Colette M Smart1, Adam Krawitz2. 1. Department of Psychology and Centre on Aging, University of Victoria. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Victoria.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) could be used to detect and identify measurable cognitive differences between older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) as compared with healthy older controls (HC). METHOD: Older adults with self-identified SCD and age-matched controls completed a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment battery including the clinical version of the IGT, as well as self-report measures of mood and personality. RESULTS: The groups did not differ on clinically normed scores on the IGT. However, the groups did differ in the specific decks chosen as they progressed through the task, with the SCD group choosing the advantageous, high loss-frequency deck (Deck C) more often toward the end of the task. Using hierarchical Bayesian parameter estimation, we show that the prospect valence learning (PVL) model outperforms the expectancy valence learning (EVL) model in parsimoniously accounting for task performance by both groups. The PVL model explains the difference in deck choices between groups as being because of an underlying difference in their learning rate, with the SCD group emphasizing the current outcome over past outcomes more than the HC group. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral results indicate measureable differences in risky decision making in older adults with SCD as compared with healthy controls. Modeling results allow us to interpret this difference as potentially being because of rapid forgetting of trial-to-trial information. This work furthers our understanding of SCD, while demonstrating the use of computational modeling in the interpretation of neuropsychological data. (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) could be used to detect and identify measurable cognitive differences between older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) as compared with healthy older controls (HC). METHOD: Older adults with self-identified SCD and age-matched controls completed a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment battery including the clinical version of the IGT, as well as self-report measures of mood and personality. RESULTS: The groups did not differ on clinically normed scores on the IGT. However, the groups did differ in the specific decks chosen as they progressed through the task, with the SCD group choosing the advantageous, high loss-frequency deck (Deck C) more often toward the end of the task. Using hierarchical Bayesian parameter estimation, we show that the prospect valence learning (PVL) model outperforms the expectancy valence learning (EVL) model in parsimoniously accounting for task performance by both groups. The PVL model explains the difference in deck choices between groups as being because of an underlying difference in their learning rate, with the SCD group emphasizing the current outcome over past outcomes more than the HC group. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral results indicate measureable differences in risky decision making in older adults with SCD as compared with healthy controls. Modeling results allow us to interpret this difference as potentially being because of rapid forgetting of trial-to-trial information. This work furthers our understanding of SCD, while demonstrating the use of computational modeling in the interpretation of neuropsychological data. (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: José L Molinuevo; Laura A Rabin; Rebecca Amariglio; Rachel Buckley; Bruno Dubois; Kathryn A Ellis; Michael Ewers; Harald Hampel; Stefan Klöppel; Lorena Rami; Barry Reisberg; Andrew J Saykin; Sietske Sikkes; Colette M Smart; Beth E Snitz; Reisa Sperling; Wiesje M van der Flier; Michael Wagner; Frank Jessen Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2016-11-05 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Rita Pasion; Ana R Gonçalves; Carina Fernandes; Fernando Ferreira-Santos; Fernando Barbosa; João Marques-Teixeira Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2017-10-11
Authors: Frank Jessen; Annika Spottke; Henning Boecker; Frederic Brosseron; Katharina Buerger; Cihan Catak; Klaus Fliessbach; Christiana Franke; Manuel Fuentes; Michael T Heneka; Daniel Janowitz; Ingo Kilimann; Christoph Laske; Felix Menne; Peter Nestor; Oliver Peters; Josef Priller; Verena Pross; Alfredo Ramirez; Anja Schneider; Oliver Speck; Eike Jakob Spruth; Stefan Teipel; Ruth Vukovich; Christine Westerteicher; Jens Wiltfang; Steffen Wolfsgruber; Michael Wagner; Emrah Düzel Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 6.982