Nicolas Noiret1,2, Nicolas Carvalho3, Éric Laurent1,4, Gilles Chopard3, Mickaël Binetruy5, Magali Nicolier3, Julie Monnin3, Eloi Magnin2, Pierre Vandel2,3. 1. Laboratory of Psychology (E.A. 3188), Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Besançon, France. 2. CMRR Franche Comté, University Hospital Center, Besançon, France. 3. Laboratory of Neuroscience (E.A. 481), Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté and Department of Clinical Psychiatry, University Hospital Center, Besançon, France. 4. Maison des Sciences de l'Homme et de l'Environnement, CNRS & Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Besançon, France. 5. Tilleroyes Adult Rehabilitation Center, Besançon, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Several studies have demonstrated saccadic eye movement (SEM) abnormalities in Alzheimer's disease (AD) when patients performed prosaccade (PS) and antisaccade (AS) tasks. Some studies have also showed that SEM abnormalities were correlated with dementia rating tests such as the Mini Mental State Evaluation (MMSE). Therefore, it has been suggested that SEMs could provide useful information for diagnosis. However, little is known about predictive saccades (PreS)-saccades triggered before or very quickly after stimuli appearance-and their relationships with cognition in AD. Here, we aimed to examine the relationships between our usual dementia screening tests and SEM parameters in PS, AS, and also PreS task. METHOD: We compared SEMs in 20 patients suffering from AD and in 35 healthy older adults (OA) in PS, AS, and PreS task. All participants also completed a neuropsychological evaluation. RESULTS: We showed that AD patients had higher latency and latency variability regardless the tasks, and also higher AS cost, in comparison with OA. Moreover, AD patients made more uncorrected AS and took more time-to-correct incorrect AS. In PreS task, AD patients showed higher gain and gain variability than OA when they made anticipated saccades. Close relationships were found between the majority of SEM variables in PS, AS, and PreS tasks and dementia screening tests, especially the MMSE and episodic memory measures. CONCLUSION: Our findings, in agreement with previous studies, demonstrated that AD affects several SEM parameters. SEM abnormalities may reflect selective and executive-attention impairments in AD.
OBJECTIVE: Several studies have demonstrated saccadic eye movement (SEM) abnormalities in Alzheimer's disease (AD) when patients performed prosaccade (PS) and antisaccade (AS) tasks. Some studies have also showed that SEM abnormalities were correlated with dementia rating tests such as the Mini Mental State Evaluation (MMSE). Therefore, it has been suggested that SEMs could provide useful information for diagnosis. However, little is known about predictive saccades (PreS)-saccades triggered before or very quickly after stimuli appearance-and their relationships with cognition in AD. Here, we aimed to examine the relationships between our usual dementia screening tests and SEM parameters in PS, AS, and also PreS task. METHOD: We compared SEMs in 20 patients suffering from AD and in 35 healthy older adults (OA) in PS, AS, and PreS task. All participants also completed a neuropsychological evaluation. RESULTS: We showed that AD patients had higher latency and latency variability regardless the tasks, and also higher AS cost, in comparison with OA. Moreover, AD patients made more uncorrected AS and took more time-to-correct incorrect AS. In PreS task, AD patients showed higher gain and gain variability than OA when they made anticipated saccades. Close relationships were found between the majority of SEM variables in PS, AS, and PreS tasks and dementia screening tests, especially the MMSE and episodic memory measures. CONCLUSION: Our findings, in agreement with previous studies, demonstrated that AD affects several SEM parameters. SEM abnormalities may reflect selective and executive-attention impairments in AD.
Authors: Julius Opwonya; Dieu Ni Thi Doan; Seul Gee Kim; Joong Il Kim; Boncho Ku; Soochan Kim; Sunju Park; Jaeuk U Kim Journal: Neuropsychol Rev Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 6.940
Authors: Jessica Beltrán; Mireya S García-Vázquez; Jenny Benois-Pineau; Luis Miguel Gutierrez-Robledo; Jean-François Dartigues Journal: Comput Math Methods Med Date: 2018-05-20 Impact factor: 2.238
Authors: Ulrich Ettinger; Monique M B Breteler; Annabell Coors; Mohammed-Aslam Imtiaz; Meta M Boenniger; N Ahmad Aziz Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 7.989
Authors: Thomas D W Wilcockson; Diako Mardanbegi; Baiqiang Xia; Simon Taylor; Pete Sawyer; Hans W Gellersen; Ira Leroi; Rebecca Killick; Trevor J Crawford Journal: Aging (Albany NY) Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 5.682
Authors: T J Crawford; S Taylor; D Mardanbegi; M Polden; T W Wilcockson; R Killick; P Sawyer; H Gellersen; I Leroi Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-12-27 Impact factor: 4.379