4.5 Article

Multiple sclerosis: Cognition and saccadic eye movements

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 277, Issue 1-2, Pages 32-36

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2008.10.001

Keywords

Demyelinating disease; Saccadic eye movement; Working memory; Inhibitory dysfunction; Attention

Funding

  1. NHMRC of Australia [454811]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ocular motor abnormalities are frequently reported in Multiple Sclerosis (MS), the most salient of which are well represented by the commonly used clinical measure, the EDSS. However, cognitive function, which is poorly represented by this scale, may also be ascertained from ocular motor measures, suggesting that an analysis of eye movements has the potential to extend and complement this more conventional measure. The generation of single and triple-step memory-guided saccades was investigated in 25 individuals with MS and a comparable number of neurologically healthy individuals matched for age and IQ. Experimental measures were correlated with a battery of neuropsychological tests evaluating attentional, working memory and executive processes, the cognitive domains most commonly compromised in MS. For single memory-guided saccades, MS patients were less accurate and generated more erroneous responses to non-target stimuli. Saccadic latencies were also prolonged. For triple-step memory-guided saccades. MS patients were less accurate and more variable. A number of significant correlations were revealed between measures of each of these characteristics and scores on the range of neuropsychological assessments. These ocular motor measures demonstrate considerable sensitivity with respect to evaluating cognitive function in MS, particularly working memory and inhibitory control processes. This suggests that they could represent the foundation of a user-friendly surrogate marker of disease severity and progression in MS. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available