OBJECTIVE: Although episodic memory is often conceptualized as consisting of multiple component processes, there is a lack of understanding as to whether these processes are influenced by the same or different genetic determinants. The aim of the present study was to utilize multivariate twin analyses to elucidate the degree to which learning and delayed recall, two critical measures of episodic memory performance, have common or different genetic and environmental influences. METHOD: Participants from the Vietnam Era Twin Study of Aging (314 monozygotic twin pairs, 259 dizygotic twin pairs, and 47 unpaired twins) were assessed using the second edition of the California Verbal Learning Test. Mean age at the time of the evaluation was 55.4 years (SD = 2.5). RESULTS: Model fitting revealed the presence of a higher-order latent factor influencing learning, short- and long-delay free recall, with a heritability of .36. The best-fitting model also indicated specific genetic influences on learning, which accounted for 10% of the overall variance. Given that learning involves the acquisition and retrieval of information, whereas delayed recall involves only retrieval, we conclude that these specific effects are likely to reflect genes that are specific to acquisition processes. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that even in nonclinical populations, it is possible to differentiate component processes in episodic memory. These different genetic influences may have implications for gene association studies, as well as other genetic studies of cognitive aging and disorders of episodic memory such as Alzheimer's disease or mild cognitive impairment. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: Although episodic memory is often conceptualized as consisting of multiple component processes, there is a lack of understanding as to whether these processes are influenced by the same or different genetic determinants. The aim of the present study was to utilize multivariate twin analyses to elucidate the degree to which learning and delayed recall, two critical measures of episodic memory performance, have common or different genetic and environmental influences. METHOD:Participants from the Vietnam Era Twin Study of Aging (314 monozygotic twin pairs, 259 dizygotic twin pairs, and 47 unpaired twins) were assessed using the second edition of the California Verbal Learning Test. Mean age at the time of the evaluation was 55.4 years (SD = 2.5). RESULTS: Model fitting revealed the presence of a higher-order latent factor influencing learning, short- and long-delay free recall, with a heritability of .36. The best-fitting model also indicated specific genetic influences on learning, which accounted for 10% of the overall variance. Given that learning involves the acquisition and retrieval of information, whereas delayed recall involves only retrieval, we conclude that these specific effects are likely to reflect genes that are specific to acquisition processes. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that even in nonclinical populations, it is possible to differentiate component processes in episodic memory. These different genetic influences may have implications for gene association studies, as well as other genetic studies of cognitive aging and disorders of episodic memory such as Alzheimer's disease or mild cognitive impairment. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved.
Authors: William S Kremen; Heather Thompson-Brenner; Yat-Ming J Leung; Michael D Grant; Carol E Franz; Seth A Eisen; Kristen C Jacobson; Corwin Boake; Michael J Lyons Journal: Twin Res Hum Genet Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 1.587
Authors: Kristine B Walhovd; Anders M Fjell; Anders M Dale; Bruce Fischl; Brian T Quinn; Nikos Makris; David Salat; Ivar Reinvang Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-03-15 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Dominique J-F de Quervain; Katharina Henke; Amanda Aerni; Daniel Coluccia; M Axel Wollmer; Christoph Hock; Roger M Nitsch; Andreas Papassotiropoulos Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2003-10-19 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Dean C Delis; Mark Jacobson; Mark W Bondi; Joanne M Hamilton; David P Salmon Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: O P Almeida; S G Schwab; N T Lautenschlager; B Morar; K R Greenop; L Flicker; D Wildenauer Journal: J Cell Mol Med Date: 2008-01-11 Impact factor: 5.310
Authors: Carrie E Bearden; Katherine H Karlsgodt; Peter Bachman; Theo G M van Erp; Anderson M Winkler; David C Glahn Journal: Neuroscientist Date: 2011-08-10 Impact factor: 7.519
Authors: Margo R Genderson; Brinda K Rana; Matthew S Panizzon; Michael D Grant; Rosemary Toomey; Kristen C Jacobson; Hong Xian; Alice Cronin-Golomb; Carol E Franz; William S Kremen; Michael J Lyons Journal: J Sleep Res Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 3.981
Authors: William S Kremen; Matthew S Panizzon; Carol E Franz; Kelly M Spoon; Eero Vuoksimaa; Kristen C Jacobson; Terrie Vasilopoulos; Hong Xian; Jeanne M McCaffery; Brinda K Rana; Rosemary Toomey; Ruth McKenzie; Michael J Lyons Journal: Psychol Aging Date: 2014-06
Authors: Brinda K Rana; Anish Dhamija; Matthew S Panizzon; Kelly M Spoon; Terrie Vasilopoulos; Carol E Franz; Michael D Grant; Kristen C Jacobson; Kathleen Kim; Michael J Lyons; Jeanne M McCaffery; Phyllis K Stein; Hong Xian; Daniel T O'Connor; William S Kremen Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Eero Vuoksimaa; Matthew S Panizzon; Chi-Hua Chen; Lisa T Eyler; Christine Fennema-Notestine; Mark Joseph A Fiecas; Bruce Fischl; Carol E Franz; Michael D Grant; Amy J Jak; Michael J Lyons; Michael C Neale; Wesley K Thompson; Ming T Tsuang; Hong Xian; Anders M Dale; William S Kremen Journal: Neuropsychologia Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 3.139
Authors: John Muse; Matthew Emery; Fabio Sambataro; Herve Lemaitre; Hao-Yang Tan; Qiang Chen; Bhaskar S Kolachana; Saumitra Das; Joseph H Callicott; Daniel R Weinberger; Venkata S Mattay Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 13.382