中文摘要：

目的：观察帕金森病患者汉语书写障碍的特点。 方法：于2005—04／12选择南方医科大学南方医院神经内科和广州医学院附属第一医院门诊和住院就诊的40例帕金森病患者（符合1984年全国椎体外系疾病研讨会关于帕金森氏病和帕金森氏综合征分类（草案）提出的临床诊断标准）作为观察对象。采用汉语失写检查法详细检查其书写情况，内容包括自动书写、抄写、听写、看图书写、主动书写。计算量表分Xn（Xn=实际得分÷满分×10），填入总表，计算失写指数AgQ，AgQ=∑（10—Xn），分值划分标准：小学≥13．63分，中学≥8．67分，大学≥2．97分，确定为书写障碍。并以其作为观察书写障碍程度的量化指标。同时观察书写障碍特点及类型。 结果：40例患者均完成量表测试，全部进入结果分析。（940例帕金森病患者伴书写障碍者21例（53％）。书写障碍组看图书写和主动书写最差，其次是听写、抄写，自动书写成绩最好。与非书写障碍组差异均有显著性意义。②患者语言性书写障碍类型分布及特征：35例存在构字障碍，发生率88％，表现为部分完成15例，部分代替12例，笔画添加或遗漏共33例，其中笔画添加25例，笔画遗漏31例，新字13例。字词错写发生30例，发生率75％，表现为近音16例，近形24例、近义字3例和无关字代替7例。语法障碍发生18例，发生率45％，其中组句不能7例，句法障碍11例。③非语言性书写障碍类型分布及特征：惰性失写发生7例，发生率18％。视空间失写发生3例，发生率8％。均伴有惰性书写，尤其以笔画重复的字居多。运动障碍性失写发生4例，发生率10％。其中2例表现为小写症，2例表现为笔画出现不应有的曲折和笨拙，但字间距及行间距基本保持均匀，字形大小一致，有部分字笔画不到位或者过长。重复性书写发生23例。

英文摘要：

AIM： To observe the characteristics of Chinese writing disturbance of patients with Parkinson disease. METHODS： Totally 40 inpatients and outpatients with Parkinson disease admitted to the Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University and the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical College from April to December 2005 were selected as subjects. Their diagnosis was accordance with the clinical diagnosis criteria put forward in 1984 at the National Extrapyramidal Disease Seminar about Parkinson Disease and Parkinson Syndrome Classification （protocol）. Their writing condition was examined with the Chinese agraphia examination （CAB） including automatic writing, transcription, dictation, picture copying and initiative writing. The scales Xn （Xn=actual scores ÷ full scores×10） were counted and filled in the table to measure the agraphia index AgQ： AgQ = Σ（10-Xn）, which was regarded as the quantification index. Standard for grading.＇ primary school ≥13.63, middle school ≥8.67, college ≥2.97 as writing disturbance. The writing disturbance features and its types were observed. RESULTS： All the 40 patients completed the examination, and all involved in the result analysis. ①Among the 40 patients, 21 with writing disturbance （53%）, who were worst in picture copying and initiative writing, following by dictation and transcription, and best in automatic writing. There were significant differences between the writing disturbance group and non-writing disturbance group. ② Type percentage and its features of language writing disturbance in patients： There were 35 cases with Chinese character formation disorder （88%） found in 15 with part completion, 12 with part replacement, 33 with strokes addition or omission including 25 with strokes addition and 31 with strokes omission, and 13 cases with character innovation; 30 cases with wrong-writing characters （75%） found in 16 with similar tone, 24 with similar shape, 3 with similar meaning and 7 wi