| Literature DB >> 26648728 |
Na Li1, Yumei Wang1, Xiaochuan Zhao1, Yuanyuan Gao1, Mei Song1, Lulu Yu1, Lan Wang1, Ning Li1, Qianqian Chen1, Yunpeng Li1, Jiajia Cai1, Xueyi Wang1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to investigate the long-term effect of 1976 Tangshan earthquake exposure in early life on performance of working memory in adulthood.Entities:
Keywords: Tangshan earthquake; chronic effect; early life stress; working memory
Year: 2015 PMID: 26648728 PMCID: PMC4664544 DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S88770
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat ISSN: 1176-6328 Impact factor: 2.570
Figure 1Inclusions and exclusions of subjects in the study.
Baseline characteristics and psychological evaluation of study subjects
| No exposure (n=364) | Prenatal exposure (n=274) | Infant exposure (n=269) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean ± SD (years) | 37.02±1.36 | 38.00±1.16 | 38.72±2.27 | <0.001 |
| Male, n (%) | 316 (87.05) | 245 (89.42) | 236 (88.06) | 0.660 |
| High school diploma or higher, n (%) | 330 (90.66) | 235 (85.77) | 232 (86.25) | 0.108 |
| LES scores, mean ± SD | 22.51±22.33 | 20.87±22.83 | 21.88±22.35 | 0.433 |
| CTQ scores, mean ± SD | ||||
| Emotional abuse | 5.80±1.96 | 5.79±2.23 | 5.80±1.82 | 0.358 |
| Emotional neglect | 8.88±3.86 | 9.25±4.08 | 8.72±3.46 | 0.586 |
| Sexual abuse | 5.47±2.09 | 5.43±1.86 | 5.45±1.47 | 0.668 |
| Physical neglect | 7.79±3.39 | 8.12±2.78 | 7.54±2.57 | 0.022 |
| Physical abuse | 5.55±1.69 | 5.51±1.93 | 5.57±1.56 | 0.097 |
| Total CTQ scores | 33.73±12.41 | 34.07±8.76 | 33.12±7.84 | 0.374 |
Notes:
Represents comparison of three groups;
represents P<0.05 when compared with the no exposure and infant exposure groups.
Abbreviations: LES, Life Event Scale; CTQ, Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; SD, standard deviation.
Assessment of working memory in all study subjects
| No exposure (n=364) | Prenatal exposure (n=274) | Infant exposure (n=269) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HVLT-R, mean ± SD | ||||
| 1 | 6.92±4.48 | 6.81±2.16 | 6.50±2.26 | 0.172 |
| 2 | 8.67±2.16 | 8.69±2.21 | 8.50±2.16 | 0.408 |
| 3 | 9.72±1.95 | 9.53±2.11 | 9.32±2.26 | 0.122 |
| Total | 25.12±5.55 | 25.03±5.70 | 24.33±5.84 | 0.175 |
| BVMT-R, mean ± SD | ||||
| 1 | 6.94±3.19 | 6.40±3.28 | 6.13±3.26 | 0.003 |
| 2 | 9.48±2.75 | 8.81±2.90 | 8.79±3.12 | 0.003 |
| 3 | 10.58±2.19 | 10.17±2.45 | 10.13±5.63 | 0.006 |
| Total | 26.64±7.88 | 25.35±7.75 | 24.96±9.08 | 0.006 |
Notes:
Represents comparison of three groups;
represents P<0.05 when compared with the prenatal and infant exposure groups;
represents P>0.05 when compared with the infant exposure group.
Abbreviations: BVMT-R, Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised; HVLT-R, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised; SD, standard deviation.
Assessment of working memory within the prenatal exposure group
| First trimester | Second trimester | Third trimester | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 88 | 91 | 95 | |
| HVLT-R, mean ± SD | ||||
| 1 | 7.00±2.27 | 6.63±2.13 | 6.80±2.11 | 0.262 |
| 2 | 8.87±2.11 | 8.68±2.34 | 8.53±2.17 | 0.561 |
| 3 | 9.63±1.92 | 9.63±2.09 | 9.36±2.30 | 0.716 |
| Total | 25.51±5.71 | 24.93±5.59 | 24.68±5.83 | 0.604 |
| BVMT-R, mean ± SD | ||||
| 1 | 7.04±3.14 | 6.05±3.40 | 6.13±3.24 | 0.069 |
| 2 | 9.52±2.46 | 8.41±3.01 | 8.55±3.07 | 0.035 |
| 3 | 10.68±1.99 | 10.05±2.54 | 9.80±2.68 | 0.038 |
| Total | 27.25±6.69 | 24.52±8.03 | 24.39±8.13 | 0.038 |
Notes:
Represents comparison of three groups;
represents P<0.05 when compared with the first trimester subgroup.
Abbreviations: BVMT-R, Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised; HVLT-R, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised; SD, standard deviation.
Assessment of working memory within the infant exposure group
| <6 months | 6–9 months | ≥9 months | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 105 | 88 | 76 | |
| HVLT-R, mean ± SD | ||||
| 1 | 6.20±2.34 | 6.56±2.20 | 6.68±2.25 | 0.254 |
| 2 | 8.21±2.16 | 8.50±2.33 | 8.70±2.00 | 0.216 |
| 3 | 9.09±2.52 | 9.26±2.20 | 9.52±2.12 | 0.506 |
| Total | 23.54±5.90 | 24.34±6.02 | 24.90±5.62 | 0.210 |
| BVMT-R, mean ± SD | ||||
| 1 | 6.45±3.41 | 5.98±2.98 | 6.02±3.40 | 0.602 |
| 2 | 8.89±3.20 | 8.83±2.88 | 8.68±3.28 | 0.889 |
| 3 | 11.20±9.59 | 9.75±2.59 | 9.68±2.92 | 0.096 |
| Total | 26.22±10.81 | 24.55±7.63 | 24.38±8.83 | 0.415 |
Note:
Represents comparison of three groups.
Abbreviations: BVMT-R, Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised; HVLT-R, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised; SD, standard deviation.
Risk factor analysis of impaired visuospatial memory (BVMT-R total scores <27)
| Variable | OR | 95% CI of OR
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
| Age | 1.044 | 0.958 | 1.137 | 0.331 |
| Emotional abuse | 1.128 | 1.019 | 1.248 | 0.021 |
| Emotional neglect | 0.963 | 0.922 | 1.006 | 0.094 |
| Physical abuse | 1.011 | 0.900 | 1.137 | 0.850 |
| Physical neglect | 1.121 | 1.054 | 1.192 | <0.001 |
| Sexual abuse | 0.869 | 0.775 | 0.976 | 0.018 |
| Sex | ||||
| Male vs female | 1.177 | 0.761 | 1.819 | 0.464 |
| LES scores | 0.998 | 0.992 | 1.004 | 0.510 |
| Education level | ||||
| Less than a high school diploma vs high school diploma or higher | 2.289 | 1.435 | 3.650 | <0.001 |
| Earthquake exposure | ||||
| Prenatal and infant exposure vs no exposure | 1.437 | 1.061 | 1.947 | 0.019 |
Abbreviations: BVMT-R, Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised; CI, confidence interval; LES, Life Event Scale; OR, odds ratio.