4.5 Article

An Evaluation of Deficits in Semantic Cueing and Proactive and Retroactive Interference as Early Features of Alzheimer's Disease

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY
卷 22, 期 9, 页码 889-897

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jagp.2013.01.066

关键词

Early Alzheimer's; early detection; MCI; memory; proactive interference; semantic interference; semantic cueing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To determine the degree to which susceptibility to different types of semantic interference may reflect the initial manifestations of early Alzheimer's disease (AD) beyond the effects of global memory impairment. Methods: Normal elderly (NE) subjects (n = 47), subjects with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI; n = 34), and subjects with probable AD (n = 40) were evaluated by using a unique cued recall paradigm that allowed for evaluation of both proactive and retroactive interference effects while controlling for global memory impairment (i.e., Loewenstein-Acevedo Scales of Semantic Interference and Learning [LASSI-L] procedure). Results: Controlling for overall memory impairment, aMCI subjects had much greater proactive and retroactive interference effects than NE subjects. LASSI-L indices of learning by using cued recall revealed high levels of sensitivity and specificity, with an overall correct classification rate of 90%. These measures provided better discrimination than traditional neuropsychological measures of memory function. Conclusions: The LASSI-L paradigm is unique and unlike other assessments of memory in that items posed for cued recall are explicitly presented, and semantic interference and cueing effects can be assessed while controlling for initial level of memory impairment. This is a powerful procedure that allows the participant to serve as his or her own control. The high levels of discrimination between subjects with aMCI and normal cognition that exceeded traditional neuropsychological measures makes the LASSI-L worthy of further research in the detection of 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

4.5
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