4.2 Article

Do Subjective Memory Complaints Lead or Follow Objective Cognitive Change? A Five-Year Population Study of Temporal Influence

Journal

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1355617715000922

Keywords

Aging; Latent change score modeling; Age-related memory disorders (MeSH); Epidemiology; Meta-cognition; Anosognosia

Funding

  1. National Institute on Aging, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [R01 AG023651, K07 AG044395, K23AG083479]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The relationship between subjective memory complaints (SM) and objective memory (OM) performance in aging has been variably characterized in a substantial literature, to date. In particular, cross-sectional studies often observe weak or no associations. We investigated whether subjective memory complaints and objectively measured cognition influence each other over time, and if so, which is the stronger pathway of changeobjective to subjective, or subjective to objectiveor whether they are both important. Using bivariate latent change score modeling in data from a population study (N = 1980) over 5 annual assessment cycles, we tested four corresponding hypotheses: (1) no coupling between SM and OM over time; (2) SM as leading indicator of change in OM; (3) OM as leading indicator of change in SM; (4) dual coupling over time, with both SM and OM leading subsequent change in the other. We also extended objective cognition to two other domains, language and executive functions. The dual-coupling models best fit the data for all three objective cognitive domains. The SM-OM temporal dynamics differ qualitatively compared to other domains, potentially reflecting changes in insight and self-awareness specific to memory impairment. Subjective memory and objective cognition reciprocally influence each other over time. The temporal dynamics between subjective and objective cognition in aging are nuanced, and must be carefully disentangled to shed light on the underlying processes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available