4.6 Article

Naming of objects, faces and buildings in mild cognitive impairment

期刊

CORTEX
卷 44, 期 6, 页码 746-752

出版社

ELSEVIER MASSON, CORP OFF
DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2007.02.002

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; episodic memory; semantic memory; early diagnosis

资金

  1. MRC [MC_U105579220, G9724461] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Alzheimers Research UK [ART-PhD2001-1, ART-PhD2004-2, ART-PG2002-2] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council [G9724461, MC_U105579220] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. Medical Research Council [MC_U105579220, G9724461] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accruing evidence suggests that the cognitive deficits in very early Alzheimer's Disease (AD) are not confined to episodic memory, with a number of studies documenting semantic memory deficits, especially for knowledge of people. To investigate whether this difficulty in naming famous people extends to other proper names based information, three naming tasks - the Graded Naming Test (GNT), which uses objects and animals, the Graded Faces Test (GFT) and the newly designed Graded Buildings Test (GBT) - were administered to 69 participants (32 patients in the early prodromal stage of AD, so-called Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), and 37 normal control participants). Patients were found to be impaired on all three tests compared to controls, although naming of objects was significantly better than naming of faces and buildings. Discriminant analysis successfully predicted group membership for 100% controls and 78.1% of patients. The results suggest that even in cases that do not yet fulfil criteria for AD naming of famous people and buildings is impaired, and that both these semantic domains show greater vulnerability than general semantic knowledge. A semantic deficit together with the hallmark episodic deficit may be common in MCI, and that the use of graded tasks tapping semantic memory may be useful for the early identification of patients with MCI. (C) 2007 Elsevier Masson Srl. 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

4.6
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