| Literature DB >> 31795044 |
Patrizia Vannini1, Federico d'Oleire Uquillas2, Heidi I L Jacobs3, Jorge Sepulcre3, Jennifer Gatchel4, Rebecca E Amariglio5, Bernard Hanseeuw6, Kathryn V Papp7, Trey Hedden8, Dorene M Rentz5, Alvaro Pascual-Leone9, Keith A Johnson10, Reisa A Sperling11.
Abstract
The ability to accurately judge memory efficiency (meta-memory monitoring) for newly learned (episodic) information, is decreased in older adults and even worse in Alzheimer's disease (AD), whereas no differences have been found for semantic meta-memory. The pathological substrates of this phenomenon are poorly understood. Here, we examine the association between meta-memory monitoring for episodic and semantic information to the two major proteinopathies in AD: amyloid (Aβ) and tau pathology in a group of cognitively unimpaired older adults. All participants underwent multi-tracer PET and meta-memory monitoring was assessed using a feeling-of-knowing (FOK) task for non-famous (episodic) and famous (semantic) face-name pairs. Whole brain voxel-wise correlations between meta-memory and PET data were conducted (controlling for memory), as well as confirmatory region-of-interest analyses. Participants had reduced episodic FOK compared to semantic FOK. Decreased episodic FOK was related to tauopathy in the medial temporal lobe regions, including the entorhinal cortex and temporal pole, whereas decreased semantic FOK was related to increased tau in regions associated with the semantic knowledge network. No association was found with Aβ-pathology. Alterations in the ability to accurately judge memory efficiency (in the absence of memory decline) may be a sensitive clinical indicator of AD pathophysiology in the pre-symptomatic phase.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer's disease; Amyloid; Feeling-of-knowing; Meta-memory; Tau
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31795044 PMCID: PMC6879982 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2019.102097
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Demographic, clinical and cognitive variables.
| Mean and S.D. | Range | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 76.1 (6.1) | 64.8–92.3 |
| Gender (%) = F | 63 | NA |
| Education (years) | 16.2 (3.2) | 6–20 |
| CDR Sum-of-Boxes | 0.2 (0.4) | 0–2 |
| MMSE (unadjusted score) | 29.3 (1.1) | 25–30 |
| Depression (GDS score) | 3.8 (3.9) | 0–21 |
| Episodic memory (SRT delayed recall) | 6.7 (3.4) | 0–12 |
| Semantic memory (CAT ( | 43.9 (11.6) | 21–80 |
| APOE status (%) ( | 31 | NA |
| Amyloid status (%) = positive | 33 | NA |
| FR (%) Episodic | 0.6 (0.3) | 0–1.0 |
| Semantic | 0.5 (0.3) | 0–1.0 |
| FCR (%) Episodic | 0.5 (0.2) | 0–1.0 |
| Semantic | 0.4 (0.2) | 0.1–0.8 |
Mean and standard deviation (S.D.). CDR = clinical dementia rating; GDS = Geriatric depression scale; MMSE = Mini-Mental State Examination. FR = Free recall, FCR = forced choice recognition; SRT = selective reminding test; CAT = category fluency test.
Fig. 1Relative accuracy of FOK judgements for episodic and semantic information
Fig. 2The association between tau pathology and meta-memory accuracy.
Fig. 3Regions-of-interests.
Association between FOK and tau pathology in regions-of-interest.
| Region-of-interest | ß | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −0.83 | 0.25 | −0.33 | −3.28 | ||
| RH | −0.54 | 0.17 | −0.32 | −3.15 | |
| LH | −0.59 | 0.26 | −0.23 | −2.27 | 0.025 |
| −0.37 | 0.17 | −0.24 | −2.14 | 0.035 | |
| RH | −0.40 | 0.13 | −0.32 | −2.99 | |
| LH | −0.16 | 0.18 | −0.12 | −0.87 | 0.39 |
| −0.71 | 0.43 | −0.18 | −1.65 | 0.10 | |
| RH | −0.97 | 0.37 | −0.27 | −2.67 | |
| LH | −0.16 | 0.38 | −0.05 | −0.43 | 0.67 |
| −0.39 | 0.30 | −0.15 | −1.29 | 0.20 | |
| RH | −0.61 | 0.24 | −0.28 | −2.52 | |
| LH | 0.05 | 0.29 | 0.02 | 0.19 | 0.85 |
| −0.64 | 0.42 | −0.17 | −1.52 | 0.13 | |
| RH | −0.25 | 0.39 | −0.07 | −0.65 | 0.52 |
| LH | −0.73 | 0.35 | −0.22 | −2.1 | 0.04 |
| −0.40 | 0.18 | −0.23 | −2.23 | 0.025 | |
| RH | −0.31 | 0.12 | −0.26 | −2.67 | 0.009 |
| LH | −0.15 | 0.19 | −0.08 | −0.78 | 0.44 |
| −0.43 | 0.27 | −0.17 | −1.58 | 0.12 | |
| RH | −0.34 | 0.25 | −0.15 | −1.36 | 0.18 |
| LH | −0.38 | 0.26 | −0.16 | −1.47 | 0.14 |
| −0.33 | 0.23 | −0.15 | −1.41 | 0.16 | |
| RH | −0.52 | 0.19 | −0.26 | −2.59 | 0.01 |
| LH | −0.01 | 0.22 | −0.01 | −0.06 | 0.95 |
| −0.45 | 0.27 | −0.18 | −1.65 | 0.10 | |
| RH | −0.13 | 0.24 | −0.06 | −0.53 | 0.59 |
| LH | −0.59 | 0.25 | −0.25 | −2.40 | 0.018 |
| −0.43 | 0.19 | −0.22 | −2.16 | 0.033 | |
| RH | −0.39 | 0.19 | −0.21 | −2.11 | 0.037 |
| LH | −0.38 | 0.19 | −0.21 | −2.03 | 0.045 |
| −0.45 | 0.22 | −0.21 | −2.02 | 0.046 | |
| RH | −0.49 | 0.20 | −0.24 | −2.43 | 0.017 |
| −0.29 | 0.21 | −0.14 | −1.37 | 0.17 |
Linear regression models are adjusted for age, education, and memory performance. Multiple comparisons were accounted for using Bonferroni corrected a of 0.01 (for episodic FOK) respectively 0.0083 (for semantic FOK). BH =Bilateral hemispheres, RH = Right hemisphere, LH = Left hemisphere.