4.5 Review

Characterizing rule-based category learning deficits in patients with Parkinson's disease

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
卷 45, 期 2, 页码 305-320

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.06.034

关键词

Parkinson's disease; category learning; rule-based; selective attention; working memory

资金

  1. PHS HHS [R01-59196, R01-41372] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Parkinson's disease (PD) patients and normal controls were tested in three category learning experiments to determine if previously observed rule-based category learning impairments in PD patients were due to deficits in selective attention or working memory. In Experiment 1, optimal categorization required participants to base their decision on a single stimulus dimension and ignore irrelevant variation on another dimension, thus emphasizing selective attention processes. In Experiment 2, optimal categorization required participants to base their decision on both stimulus dimensions using a conjunction of unidimensional decisions. Thus, this task placed less emphasis on selective attention and more on working memory. In Experiment 3, optimal categorization again required participants to base their decision on both stimulus dimensions using a disjunction of two unidimensional decisions in which an additional verbal operation was needed, thereby placing even greater emphasis on working memory. Results indicated that PD patients were impaired in the unidimensional rule-based condition, but not the other two rule-based conditions. These results are consistent with previous studies that demonstrate that PD patients are impaired in learning rule-based categories when selective attention demands are greatest, whereas these patients are normal in learning rule-based tasks when working memory demands are emphasized. Overall, these findings help to delineate the conditions under which PD patients display rule-based category learning deficits. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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