| Literature DB >> 30263929 |
Shani Waninger1, Chris Berka1, Amir Meghdadi1, Marija S Karic1, Kimberly Stevens2, Cinthya Aguero2, Tatiana Sitnikova2, David H Salat2, Ajay Verma3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of the study is to validate attention and memory tasks that elicit event-related potentials (ERPs) for utility as sensitive biomarkers for early dementia.Entities:
Keywords: Biomarker; Electroencephalography; Event-related potential; Mild cognitive impairment; Neurophysiology
Year: 2018 PMID: 30263929 PMCID: PMC6156804 DOI: 10.1016/j.dadm.2018.05.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) ISSN: 2352-8729
Demographics
| Variable | Total sample (Mean ± SEM) | HC (Mean ± SEM) | MCI (Mean ± SEM) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample size (N) | 35 | 17 | 18 | - |
| Women | 21 | 12 | 8 | - |
| Men | 15 | 5 | 10 | - |
| Age (years) | 68.18 ± 1.03 | 67.34 ± 1.61 | 69.02 ± 0.35 | .52 |
| Education (years) | 15.71 ± 0.42 | 16.53 ± 0.70 | 14.94 ± 0.45 | .06 |
| MMSE Score | 28.54 ± 0.285 | 29.18 ± 0.20 | 27.94 ± 0.48 | .03 |
| MoCA Score | 25.63 ± 0.49 | 27.35 ± 0.49 | 24.00 ± 0.66 | .001 |
Abbreviations: HC, healthy controls; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; MMSE, Mini–Mental State Examination; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; SEM, standard error of the mean.
Average performance measures for HC and MCI cohorts
| Task | Variable | HC | MCI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SIR | RT (s) | 0.77 ± 0.03 | 0.77 ± 0.03 | .01 |
| PC | 87.50 ± 2.63 | 73.63 ± 4.7 | .01 | |
| F-Measure | 0.787 ± 0.02 | 0.70 ± 0.02 | .01 | |
| 3CVT | RT (s) | 0.69 ± 0.01 | 0.72 ± 0.02 | .33 |
| PC | 95.7 ± 1.4 | 92.2 ± 1.7 | .12 | |
| F-Measure | 0.79 ± 0.01 | 0.76 ± 0.01 | .13 |
Abbreviations: 3CVT, 3-choice vigilance task; HC, healthy controls; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; PC, percent correct; RT, reaction time; SIR, standard image recognition memory task.
Fig. 1Panel A: Grand average ERPs for correct response to target trials in SIR task at each channel for HC (blue) and MCI cohorts (red). Panel B: Topographical maps of the mean amplitude of the LPP component for HC and MCI cohorts and the difference between the two cohorts. Channels with significant differences (P < .05) in mean LPP are circled. Abbreviations: EPRs, event-related potentials; HC, healthy controls; LPP, late positive potential.
Fig. 2Panel A: Grand average ERPs for correct response to target trials in 3CVT task plotted for all channels in both HC (blue) and MCI cohort (red). Panel B: Topographical maps of the mean amplitude of the LPP component for HC and MCI cohorts and the difference between the two cohorts. Channels with significant differences (P < .05) in mean LPP are circled. Abbreviations: 3CVT, 3-choice vigilance task; ERPs, event-related potentials; HC, healthy controls; LPP, late positive potential.
Fig. 3Panel A: Scatter plots of performance (F-Measure) and mean amplitude of LPP in channel P3 during SIR task. Panel B: Topographical maps of the Pearson's correlation coefficient r on 2D and 3D head maps. Channels with significant (P < .01) correlation values greater than 0.5 are marked with black diamonds. Abbreviations: HC, healthy controls; LPP, late positive potential; SIR, standard image recognition memory task.
Fig. 4Old/new effect on ERP measures in SIR task at channel P3. Panel A: Grand average ERP waveforms for both target and nontarget trials. Panel B and C: Topographical maps indicate mean amplitude of LPP (B) and maximum amplitude of P200 (C) for target, nontarget and the difference between target and nontarget. Channels with significant differences between target and nontarget are highlighted with black circles. D: Correlation between old/new effect and performance (F-measure). Abbreviations: ERP, event-related potential; LPP, late positive potential; SIR, standard image recognition memory task.