| Literature DB >> 36078698 |
Alycia K Silman1,2, Raveena Chhabria3, George W Hafzalla3, Leahanne Giffin3, Kimberly Kucharski3, Katherine Myers3, Carlos Culquichicón4, Stephanie Montero4, Andres G Lescano4, Claudia M Vega5, Luis E Fernandez2,5,6,7, Miles R Silman2,6, Michael J Kane8, John W Sanders3.
Abstract
The Matsigenka people living traditional lifestyles in remote areas of the Amazon rely on a fish-based diet that exposes them to methylmercury (MeHg) at levels that have been associated with decreased IQ scores. In this study, the association between Hg levels and working memory was explored using the framework of the Multicomponent Model. Working memory tasks were modified to fit the culture and language of the Matsigenka when needed and included measures for verbal storage (Word Span) visuospatial storage (Corsi Block Task) and a measure of executive functions, the Self-Ordered Pointing Task (SOPT). An innovation of the Trail Making Tests A & B (TMT A & B) was pilot tested as another potential measure of executive functions. The mean hair Hg levels of 30 participants, ages 12 to 55 years, from three different communities (Maizal, Cacaotal and Yomibato) was 7.0 ppm (sd = 2.40), well above the World Health Organization (WHO) limit for hair of 2.0 ppm and ranged from 1.8 to 14.2 ppm, with 98% of a broader sample of 152 individuals exceeding the WHO limit. Hair Hg levels showed significant associations with cognitive performance, but the degree varied in magnitude according to the type of task. Hg levels were negatively associated with executive functioning performance (SOPT errors), while Hg levels and years of education predicted visuospatial performance (Corsi Block accuracy). Education was the only predictor of Word Span accuracy. The results show that Hg exposure is negatively associated with working memory performance when there is an increased reliance on executive functioning. Based on our findings and the review of the experimental research, we suggest that the SOPT and the Corsi Block have the potential to be alternatives to general intelligence tests when studying remote groups with extensive cultural differences.Entities:
Keywords: Amazon Basin; Manu National Park; Matsigenka; environmental exposure; executive functions; indigenous population; methylmercury; working memory
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36078698 PMCID: PMC9517927 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191710989
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Map of Manu National Park, Peru. Location of Cacaotal, Yomibato, and Maizal are indicated by red stars on map.
Figure 2(a–d) Example Stimuli for Cognitive Tasks: (a) Example of Corsi Block set size 4. Numbers in square are used to demonstrate a sequential pattern but were not displayed to the participant. (b) Example of SOPT set size 4 with 4 different “Attneave” shapes, (c) Example of TMT A “Shades” presented in random locations, (d) Example of TMT B “Shades & Shapes” presented in random locations.
Summary Statistics for Demographics, Health and Diet Indicators, and Cognitive Tasks.
| Community | All Participants | Cacaotal | Maizal | Yomibato | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | 30 | 11 | 3 | 16 | |
| Gender | F (M) | 18 (12) | 6 (05) | 3 (0) | 9 (7) |
| Age | average years (sd) | 29 (13.8) | 28 * (9.6) | 45 (16.2) | 26 (14.7) |
| Education | |||||
| none | 8 | 3 | 2 | 4 | |
| primary | 12 | 6 | 1 | 5 | |
| secondary | 10 | 2 | 0 | 7 | |
| mean years | 4.77 (3.8) | 4.82 (3.68) | 1.33 (2.31) | 5.38 (3.99) | |
| Fish Consumption | |||||
| Total per Week | 4.10 (2.4) | 4.58 (1.8) | 3.73 (2.9) | 3.98 (2.5) | |
| Body Mass Index | |||||
| mean (sd) | 22.93 (2.72) | 22.8 (2.42) | 24.38 (3.25) | 22.75 (2.92) | |
| <20 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 3 | |
| Anemia | |||||
| Hemoglobin | 11.77 (1.42) | 11.8 (1.56) | 11.5 (1.65) | 12.15 (1.25) | |
| Males < 13.5, Females < 12 | 22 | 6 | 1 | 12 | |
| Hg (ppm) | |||||
| mean (sd) | 7.05 (2.40) | 6.04 (2.43) | 11.49 (2.40) | 3.61 (2.38) | |
| min | 1.81 | 2.84 | 9.67 | 1.81 | |
| max | 14.21 | 11.42 | 14.21 | 11.43 | |
| Word Span | |||||
| mean accuracy (sd) | 0.52 (0.19) | 0.45 (0.19) | 0.30 (0.11) | 0.60 (0.16) | |
| Corsi Block Span | |||||
| mean accuracy (sd) | 0.59 (0.27) | 0.47 (0.25) | 0.25 (0.14) | 0.73 (0.25) | |
| SOPT Errors | |||||
| mean errors (sd) | 4.23 (1.65) | 4.72 (1.38) | 4.67 (0.55) | 3.81 (1.90) | |
* Three participants from Cacaotal did not know their age.
Figure 3Hg levels per village with both the 2017 and 2018 cohort for the village of Maizal. Boxes show mean, interquartile range, and 2.5–97.5 percentiles.
Summary Statistics for Trail Making Test Sample Pilot Test.
| Community | All Participants * | Yomibato | Cacaotal | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | 19 | 14 | 5 | |
| Gender | F (M) | 10 (9) | 7 (7) | 3 (2) |
| Age | mean years | 23 (12.9) | 22 (12.61) | 21 (5.58) |
| Education | ||||
| mean years | 6.63 (3.50) | 6.29 (3.85) | 7.6 (2.30) | |
| Hg (ppm) | ||||
| mean (sd) | 4.63 (2.92) | 3.56 (2.54) | 7.12 (2.64) | |
| min | 1.92 | 1.92 | 4.75 | |
| max | 11.43 | 11.43 | 11.42 | |
| Trail Making Test A “Shades” | ||||
| mean percent accuracy (sd) | 0.68 (0.35) | 0.66 (0.34) | 0.68 (0.42) | |
| Trail Making Test B “Shapes & Shades” | ||||
| mean percent accuracy (sd) | 0.31 (0.32) | 0.34 0(.29) | 0.08 (0.11) | |
* Maizal participants were not administered the TMT A & B.
Correlation Matrix for All Variables across Communities.
| Age | Education | BMI | Hemoglobin | Fish Consumption | Hg | Word Span | Corsi Block | SOPT Errors | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 1.00 | ||||||||
| Education | −0.47 * | 1.00 | |||||||
| BMI | 0.26 | 0.29 | 1.00 | ||||||
| Hemoglobin | −0.01 | 0.04 | 0.16 | 1.00 | |||||
| Fish Consumption | 0.04 | 0.12 | −0.14 | −0.02 | 1.00 | ||||
| Hg | 0.50 * | −0.21 | 0.11 | −0.13 | −0.13 | 1.00 | |||
| Word Span | −0.56 * | 0.63 * | −0.08 | 0.31 | −0.13 | −0.38 * | 1.00 | ||
| Corsi Block | −0.44 * | 0.59 * | −0.01 | 0.28 | −0.04 | −0.56 * | 0.62 * | 1.00 | |
| SOPT Errors | 0.10 | −0.33 | −0.20 | −0.28 | 0.21 | 0.41 * | −0.34 | −0.31 | 1.00 |
* p < 0.05.
Multiple Linear Regression Models for Working Memory Components and Predictors.
|
| Model Fit |
|
| 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Word Span Accuracy | Age | −0.00 | (−0.01, 0.00) | 0.16 | |
| Education | 0.02 | (0.01, 0.04) | 0.01 | ||
| Hg | −0.01 | (−0.03, 0.01) | 0.35 | ||
| Corsi Block Accuracy | Age | 0.00 | (−0.01, 0.01) | 0.83 | |
| Education | 0.04 | (0.01, 0.06) | 0.00 | ||
| Hg | −0.04 | (−0.06, −0.01) | 0.01 | ||
| SOPT Errors | Age | −0.04 | (−0.09, 0.01) | 0.14 | |
| Education | −0.16 | (−0.32, 0.00) | 0.05 | ||
| Hg | 0.23 | (0.05, 0.42) | 0.02 |
Figure 4Added variable plots [76] showing the unique effect of a cognitive task (red line and associated 95% CI) as compared to a model assuming the model contains all the other terms (blue line) for each cognitive task but no relationship between the dependent and independent variable. (a) Word Span Accuracy vs. Hg, (b) Corsi Block Accuracy vs. Hg, (c) SOPT Total Errors vs Hg.