This normative study evaluates limb apraxia in healthy French-speaking adults, suggesting new region-specific norms for clinical assessment.
Objective This study presents normative data for the Batterie Brève d’Évaluation des Praxies (BBEP), a brief screening tool developed to assess symbolic gestures, pantomimes, and imitation of meaningless gestures—three domains commonly impaired in limb apraxia. While the BBEP was originally validated in a French population, no normative data have been available for French-speaking adults in Quebec. Given that cultural, linguistic, and demographic factors may influence gesture production and interpretation, the current study aimed to generate region-specific reference values to support accurate clinical assessment. Method A total of 240 neurologically and cognitively healthy French-speaking adults from Quebec were assessed using the BBEP. Norms were stratified by age and are presented in percentile format to facilitate clinical interpretation. Results Results indicated significant effects of both age and education, with older as well as educated participants obtaining lower scores across all subtests. Compared to the original French sample, Quebec participants demonstrated slightly lower performance, particularly in the imitation of meaningless gestures, likely reflecting cultural and demographic differences. Spearman rank-order correlations—computed while controlling for age, sex, and education—revealed weak and non-significant associations among the three subtests, suggesting they assess distinct components of praxis. Conclusions This study provides the first culturally-adapted normative data for the BBEP in a French-Quebec population. These findings underscore the need for region-specific norms in apraxia assessment and highlight the clinical relevance of evaluating each praxis domain independently. The BBEP may prove useful in the early detection of subtle praxis deficits associated with neurodegenerative conditions or cerebrovascular events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Macoir et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: