4.2 Article

Focal and Nonfocal Prospective Memory Performance in Very Mild Dementia: A Signature Decline

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 387-396

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0021682

关键词

prospective memory; dementia of the Alzheimer's type; apolipoprotein E gene

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [P50AG05681, P01AG03991, RCIAG036258, 5T32AG00030]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: In a recent study, performance on a certain kind of prospective memory task (PM), labeled focal PM, was sensitive to the very early stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD; Duchek, Balota, & Cortese, 2006). This study sought to replicate and extend these findings by investigating both focal and nonfocal PM, as well as possible influences of alleles of the apolipoprotein E (ApoE) gene. Method: Thirty-five healthy older adults and 33 adults in the very earliest stages of AD, as determined by the clinical dementia rating scale, completed both focal and nonfocal PM tasks. Performance on these tasks has been linked to qualitatively different cognitive processes (Scullin, McDaniel, Shelton, & Lee, 2010), thereby providing leverage to illuminate the specific processes that underlie PM failures in very early AD. Approximately half of the adults in each group were ApoE e4 carriers and half were noncarriers. We also obtained participants' scores on a battery of standard psychometric tests. Results: There was a significant interaction between the type of PM task and dementia status, p < .05, eta(2)(p) = .12, demonstrating that the AD-related decline was more robust for focal than for nonfocal PM. Further, focal PM performance significantly discriminated between the very earliest stages of AD and normal aging, explaining variance unique to that explained by typical psychometric indices. ApoE status, however, was not associated with PM performance. Conclusion: The pronounced deficit observed in the focal PM task suggests that spontaneous retrieval processes may be compromised in very early AD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据