D A Loewenstein1, R E Curiel Cid, M Kitaigorodsky, E A Crocco, D D Zheng, K L Gorman. 1. David A. Loewenstein, PhD, ABPP-CN; Director, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and Aging; Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences; Professor of Neurology; University of Miami, 1695 NW 9th Ave, Suite 3202, Miami, FL 33136; dloewenstein@med.miami.edu; Phone: (305) 355-7016; Fax: (305) 255-9076.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Difficulties in inhibition and self-monitoring are early features of incipient Alzheimer's disease and may manifest as susceptibility to proactive semantic interference. However, due to limitations of traditional memory assessment paradigms, recovery from interference effects following repeated learning opportunities has not been explored. OBJECTIVE: This study employed a novel computerized list learning test consisting of repeated learning trials to assess recovery from proactive and retroactive semantic interference. DESIGN: The design was cross-sectional. SETTING: Participants were recruited from the community as part of a longitudinal study on normal and abnormal aging. PARTICIPANTS: The sample consisted of 46 cognitively normal individuals and 30 participants with amnestic mild cognitive impairment. MEASUREMENTS: Participants were administered the Cognitive Stress Test and traditional neuropsychological measures. Step-wise logistic regression was applied to determine which Cognitive Stress Test measures best discriminated between diagnostic groups. This was followed by receiver operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: Cued A3 recall, Cued B3 recall and Cued B2 intrusions were all independent predictors of diagnostic status. The overall predictive utility of the model yielded 75.9% sensitivity, 91.1% specificity, and an overall correct classification rate of 85.1%. When these variables were jointly entered into receiver operating characteristic analyses, the area under the curve was .923 (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: This novel paradigm's use of repeated learning trials offers a unique opportunity to assess recovery from proactive and retroactive semantic interference. Participants with mild cognitive impairment exhibited a continued failure to recover from proactive interference that could not be explained by mere learning deficits.
BACKGROUND: Difficulties in inhibition and self-monitoring are early features of incipient Alzheimer's disease and may manifest as susceptibility to proactive semantic interference. However, due to limitations of traditional memory assessment paradigms, recovery from interference effects following repeated learning opportunities has not been explored. OBJECTIVE: This study employed a novel computerized list learning test consisting of repeated learning trials to assess recovery from proactive and retroactive semantic interference. DESIGN: The design was cross-sectional. SETTING: Participants were recruited from the community as part of a longitudinal study on normal and abnormal aging. PARTICIPANTS: The sample consisted of 46 cognitively normal individuals and 30 participants with amnestic mild cognitive impairment. MEASUREMENTS: Participants were administered the Cognitive Stress Test and traditional neuropsychological measures. Step-wise logistic regression was applied to determine which Cognitive Stress Test measures best discriminated between diagnostic groups. This was followed by receiver operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: Cued A3 recall, Cued B3 recall and Cued B2 intrusions were all independent predictors of diagnostic status. The overall predictive utility of the model yielded 75.9% sensitivity, 91.1% specificity, and an overall correct classification rate of 85.1%. When these variables were jointly entered into receiver operating characteristic analyses, the area under the curve was .923 (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: This novel paradigm's use of repeated learning trials offers a unique opportunity to assess recovery from proactive and retroactive semantic interference. Participants with mild cognitive impairment exhibited a continued failure to recover from proactive interference that could not be explained by mere learning deficits.
Authors: Michaela Dewar; Martina Pesallaccia; Nelson Cowan; Leandro Provinciali; Sergio Della Sala Journal: Brain Cogn Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Jordi A Matias-Guiu; María Nieves Cabrera-Martín; Rosie E Curiel; María Valles-Salgado; Teresa Rognoni; Teresa Moreno-Ramos; José Luis Carreras; David A Loewenstein; Jorge Matías-Guiu Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Valeria L Torres; Mónica Rosselli; David A Loewenstein; Rosie E Curiel; Idaly Vélez Uribe; Merike Lang; Fernanda Arruda; Ailyn Penate; David E Vaillancourt; Maria T Greig; William W Barker; Russell M Bauer; Ranjan Duara Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: David A Loewenstein; Rosie E Curiel; Steven DeKosky; Russell M Bauer; Monica Rosselli; Salvador M Guinjoan; Malek Adjouadi; Ailyn Peñate; William W Barker; Sindy Goenaga; Todd Golde; Maria T Greig-Custo; Kevin S Hanson; Chunfei Li; Gabriel Lizarraga; Michael Marsiske; Ranjan Duara Journal: Neurology Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Stella M Sánchez; Carolina Abulafia; Barbara Duarte-Abritta; M Soledad Ladrón de Guevara; Mariana N Castro; Lucas Drucaroff; Gustavo Sevlever; Charles B Nemeroff; Daniel E Vigo; David A Loewenstein; Mirta F Villarreal; Salvador M Guinjoan Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Sara Aurtenetxe; Javier García-Pacios; David Del Río; María E López; José A Pineda-Pardo; Alberto Marcos; Maria L Delgado Losada; José M López-Frutos; Fernando Maestú Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 4.677