| Literature DB >> 32612522 |
Fabienne Marlats1, Guillaume Bao2, Sylvain Chevallier3, Marouane Boubaya4, Leila Djabelkhir-Jemmi1, Ya-Huei Wu1, Hermine Lenoir1, Anne-Sophie Rigaud1, Eric Azabou2.
Abstract
Background: Neurofeedback (NF) training, as a method of self-regulation of brain activity, may be beneficial in elderly patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). In this pilot study, we investigated whether a sensorimotor (SMR)/theta NF training could improve cognitive performance and brain electrical activity in elderly patients with MCI.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer; elderly; electroencephalography; mild cognitive impairment; neurofeedback
Year: 2020 PMID: 32612522 PMCID: PMC7308493 DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2020.00147
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Aging Neurosci ISSN: 1663-4365 Impact factor: 5.750
List of neuropsychological tests administered before, after-NF training and at follow-up.
| Neuropsychological tests | Cognitive function assessed | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Global assessment of cognitive functions: | ||
| MoCa (Version 2; range from 0–30) | Visuospatial/executive | Score between 21 and 25 = MCI |
| Naming | ||
| Memory | ||
| Attention | ||
| Language | ||
| Abstraction | ||
| Orientation | ||
| MMSE (Range from 0–30) | Brief quantitative cognitive measures | Score between 23 and 26/30 = MCI |
| Orientation | ||
| Registration | ||
| Attention | ||
| Calculation | ||
| Recall | ||
| Language | ||
| RAVLT (4 lists of 15 words) | Declarative memory | A 15 noun word list, Ability to encode, Combine, store, and recover verbal information. |
| Story recall (A or B) | Declarative memory | Two immediate recalls and a delayed recall (30 min) |
| Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure copy score (or Taylor Complex Figure) | planning, visuospatial processing Visual declarative memory | Copy completion time, 30 min recall score. |
| TMTA (Trail Making Test part A) | Sustained attention | Capacity to maintain and attentional activity over some time |
| TMTB (Trail Making Test part B) | Alternating attention | Capacity to shift in focus and tasks (B/A time) |
| K.T | Executive function | Capacity to discriminate stimuli |
| Forward and Backward Digit Span (Weschler Adult Intelligent Scale 4th edition) | Working memory | Capacity to process speed and attention control. |
| Semantic and lexical | Fluency language Semantic memory | In 2 min |
Figure 1The flow chart of the study. Twenty-two patients were included and underwent baseline evaluation T0, but two of them left the study after the T0 evaluation and before T1 and T2 assessments: one for vacations and one due to disease. Only 20 patients completed the entire neurofeedback (NF) training sessions, the post-intervention assessment T1, and follow up assessment T2. Notes: T0 = baseline; T1 = Post-intervention; T2 = 1-month follow-up.
Socio-demographic characteristics of the 22 initially included patients.
| Variable | Total ( |
|---|---|
| Age (years), Mean (SD) | 76.1 (5.9) |
| Women, % ( | 77.3% (17) |
| MMSE Score, Mean (SD) | 25.4 (2.8) |
| MoCa Score, Mean (SD) | 23.1 (2.5) |
| Education, years, Mean (SD) | 14.9 (2.6) |
Abbreviations: .
Scores changes on cognitive and psycho-affective measures from baseline (T0) to post-intervention (T1) and 1-month follow-up (T2).
| Variables | T0 | T1 | T2 | T1–T0 | T2–T0 | T2–T1 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | Repeated measures ANOVA | Student’s | |||||
| mean ± SD | mean ± SD | mean ± SD | Cohen’s | ||||||
| MMSE | 25.3 ± 2.8 | 25.9 ± 2.5 | 25.5 ± 3.5 | 0.474 | 0.625 | 0.035 | |||
| MoCa | 23.2 ± 2.5 | 25.1 ± 3 | 23.6 ± 3.4 | 4.78 | 0.937 | ||||
| Logic memory-trial1 | 9.5 ± 4.6 | 10.125 ± 4.6 | 9.575 ± 4.4 | 0.293 | 0.747 | 0.057 | |||
| Logic memory-trial2 | 13.25 ± 4.6 | 14.425 ± 4.4 | 13.2 ± 4.5 | 1.652 | 0.201 | 0.028 | |||
| Logic memory-recall | 11.325 ± 5.2 | 12.625 ± 4.7 | 12 ± 5.2 | 0.976 | 0.383 | 0.052 | |||
| RAVLT-Total | 41.4 ± 10.7 | 41.9 ± 11.2 | 39.9 ± 15.1 | 1.866 | 0.164 | 0.028 | |||
| RAVLT-Delayed recall | 6.4 ± 4.3 | 8.7 ± 3.9 | 8.3 ± 3.8 | 3.675 | 0.079 | 0.655 | |||
| TMT-A | 46.85 ± 16.7 | 45.25 ± 15.01 | 52.8 ± 21.4 | 2.908 | 0.063 | >0.001 | |||
| TMT-B | 173.35 ± 121 | 144.3 ± 95.7 | 161.3 ± 122.5 | 0.990 | 0.378 | 0.001 | |||
| REY—copy | 28.25 ± 5.9 | 28.675 ± 7.5 | 29.525 ± 4.6 | 0.412 | 0.664 | 0.012 | |||
| REY—completion time | 209.75 ± 79.6 | 187.9 ± 73.8 | 190.7 ± 64.5 | 1.041 | 0.360 | 0.036 | |||
| REY—recall | 10.9 ± 5.7 | 10.925 ± 6.9 | 12.325 ± 7.4 | 1.442 | 0.245 | 0.120 | |||
| WAIS-IV | 44.2 ± 11.8 | 47.3 ± 13.1 | 46.6 ± 11.3 | 24.753 | 0.976 | ||||
| Forward digit span | 4.85 ± 0.7 | 5.7 ± 0.6 | 5.35 ± 0.7 | 13.824 | |||||
| Backward digit span | 3.6 ± 0.6 | 3.95 ± 0.7 | 3.8 ± 1 | 1.744 | 0.184 | 0.058 | |||
| Phonetic verbal fluency | 18.3 ± 5.4 | 19.7 ± 6.7 | 17.8 ± 6.9 | 0.972 | 0.385 | 0.050 | |||
| Categorical verbal fluency | 19.1 ± 5.6 | 22.95 ± 7 | 19.1 ± 7.6 | 2.860 | 0.066 | 0.038 | |||
| Anxiety Goldberg | 5.05 ± 2.8 | 3.7 ± 2.2 | 3.9 ± 1.8 | 4.545 | 0.06 | 0.635 | |||
| Depression GDS | 8.11 ± 4.3 | 7.35 ± 4 | 8.65 ± 3.6 | 0.778 | 0.352 | >0.001 | |||
| Mac Nair | 20.4 ± 6.8 | 15.55 ± 6.2 | 16.85 ± 7.8 | 4.469 | 0.095 | 0.267 | |||
| EQPVA | 9.25 ± 2.3 | 10.15 ± 2.3 | 10.25 ± 2.2 | 2.491 | 0.092 | 0.014 | |||
| KT—Correct answers | 33.1 ± 10.4 | 34.25 ± 10.7 | 33.7 ± 11 | 0.488 | 0.616 | 0.002 | |||
| KT—Omissions | 5.05 ± 3.3 | 4.15 ± 3.5 | 4.25 ± 2.7 | 0.770 | 0.468 | 0.037 | |||
| KT—Mistakes | 0.9 ± 0.9 | 0.55 ± 0.8 | 0.9 ± 1.5 | 1.120 | 0.333 | 0.037 | |||
Note: .
Figure 2Neuropsychological and cognitive items with significant score change after the NF training for the 20 elderly patients: baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1), and 1-month follow-up (T2). Note: *statistical significant difference (p < 0.05).
Changes on power values for each frequency band from baseline (T0) to post-NF training (T1) and 1-month follow-up (T2) for the 20 elderly patients.
| The power log ratio of EEG frequency bands | T0 | T1 | T2 | T1–T0 | T2–T0 | T2–T1 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | Repeated Measures ANOVA | Student’s | |||||
| mean ± SEM | mean ± SEM | mean ± SEM | Cohen’s | ||||||
| Delta | 0.22 ± 0.21 | 0.15 ± 0.28 | 0.07 ± 0.34 | 1.452 | 0.243 | 0.093 | 0.40 | 0.13 | 0.37 |
| Theta | 0.26 ± 0.24 | 0.23 ± 0.26 | 0.08 ± 0.27 | 4.443 | 0.016* | 0.163 | 0.04* | 0.03* | 0.53 |
| Alpha | 0.3 ± 0.29 | 0.28 ± 0.30 | 0.14 ± 0.29 | 3.841 | 0.027* | 0.212 | 0.03* | 0.04* | 0.70 |
| SMR | 0.28 ± 0.28 | 0.25 ± 0.29 | 0.14 ± 0.27 | 1.920 | 0.156 | 0.196 | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.67 |
| Beta | 0.15 ± 0.18 | 0.14 ± 0.21 | 0.04 ± 0.2 | 3.052 | 0.059* | 0.074 | 0.06* | 0.05* | 0.79 |
Abbreviations: SMR, sensorimotor; SEM, Standard Error Mean. Note: *Significance at .
Figure 3Changes in Power of EEG bands from baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1), and 1-month follow-up (T2) for the 20 elderly patients. Abbreviations: Δ, delta; θ, theta; SMR, Sensorimotor; α, alpha; β, lower beta. Note: *statistical significant difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 4Example of topographic distribution (time-frequency) of the EEG spectral power for each electrode placed on the scalp according to the international 10-20 system for one patient. Baseline (T0), Post-NF training (T1), and 1-month follow-up (T2). The spectrograms show the estimation frequencies for each electrode at baseline, after the NF training and 1-month follow-up from one of the 20 patients. In this example, differences were observed at post-NF training with increased global activity in frontal areas (Fp1, Fp2, F3, F4, F6, F7) and central regions (C3, Cz, C4). In posterior areas, alpha activity appeared more determined than at baseline. At 1-month follow-up, the global activity got back to its previous lower global activity observed at baseline.