D E Anderson1, V R Bhatt2, K Schmid3, S A Holstein2, M Lunning2, A M Berger4, M Rizzo5. 1. Department of Neurological Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), United States; Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, UNMC, United States; Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Science, College of Medicine, UNMC, United States. Electronic address: david.anderson@unmc.edu. 2. Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, UNMC, United States; Division of Oncology & Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, UNMC, United States. 3. Department of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, UNMC, United States. 4. Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, UNMC, United States; College of Nursing, UNMC, United States. 5. Department of Neurological Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), United States; Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, UNMC, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Neuroimaging studies of hematologic cancer patients report altered activity in dorsal attention and central executive networks. To determine the consequences of these altered brain networks, we evaluated neurophysiological correlates of attention and working memory in hematologic cancer patients prior to initiating treatment. METHODS: Hematologic cancer patients (19-80 years) were excluded for premorbid cognitive impairment, prior non-hematologic cancer diagnosis, and prior chemotherapy. Attention was manipulated by presenting an irrelevant spatial cue prior to visual search displays. Working memory was manipulated by presenting irrelevant distractors within memory displays. Electroencephalogram was recorded during task performance. RESULTS: Patients (n = 28) and controls (n = 15) were balanced on age, gender, and education. Spatial cues evoked larger N2pc amplitudes, a correlate of spatial attention, in patients than controls (p < .05; Cohen's d > 0.7). Memory distractors evoked larger contralateral delay activity amplitudes, a correlate of working memory load, in patients (p = .028; Cohen's d = 1.1) but not controls (p = .64). CONCLUSIONS: Prior to initiating treatment, hematologic cancer patients demonstrated poor control over spatial attention and working memory, consistent with altered dorsal attention and central executive network activity. SIGNIFICANCE: Hematologic cancer patients may be at a higher risk for selecting, processing, and storing distracting information that would compete with more immediate goal-related behaviors.
OBJECTIVE: Neuroimaging studies of hematologic cancerpatients report altered activity in dorsal attention and central executive networks. To determine the consequences of these altered brain networks, we evaluated neurophysiological correlates of attention and working memory in hematologic cancerpatients prior to initiating treatment. METHODS:Hematologic cancerpatients (19-80 years) were excluded for premorbid cognitive impairment, prior non-hematologic cancer diagnosis, and prior chemotherapy. Attention was manipulated by presenting an irrelevant spatial cue prior to visual search displays. Working memory was manipulated by presenting irrelevant distractors within memory displays. Electroencephalogram was recorded during task performance. RESULTS:Patients (n = 28) and controls (n = 15) were balanced on age, gender, and education. Spatial cues evoked larger N2pc amplitudes, a correlate of spatial attention, in patients than controls (p < .05; Cohen's d > 0.7). Memory distractors evoked larger contralateral delay activity amplitudes, a correlate of working memory load, in patients (p = .028; Cohen's d = 1.1) but not controls (p = .64). CONCLUSIONS: Prior to initiating treatment, hematologic cancerpatients demonstrated poor control over spatial attention and working memory, consistent with altered dorsal attention and central executive network activity. SIGNIFICANCE: Hematologic cancerpatients may be at a higher risk for selecting, processing, and storing distracting information that would compete with more immediate goal-related behaviors.
Authors: Ziad S Nasreddine; Natalie A Phillips; Valérie Bédirian; Simon Charbonneau; Victor Whitehead; Isabelle Collin; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard Chertkow Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: David E Anderson; Sachin Kedar; Vijaya R Bhatt; Kendra Schmid; Sarah A Holstein; Matthew Rizzo Journal: J Neurol Sci Date: 2019-12-24 Impact factor: 3.181
Authors: Hector Arciniega; Jorja Shires; Sarah Furlong; Alexandrea Kilgore-Gomez; Adelle Cerreta; Nicholas G Murray; Marian E Berryhill Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 4.379