Sarah Levy1, David Gansler1, Edward Huey2, Eric Wassermann3, Jordan Grafman4,5. 1. Department of Psychology, Suffolk University College of Arts and Sciences, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Departments of Psychiatry and Neurology, Columbia University, NY, USA. 3. Department of Behavioral Neurology Unit, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Neurology; Shirley Ryan Ability Lab., Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Feinberg School of Medicine and Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We compared two different methods of assessing self-awareness (clinician-rated vs. self- and caregiver report) in participants with neurodegenerative conditions. Additionally, we examined the contribution of memory dysfunction to assessment of self-awareness. METHOD: Sixty-seven participants with various neurodegenerative disorders participated in this study. Data were collected on brain volume, neurocognitive function, demographic characteristics, and two measures of patient self-awareness, defined as (1) the discrepancy between patient and caregiver ratings of dysexecutive syndrome and (2) clinician-observed rating of patient insight. Penalized regression with best subset variable selection and 10-fold cross-validation was used to evaluate three neurocognitive frameworks: self-regulation, language, and perspective-taking, each predicting the results from the two methods of self-awareness measurement. RESULTS: The self-regulation framework was more robustly predictive for both the clinician rating and discrepancy method than language or perspective-taking. Frameworks in which the clinician rating was the criterion were more robust than those with the discrepancy method as criterion. When a measure of memory functioning was added to the framework, there was no appreciable improvement in the prediction of self-awareness. CONCLUSIONS: A self-regulation neurocognitive framework, consisting of regions of interest and neuropsychological test scores, was more effective in understanding patient self-awareness than perspective-taking or language frameworks. Compared to the discrepancy method, a clinician rating of self-awareness was more robustly associated with relevant clinical variables of regional brain volume and neuropsychological performance, suggesting it may be a useful measure to aid clinical diagnosis.
OBJECTIVE: We compared two different methods of assessing self-awareness (clinician-rated vs. self- and caregiver report) in participants with neurodegenerative conditions. Additionally, we examined the contribution of memory dysfunction to assessment of self-awareness. METHOD: Sixty-seven participants with various neurodegenerative disorders participated in this study. Data were collected on brain volume, neurocognitive function, demographic characteristics, and two measures of patient self-awareness, defined as (1) the discrepancy between patient and caregiver ratings of dysexecutive syndrome and (2) clinician-observed rating of patient insight. Penalized regression with best subset variable selection and 10-fold cross-validation was used to evaluate three neurocognitive frameworks: self-regulation, language, and perspective-taking, each predicting the results from the two methods of self-awareness measurement. RESULTS: The self-regulation framework was more robustly predictive for both the clinician rating and discrepancy method than language or perspective-taking. Frameworks in which the clinician rating was the criterion were more robust than those with the discrepancy method as criterion. When a measure of memory functioning was added to the framework, there was no appreciable improvement in the prediction of self-awareness. CONCLUSIONS: A self-regulation neurocognitive framework, consisting of regions of interest and neuropsychological test scores, was more effective in understanding patient self-awareness than perspective-taking or language frameworks. Compared to the discrepancy method, a clinician rating of self-awareness was more robustly associated with relevant clinical variables of regional brain volume and neuropsychological performance, suggesting it may be a useful measure to aid clinical diagnosis.
Authors: M L Gorno-Tempini; A E Hillis; S Weintraub; A Kertesz; M Mendez; S F Cappa; J M Ogar; J D Rohrer; S Black; B F Boeve; F Manes; N F Dronkers; R Vandenberghe; K Rascovsky; K Patterson; B L Miller; D S Knopman; J R Hodges; M M Mesulam; M Grossman Journal: Neurology Date: 2011-02-16 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Predrag Petrovic; Carl Johan Ekman; Johanna Klahr; Lars Tigerström; Göran Rydén; Anette G M Johansson; Carl Sellgren; Armita Golkar; Andreas Olsson; Arne Öhman; Martin Ingvar; Mikael Landén Journal: Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 3.436
Authors: H S Levin; W M High; K E Goethe; R A Sisson; J E Overall; H M Rhoades; H M Eisenberg; Z Kalisky; H E Gary Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 1987-02 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Marc Sollberger; Howard J Rosen; Tal Shany-Ur; Jerin Ullah; Christine M Stanley; Victor Laluz; Michael W Weiner; Stephen M Wilson; Bruce L Miller; Katherine P Rankin Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 2.708
Authors: Brian E McGuire; Todd G Morrison; Lynne A Barker; Nicholas Morton; Judith McBrinn; Sheena Caldwell; Colin F Wilson; John McCann; Simone Carton; Mark Delargy; Jane Walsh Journal: Front Behav Neurosci Date: 2014-10-10 Impact factor: 3.558
Authors: Carlos Muñoz-Neira; Andrea Tedde; Elizabeth Coulthard; N Jade Thai; Catherine Pennington Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2019-11-05 Impact factor: 4.881