Preliminary Validation of the Learning Ratio for the HVLT-R and BVMT-R in Older Adults.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Dustin B Hammers, Brian D Gradwohl, Amanda Kucera, Tracy J Abildskov, Elisabeth A Wilde, Robert J Spencer
{"title":"Preliminary Validation of the Learning Ratio for the HVLT-R and BVMT-R in Older Adults.","authors":"Dustin B Hammers,&nbsp;Brian D Gradwohl,&nbsp;Amanda Kucera,&nbsp;Tracy J Abildskov,&nbsp;Elisabeth A Wilde,&nbsp;Robert J Spencer","doi":"10.1097/WNN.0000000000000277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The learning slope is typically represented as the raw difference between the final score and the score of the first learning trial. A new method for calculating the learning slope, the learning ratio (LR), was recently developed; it is typically represented as the number of items that are learned after the first trial divided by the number of items that are yet to be learned.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the convergent and criterion validity of the LR in order to understand its sensitivity to Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Fifty-six patients from a memory clinic underwent standard neuropsychological assessment and quantitative brain imaging. LR scores were calculated from the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised and the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised and were compared with both standard memory measures and total hippocampal volumes, as well as between individuals with AD and those with mild cognitive impairment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Lower LR scores were consistently associated with poorer performances on standard memory measures and smaller total hippocampal volumes, generally more so than traditional learning slope scores. The LR scores of the AD group were smaller than those of the group with mild cognitive impairment. Furthermore, the aggregation of LR scores into a single metric was partially supported.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The LR is sensitive to AD pathology along the AD continuum. This result supports previous claims that the LR score can reflect learning capacity better than traditional learning calculations can by considering the amount of information that is learned at trial 1.</p>","PeriodicalId":50671,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology","volume":"34 3","pages":"170-181"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WNN.0000000000000277","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: The learning slope is typically represented as the raw difference between the final score and the score of the first learning trial. A new method for calculating the learning slope, the learning ratio (LR), was recently developed; it is typically represented as the number of items that are learned after the first trial divided by the number of items that are yet to be learned.

Objective: To evaluate the convergent and criterion validity of the LR in order to understand its sensitivity to Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology.

Method: Fifty-six patients from a memory clinic underwent standard neuropsychological assessment and quantitative brain imaging. LR scores were calculated from the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised and the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised and were compared with both standard memory measures and total hippocampal volumes, as well as between individuals with AD and those with mild cognitive impairment.

Results: Lower LR scores were consistently associated with poorer performances on standard memory measures and smaller total hippocampal volumes, generally more so than traditional learning slope scores. The LR scores of the AD group were smaller than those of the group with mild cognitive impairment. Furthermore, the aggregation of LR scores into a single metric was partially supported.

Conclusion: The LR is sensitive to AD pathology along the AD continuum. This result supports previous claims that the LR score can reflect learning capacity better than traditional learning calculations can by considering the amount of information that is learned at trial 1.

老年人HVLT-R和BVMT-R学习率的初步验证。
背景:学习斜率通常表示为最终分数和第一次学习试验分数之间的原始差异。最近开发了一种计算学习斜率的新方法,即学习率(LR);它通常表示为在第一次试验之后学习的项目的数量除以尚未学习的项目数量。目的:评估LR的收敛性和标准有效性,以了解其对阿尔茨海默病(AD)病理的敏感性。方法:56名来自记忆诊所的患者接受了标准的神经心理评估和定量脑成像。LR分数根据霍普金斯言语学习测试修订版和短暂视觉空间记忆测试修订版计算,并与标准记忆测量和海马总体积以及AD患者和轻度认知障碍患者之间进行比较。结果:较低的LR分数始终与标准记忆测量的较差表现和较小的海马总体积相关,通常比传统的学习斜率分数更相关。AD组的LR评分低于轻度认知障碍组。此外,部分支持将LR得分汇总为一个单一指标。结论:LR对AD的病理变化具有一定的敏感性。这一结果支持了之前的说法,即通过考虑在试验1中学习的信息量,LR分数可以比传统的学习计算更好地反映学习能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
68
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology (CBN) is a forum for advances in the neurologic understanding and possible treatment of human disorders that affect thinking, learning, memory, communication, and behavior. As an incubator for innovations in these fields, CBN helps transform theory into practice. The journal serves clinical research, patient care, education, and professional advancement. The journal welcomes contributions from neurology, cognitive neuroscience, neuropsychology, neuropsychiatry, and other relevant fields. The editors particularly encourage review articles (including reviews of clinical practice), experimental and observational case reports, instructional articles for interested students and professionals in other fields, and innovative articles that do not fit neatly into any category. Also welcome are therapeutic trials and other experimental and observational studies, brief reports, first-person accounts of neurologic experiences, position papers, hypotheses, opinion papers, commentaries, historical perspectives, and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信