Ryan J Piers1,2, Kathryn N Devlin3, Boting Ning4, Yulin Liu2, Ben Wasserman2, Joseph M Massaro2,4, Melissa Lamar5, Catherine C Price6, Rod Swenson7, Randall Davis8, Dana L Penney9, Rhoda Au2,10, David J Libon11. 1. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Framingham Heart Study, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 7. Department of Neuroscience, North Dakota School of Medicine, Grand Forks, ND, USA. 8. MIT CSAIL, Cambridge, MA, USA. 9. Department of Neurology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA, USA. 10. Department of Anatomy & Neurobiology, Neurology, & Epidemiology, Boston University Schools of Medicine & Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 11. Department of Geriatrics and Gerontology and the Department of Psychology, New Jersey Institute for Successful Aging, Rowan University, School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, NJ, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital Clock Drawing Test (dCDT) technology enables the examination of detailed neurocognitive behavior as behavior unfolds in real time; a capability that cannot be obtained using a traditional pen and paper testing format. OBJECTIVE: Parameters obtained from the dCDT were used to investigate neurocognitive constructs related to higher-order neurocognitive decision making and information processing speed. The current research sought to determine the effect of age as related to combined motor and non-motor components of drawing, and higher-order decision making latencies. METHODS: A large group of stroke- and dementia- free Framingham Heart Study participants were administered the dCDT to command and copy with hands set for "10 after 11". Six age groups (age range 28-98) were constructed. RESULTS: Differences between age groups were found for total time to completion, total pen stroke count, and higher-order decision making latencies in both command and copy test conditions. CONCLUSION: Longer age-related decision making latencies may reflect a greater need for working memory and increased self-monitoring in older subjects. These latency measures have potential to serve as neurocognitive biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease and other insidious neurodegenerative disorders.
BACKGROUND: Digital Clock Drawing Test (dCDT) technology enables the examination of detailed neurocognitive behavior as behavior unfolds in real time; a capability that cannot be obtained using a traditional pen and paper testing format. OBJECTIVE: Parameters obtained from the dCDT were used to investigate neurocognitive constructs related to higher-order neurocognitive decision making and information processing speed. The current research sought to determine the effect of age as related to combined motor and non-motor components of drawing, and higher-order decision making latencies. METHODS: A large group of stroke- and dementia- free Framingham Heart Study participants were administered the dCDT to command and copy with hands set for "10 after 11". Six age groups (age range 28-98) were constructed. RESULTS: Differences between age groups were found for total time to completion, total penstroke count, and higher-order decision making latencies in both command and copy test conditions. CONCLUSION: Longer age-related decision making latencies may reflect a greater need for working memory and increased self-monitoring in older subjects. These latency measures have potential to serve as neurocognitive biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease and other insidious neurodegenerative disorders.
Entities:
Keywords:
Boston Process Approach; cognition; digital clock drawing test; graphomotor decision making; normal aging
Authors: Samrah Ahmed; Laura Brennan; Joel Eppig; Catherine C Price; Melissa Lamar; Lisa Delano-Wood; Katherine J Bangen; Emily C Edmonds; Lindsey Clark; Daniel A Nation; Amy Jak; Rhoda Au; Rodney Swenson; Mark W Bondi; David J Libon Journal: Appl Neuropsychol Adult Date: 2015-09-23 Impact factor: 2.248
Authors: Greta Lee Splansky; Diane Corey; Qiong Yang; Larry D Atwood; L Adrienne Cupples; Emelia J Benjamin; Ralph B D'Agostino; Caroline S Fox; Martin G Larson; Joanne M Murabito; Christopher J O'Donnell; Ramachandran S Vasan; Philip A Wolf; Daniel Levy Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2007-03-19 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Sebastian Palmqvist; Joakim Hertze; Lennart Minthon; Carina Wattmo; Henrik Zetterberg; Kaj Blennow; Elisabet Londos; Oskar Hansson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-06-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Loren P Hizel; Eric D Warner; Margaret E Wiggins; Jared J Tanner; Hari Parvataneni; Randall Davis; Dana L Penney; David J Libon; Patrick Tighe; Cynthia W Garvan; Catherine C Price Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Stacy L Andersen; Benjamin Sweigart; Nancy W Glynn; Mary K Wojczynski; Bharat Thyagarajan; Jonas Mengel-From; Stephen Thielke; Thomas T Perls; David J Libon; Rhoda Au; Stephanie Cosentino; Paola Sebastianion Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2021 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Luis D Medina; Ellen Woo; Yaneth Rodriguez-Agudelo; Hector Chaparro Maldonado; Dahyun Yi; Giovanni Coppola; Yan Zhou; Helena C Chui; John M Ringman Journal: Brain Cogn Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 2.682
Authors: Margaret Ellenora Wiggins; Catherine Dion; Erin Formanski; Anis Davoudi; Shawna Amini; Kenneth M Heilman; Dana Penney; Randall Davis; Cynthia W Garvan; George J Arnaoutakis; Patrick Tighe; David J Libon; Catherine C Price Journal: Explor Med Date: 2021-04-30