, R. C. (ed.), Mild Cognitive Impairment, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 1–14. Petersen, R. C., Jack, C. R., Jr., Xu, Y. C., Waring, S. C., O’Brien, P. C., Smith, G. E., et al. (2000). Memory and MRI-based hippocampal volumes in aging and AD. Neurology 54: 581–587. Procter, A. W., Qurne, M., and Francis, P. T. (1999). Neurochemical features of frontotemporal dementia. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 10(Suppl 1): 80–84. Rahman, S., Sahakian, B. J., Hodges, J. R., Rogers, R. D., and Robbins, T. W. (1999). Specific cognitive deficits in early frontal variant frontotemporal dementia. Brain 122: 1469–1493. Rakowicz, Z., and Hodges, J. R. (1998). Dementia and aphasia in motor neurone disease: An under recognised association. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 65: 881–889. Rankin, K. P., Kramer, J. H., Mychack, P., and Miller, B. L. (2003). Double dissociation of social functioning in frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 60: 266–271. Rascovsky, K., Salmon, D. P., Ho, G. J., Galasko, D., Peavy, G. M., Hansen, L. A., et al. (2002). Cognitive profiles differ in autopsyconfirmed FTD and AD. Neurology 58: 1801–1808. Ratnavalli, E., Brayne, C., Dawson, K., and Hodges, J. R. (2002). The prevalence of frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 58: 1615– 1621. Harciarek and Jodzio Rhee, J., and Grossman, M. (2001). Verb comprehension in frontotemporal degeneration: The role of grammatical, semantic and executive components. Neurocase 7: 173–184. Risberg, J. (1987). Frontal lobe degeneration of non-Alzheimer type. III. Regional cerebral blood flow. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 6: 225–233. Rombouts, S. A. R. B., van Swieten, J. C., Pijnenburg, Y. A. L., Goekoop, R., Barkhof, F., and Scheltens, P. (2003). Loss of frontal fMRI activation in early frontotemporal dementia compared to early AD. Neurology 60: 1904–1908. Rosen, H. J., Gorno-Tempini, M. L., Goldman, W. P., Perry, R. J., Schuff, N., Weiner, M., et al. (2002a). Patterns of brain atrophy in frontotemporal dementia and semantic dementia. Neurology 58:198– 208. Rosen, H. J., Hartikainen, K. M., Jagust, W., Kramer, J. H., Reed, B. R., Cummings, J. L., et al. (2002b). Utility of clinical criteria in differentiating frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) from AD. Neurology 58: 1608–1615. Rosso, S. M., Landweer, E. J., Houterman, M., Donker Kaat, L., van Duijn, C. M., and van Swieten, J. C. (2003). Medical and enviromental risk factors for sporadic frontotemporal dementia: A retrospective case-control study. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 74: 1574–1576. Rossor, M. N. (1999). Differential diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia: Pick’s disease. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 10(Suppl 1): 43–45. Selnes, O. A., and Harciarek, M. (in press). Primary Progressive Aphasia without dementia. In: Brown, K. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics—Second Edition, Elsevier Science, In press. Smith, M. Z., Esiri, M. M., Barnetson, L., King, E., and Nagy, Z. (2001). Constructional apraxia in Alzheimer’s disease: An association with occipital lobe pathology and accelerated cognitive decline. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 12: 281–288. Snowden, J. S. (1999). Semantic dysfunction in frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 10(Suppl 1): 33–36. Snowden, J. S., Goulding, P. J., and Neary, D. (1989). Semantic dementia: A form of circumscribed cerebral atrophy. Behav. Neurol. 2: 167–182. Snowden, J. S., Neary, D., Mann, D. M., Goulding, P. J., and Testa, H. J. (1992). Progressive language disorder due to lobar atrophy. Ann. Neurol. 6: 176–180. Strong, M. J., Lomen-Hoerth, C., Caselli, R. J. Bigio, E. H., and Yang, W. (2003). Cognitive impairment, FTD and motor neuron diseases. Ann. Neurol. 45(Suppl. 5): 20–23. in: Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI:10.1002/ana.10574, Published online. 23 June 2003. Taniguchi, S., McDonagh, A. M., Pickering-Brown, S. M., Umeda, Y., Iwatsubo, T., Hasegawa, M., et al. (2004). The neuropathology of frontotemporal lobar degeneration with respect to the cytological and biochemical characteristics of tau protein. Neuropathol. Appl. Neurobiol. 30: 1–18. Tainturier, M. J., Moreaud, O., David, D., Leek, E. C., and Pellat, J. (2001). Superior written over spoken picture naming in a case of frontotemporal dementia. Neurocase 7: 89–96. Tallberg, I. M. (2001). Semantic patterns in Alzheimer’s disease, right frontotemporal dementia and primary progressive aphasia. Alzheimer’s Rep. 4: 23–30. The Lund and Manchester Groups. (1994). Clinical and neuropathological criteria for frontotemporal dementia. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 57: 416–418. Tissot, R., Constantinidis, J., and Richard, J. (1985). Pick’s Disease. In: Frederiks, J. A. M. (ed.), Handbook of Clinical Neurology: Neurobehavioral Disorder, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 233– 246. Thompson, S. A., Graham, K. S., Williams, G., Patterson, K., Kapur, N., and Hodges, J. R. (2004). Dissociating person-specific from general semantic knowledge: Roles of the left and right temporal lobes. Neuropsychologia 42: 359–370. Varma, A. R., Adams, W., Lloyd, J. J., Carson, K. J., Snowden, J. S., Testa, H. J., et al. (2002). Diagnostic pattern of regional atrophy on Differential Diagnosis MRI and regional cerebral blood flow change on SPECT in young onset patients with Alzheimer’s disease, frontotemporal dementia and vascular dementia. Acta Neurol. Scand. 105: 261–269. Varma, A. R., Snowden, J. S., Lloyd, J. J., Talbot, P. R., Mann, D. M. A., and Neary, D. (1999). Evaluation of the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria in the differentiation of Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 66: 184–188. Warrington, E. K., and James, M. (1991). The Visual Object and Space Perception Battery, Thames Valley Test Company, Bury St. Edmunds. Welsh, K. A., Butters, N., Hughes, J., Mohs, R. C., and Heyman, A. (1992). Detection and staging of dementia in Alzheimer’s disease. Arch. Neurol. 49: 448–452. Williamson, D. J., Adair, J. C., Raymer, A. M., and Heilman, K. M. (1998). Object and action naming in Alzheimer’s disease. Cortex 34: 601–610. Wolf, H., Grunwald, M., Kruggel, F., Riedel-Heller, S. G., Angerhofer, S., Hojjatoleslami, A., et al. (2001). Hippocampal volume discrim- 145 inates between normal cognition: Questionable and mild dementia in elderly. Neurobiol. Aging 22: 177–186. Wolfe, N., Reed, B. R., Eberling, J. L., and Jagust, W. J. (1995). Temporal lobe perfusion on single photon emission computed tomography predicts the rate of cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease. Arch. Neurol. 52: 257–262. Wolfson, C., Wolfson, D. B., Asgharian, M., M’Lan, C. E., Ostbye, T., Rockwood, K., et al. (2001). Clinical Progression of Dementia Study Group. A reevaluation of the duration of survival after the onset of dementia. N. Engl. J. Med. 344: 1111– 1116. Wragg, R. E., and Jeste, D. V. (1989). Overview of depression and psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease. Am. J. Psychiatry 146: 577– 587. Yamauchi, H., Fukuyama, H., and Nagahama, Y. (2000). Comparison of the pattern of autopsy of the corpus callosum in frontotemporal dementia, progressive supranuclear palsy, and Alzheimer’s disease. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 69: 623