OBJECTIVES: Cognitive-discrepancy analysis has been shown to be a useful technique for detecting subtle cognitive deficits in normal-functioning elderly individuals who are genetically at-risk for Alzheimer disease (AD). However, studies that have used cognitive-discrepancy measures to date have used retrospective or cross-sectional designs, and the utility of this approach to predict cognitive decline has not been examined in a prospective investigation. DESIGN: Longitudinal study. SETTING: San Diego, CA, Veterans Administration Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four normal-functioning elderly individuals participated in the study, with 16 subjects exhibiting no change in their Dementia Rating Scale (DRS) scores over an 1-year period (Stable Group), and 8 subjects exhibiting a decline in DRS scores over the 1-year period (Decline group). MEASUREMENTS: A cognitive-discrepancy measure isolating cognitive switching was computed that contrasted performance on a new higher-level task of executive functioning (a Stroop/Switching measure) relative to a composite measure of lower-level Stroop conditions. RESULTS: a) In the year before their cognitive changes, the Decline group exhibited a significantly larger cognitive-discrepancy (Stroop/Switching versus lower-level Stroop conditions) score compared with a control (Stable) group; and b) the cognitive-discrepancy measure was superior to APOE genotype in predicting DRS decline. CONCLUSION: Cognitive-discrepancy analysis isolating a component executive function ability not only seems to be a useful tool for identifying individuals at risk for cognitive deficits, but also shows promise in predicting individuals who may show subtle cognitive decline over time.
OBJECTIVES: Cognitive-discrepancy analysis has been shown to be a useful technique for detecting subtle cognitive deficits in normal-functioning elderly individuals who are genetically at-risk for Alzheimer disease (AD). However, studies that have used cognitive-discrepancy measures to date have used retrospective or cross-sectional designs, and the utility of this approach to predict cognitive decline has not been examined in a prospective investigation. DESIGN: Longitudinal study. SETTING: San Diego, CA, Veterans Administration Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four normal-functioning elderly individuals participated in the study, with 16 subjects exhibiting no change in their Dementia Rating Scale (DRS) scores over an 1-year period (Stable Group), and 8 subjects exhibiting a decline in DRS scores over the 1-year period (Decline group). MEASUREMENTS: A cognitive-discrepancy measure isolating cognitive switching was computed that contrasted performance on a new higher-level task of executive functioning (a Stroop/Switching measure) relative to a composite measure of lower-level Stroop conditions. RESULTS: a) In the year before their cognitive changes, the Decline group exhibited a significantly larger cognitive-discrepancy (Stroop/Switching versus lower-level Stroop conditions) score compared with a control (Stable) group; and b) the cognitive-discrepancy measure was superior to APOE genotype in predicting DRS decline. CONCLUSION: Cognitive-discrepancy analysis isolating a component executive function ability not only seems to be a useful tool for identifying individuals at risk for cognitive deficits, but also shows promise in predicting individuals who may show subtle cognitive decline over time.
Authors: Heather A Wishart; Andrew J Saykin; Laura A Rabin; Robert B Santulli; Laura A Flashman; Stephen J Guerin; Alexander C Mamourian; Dorothy R Belloni; C Harker Rhodes; Thomas W McAllister Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Eric M Reiman; Kewei Chen; Gene E Alexander; Richard J Caselli; Daniel Bandy; David Osborne; Ann M Saunders; John Hardy Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-06-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Mark W Jacobson; Dean C Delis; Amy Lansing; Wes Houston; Ryan Olsen; Spencer Wetter; Mark W Bondi; David P Salmon Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Selam Negash; Lindsay E Petersen; Yonas E Geda; David S Knopman; Bradley F Boeve; Glenn E Smith; Robert J Ivnik; Darlene V Howard; James H Howard; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2006-05-15 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: S Duke Han; Patricia A Boyle; Bryan D James; Lei Yu; Lisa L Barnes; David A Bennett Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Lindsay R Clark; Dawn M Schiehser; Gali H Weissberger; David P Salmon; Dean C Delis; Mark W Bondi Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2011-11-24 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Jacob B Mirsky; Hilary W Heuer; Aria Jafari; Joel H Kramer; Ana K Schenk; Indre V Viskontas; Bruce L Miller; Adam L Boxer Journal: Cogn Behav Neurol Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 1.600
Authors: Nicole M Armstrong; Ryan Andrews; Alden L Gross; Vijay R Varma; Qian-Li Xue; Michelle C Carlson Journal: Aging Ment Health Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 3.658