4.6 Article

Impairment of executive cognitive functioning in males with fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 22, 期 5, 页码 645-650

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mds.21359

关键词

fragile X; premutation; cognition; trinucleotide repeats; executive cognitive function

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [5 M01 RR00069] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HC02274] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NICHD NIH HHS [HD36071] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH078041] Funding Source: Medline
  5. NINDS NIH HHS [NS43532, NS044299, R01 NS044299] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (FXTAS) is a recently identified phenotype associated with trinucleotide repeat expansions in the premutation range of the fragile X mental retardation 1 (FMR1) gene. In addition to progressive gait ataxia, action tremor, peripheral neuropathy, and parkinsonism, FXTAS involves impaired cognition. Our preliminary research suggests that executive cognitive functioning (ECF) is especially affected. In this study, a brief neuropsychological exam was administered to 33 trien with FXTAS and 27 healthy controls. Compared with controls, individuals with FXTAS showed statistically significant impairments on measures from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, third edition (WAIS-III; verbal IQ, performance [non-verbal] IQ, verbal comprehension, perceptual organization, and processing speed). FXTAS subjects scored significantly lower on three of four measures of ECF and on two tests of information processing speed. The results provide evidence that FXTAS involves impairment of general intellectual functioning, with marked impairment of executive cognitive abilities. The pattern of cognitive performance is somewhat similar to that observed in the frontal variant of frontotemporal dementia and several of the spinocerebellar ataxias, but differs from the deficits observed in dementia of the Alzheimer type. (c) 2007 Movement Disorder Society.

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

4.6
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