{"title":"Investigation of comparative nonword repetition performance in multiple sclerosis: Group differences, subtype variations, and disability effects.","authors":"Melis Buse Arslan, Özlem Öge-Daşdöğen","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2024.2408393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study investigated Nonword Repetition (NWR) tasks in individuals with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) compared to healthy controls (HC), focusing on phonological working memory (WM<sub>P</sub>). Significant differences were found in NWR acurracy (NWR<sub>acc)</sub> score between MS subgroups and HC (H = 48.2, <i>p</i> < 0.001). NWR<sub>acc</sub> decreased as the number of syllables increased in both groups, indicating increased cognitive load. All MS subtypes showed lower NWR<sub>acc</sub> compared to HC across varying syllable lengths (Mann Whitney U Test: two syllables U = 64.5, <i>p</i> < 0.001; three syllables U = 183, <i>p</i> < 0.001; four syllables U = 248, <i>p</i> < 0.001; five syllables U = 283.5, <i>p</i> < 0.001). However, no significant differences were found within MS subtypes based on syllable length. NWR<sub>acc</sub> did not differ between mild and severe MS groups. Overall, the NWR test effectively assessed WM<sub>P</sub> in MS, highlighting its utility in diagnosing and addressing language-cognitive challenges in individuals with MS. This underscores the importance of tailored intervention strategies to mitigate these challenges.</p>","PeriodicalId":51308,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2024.2408393","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study investigated Nonword Repetition (NWR) tasks in individuals with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) compared to healthy controls (HC), focusing on phonological working memory (WMP). Significant differences were found in NWR acurracy (NWRacc) score between MS subgroups and HC (H = 48.2, p < 0.001). NWRacc decreased as the number of syllables increased in both groups, indicating increased cognitive load. All MS subtypes showed lower NWRacc compared to HC across varying syllable lengths (Mann Whitney U Test: two syllables U = 64.5, p < 0.001; three syllables U = 183, p < 0.001; four syllables U = 248, p < 0.001; five syllables U = 283.5, p < 0.001). However, no significant differences were found within MS subtypes based on syllable length. NWRacc did not differ between mild and severe MS groups. Overall, the NWR test effectively assessed WMP in MS, highlighting its utility in diagnosing and addressing language-cognitive challenges in individuals with MS. This underscores the importance of tailored intervention strategies to mitigate these challenges.
本研究调查了多发性硬化症(MS)患者与健康对照组(HC)的非词重复(NWR)任务,重点是语音工作记忆(WMP)。研究发现,多发性硬化症亚组与健康对照组之间的非词重复熟练度(NWRacc)得分存在显著差异(H = 48.2,p acc 随着两组音节数的增加而降低,表明认知负荷增加。与 HC 相比,所有 MS 亚型在不同音节长度上的 NWRacc 分数都较低(Mann Whitney U 测试:两个音节 U = 64.5,p p p acc 在轻度和重度 MS 组之间没有差异。总之,NWR 测试有效地评估了多发性硬化症患者的 WMP,突出了其在诊断和解决多发性硬化症患者语言认知挑战方面的实用性。这凸显了量身定制干预策略以减轻这些挑战的重要性。
期刊介绍:
pplied Neuropsychology-Adult publishes clinical neuropsychological articles concerning assessment, brain functioning and neuroimaging, neuropsychological treatment, and rehabilitation in adults. Full-length articles and brief communications are included. Case studies of adult patients carefully assessing the nature, course, or treatment of clinical neuropsychological dysfunctions in the context of scientific literature, are suitable. Review manuscripts addressing critical issues are encouraged. Preference is given to papers of clinical relevance to others in the field. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief, and, if found suitable for further considerations are peer reviewed by independent, anonymous expert referees. All peer review is single-blind and submission is online via ScholarOne Manuscripts.