Neuropsychology Review最新文献

{"title":"Time-Based and Event-Based Prospective Memory in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Rafael Román-Caballero, Giovanna Mioni","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09626-y","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-023-09626-y","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Prospective memory (PM) is the ability to remember to perform planned actions in a future moment and it is of fundamental importance for an independent and autonomous lifestyle from development to late adulthood. Deficits in episodic memory and executive functions, which are involved in PM are characteristic features of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). Considering that the number of older adults is drastically increasing over the next decades, it is of great interest to understand how PM decline in healthy older adults and patients with different degree of cognitive decline. The present meta-analysis included 46 studies investigating PM performance in AD patients (17 studies) and people with MCI (24 studies); 5 studies included both clinical conditions in the same article. The 46 studies contributed a total of 63 independent samples and 129 effect sizes from 4668 participants (2115 patients and 2553 controls). Unlike previous reviews of the literature, our results with a larger and updated sample of studies confirmed lower PM abilities in AD compared to MCI and controls, although we did not observe conclusive differences between event-based and time-based PM in patients. Surprisingly, PM deficits shown by MCI and AD patients have decreased across years, in parallel to a reduction of the evidence of publication bias and an increase in the number of observations per task. We propose the use of more reliable research designs as one plausible explanation for the reduction of PM impairments.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"92157091","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Combined Cognitive and Psychological Interventions Improve Meaningful Outcomes after Acquired Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Alexandra Davies, Jeffrey M Rogers, Katharine Baker, Lily Li, Joshua Llerena, Roshan das Nair, Dana Wong","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09625-z","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09625-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Interventions addressing cognitive and emotional difficulties after acquired brain injury (ABI) often focus on specific impairments in cognition or mood. These interventions can be effective at addressing their specific target, but do not routinely translate to improved activity and participation outcomes. Approaches that combine cognitive and psychological rehabilitation are increasingly popular; however, to date, there have been no systematic evaluations of their efficacy. We conducted a systematic review of five databases, searching for randomised controlled trials of adults with diagnoses of non-progressive ABI at least 1-month post injury, in receipt of interventions that combined cognitive and psychological components compared to any control. Screening and data extraction were evaluated by two independent reviewers using a standardised protocol. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedge's g and estimated using a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the PEDro-P rating system, and quality of evidence evaluated using the grading of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis (n = 684). There was an overall small-to-medium effect (g = 0.42) for combined interventions compared with controls, with gains maintained at 6-month follow-up. Improvements were observed at the level of impairment, activity, participation and quality of life. GRADE ratings and analyses investigating sensitivity, heterogeneity and publication bias indicated that these effects were robust. No a priori variables moderated these effects. Overall, this review provides strong evidence that combined cognitive and psychological interventions create meaningful change in the lives of people with ABI.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89720261","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Within-Individual BOLD Signal Variability and its Implications for Task-Based Cognition: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Stephanie N Steinberg,&nbsp;Tricia Z King","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09619-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09619-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Within-individual blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal variability, intrinsic moment-to-moment signal fluctuations within a single individual in specific voxels across a given time course, is a relatively new metric recognized in the neuroimaging literature. Within-individual BOLD signal variability has been postulated to provide information beyond that provided by mean-based analysis. Synthesis of the literature using within-individual BOLD signal variability methodology to examine various cognitive domains is needed to understand how intrinsic signal fluctuations contribute to optimal performance. This systematic review summarizes and integrates this literature to assess task-based cognitive performance in healthy groups and few clinical groups. Included papers were published through October 17, 2022. Searches were conducted on PubMed and APA PsycInfo. Studies eligible for inclusion used within-individual BOLD signal variability methodology to examine BOLD signal fluctuations during task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and/or examined relationships between task-based BOLD signal variability and out-of-scanner behavioral measure performance, were in English, and were empirical research studies. Data from each of the included 19 studies were extracted and study quality was systematically assessed. Results suggest that variability patterns for different cognitive domains across the lifespan (ages 7-85) may depend on task demands, measures, variability quantification method used, and age. As neuroimaging methods explore individual-level contributions to cognition, within-individual BOLD signal variability may be a meaningful metric that can inform understanding of neurocognitive performance. Further research in understudied domains/populations, and with consistent quantification methods/cognitive measures, will help conceptualize how intrinsic BOLD variability impacts cognitive abilities in healthy and clinical groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"54231911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Systematic Review of tACS Effects on Cognitive Functioning in Older Adults Across the Healthy to Dementia Spectrum.","authors":"Jacob D Kraft, Benjamin M Hampstead","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09621-3","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-023-09621-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) is a form of noninvasive brain stimulation that has experienced rapid growth within the aging population over the past decade due to its potential for modulating cognitive functioning across the \"intact\" to dementia spectrum. For this reason, we performed a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the efficacy of tACS on cognitive functioning in older adults, including those with cognitive impairment. Our review was completed in June 2023 using Psych INFO, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases. Out of 479 screened articles, 21 met inclusion criteria and were organized according to clinical diagnoses. Seven out of nine studies targeted cognitively intact older adults and showed some type of cognitive improvement after stimulation, whereas nine out of twelve studies targeted clinical diagnoses and showed improved cognitive performance to varying degrees. Studies showed considerable heterogeneity in methodology, stimulation parameters, participant characteristics, choice of cognitive task, and analytic strategy, all of which reinforce the need for standardized reporting of tACS methods. Through this heterogeneity, multiple patterns are described, such as disease progression influencing tACS effects and the need for individualized tailoring. For clinical translation, it is imperative that the field (a) better understand the physiological effects of tACS in these populations, especially in respect to biomarkers, (b) document a causal relationship between tACS delivery and neurophysiological/cognitive effects, and (c) systematically establish dosing parameters (e.g., amplitude, stimulation frequency, number and duration of sessions, need for booster/maintenance sessions).</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11045666/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50163432","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Questioning What We Thought We Knew: Commentary on Leonhard's Performance Validity Assessment Articles.","authors":"Shane S Bush","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09603-5","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-023-09603-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Neuropsychologists have long understood that valid examinee performance is needed in order to understand the constructs of interest that are at the heart of clinical and forensic evaluations. The assessment of performance validity has evolved over time, from very rudimentary and subjective clinical impressions of examinee task engagement to psychometrically based, multi-method, algorithm-driven, and consensus-informed approaches. Christoph Leonhard has further advanced that evolution in a meaningful way, forcing us to reconsider much of what we thought we knew about the psychometric assessment of performance validity. Although a structured, systematic, and objective approach to validity assessment is necessary, Leonhard has brought to our attention some significant concerns that need to be addressed. This commentary describes professional, ethical, and legal implications of Leonhard's articles. Through an ongoing process of examining, revising, and improving our methods and procedures, we will be better positioned to provide services of value to those we serve. Leonhard has provided an opportunity for us to do just that.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"624-627"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10012749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Review of Statistical and Methodological Issues in the Forensic Prediction of Malingering from Validity Tests: Part II-Methodological Issues.","authors":"Christoph Leonhard","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09602-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-023-09602-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Forensic neuropsychological examinations to detect malingering in patients with neurocognitive, physical, and psychological dysfunction have tremendous social, legal, and economic importance. Thousands of studies have been published to develop and validate methods to forensically detect malingering based largely on approximately 50 validity tests, including embedded and stand-alone performance and symptom validity tests. This is Part II of a two-part review of statistical and methodological issues in the forensic prediction of malingering based on validity tests. The Part I companion paper explored key statistical issues. Part II examines related methodological issues through conceptual analysis, statistical simulations, and reanalysis of findings from prior validity test validation studies. Methodological issues examined include the distinction between analog simulation and forensic studies, the effect of excluding too-close-to-call (TCTC) cases from analyses, the distinction between criterion-related and construct validation studies, and the application of the Revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) in all Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) validation studies published within approximately the first 20 years following its initial publication to assess risk of bias. Findings include that analog studies are commonly confused for forensic validation studies, and that construct validation studies are routinely presented as if they were criterion-reference validation studies. After accounting for the exclusion of TCTC cases, actual classification accuracy was found to be well below claimed levels. QUADAS-2 results revealed that extant TOMM validation studies all had a high risk of bias, with not a single TOMM validation study with low risk of bias. Recommendations include adoption of well-established guidelines from the biomedical diagnostics literature for good quality criterion-referenced validation studies and examination of implications for malingering determination practices. Design of future studies may hinge on the availability of an incontrovertible reference standard of the malingering status of examinees.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"604-623"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10021822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Review of Statistical and Methodological Issues in the Forensic Prediction of Malingering from Validity Tests: Part I: Statistical Issues.","authors":"Christoph Leonhard","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09601-7","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-023-09601-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Forensic neuropsychological examinations with determination of malingering have tremendous social, legal, and economic consequences. Thousands of studies have been published aimed at developing and validating methods to diagnose malingering in forensic settings, based largely on approximately 50 validity tests, including embedded and stand-alone performance validity tests. This is the first part of a two-part review. Part I explores three statistical issues related to the validation of validity tests as predictors of malingering, including (a) the need to report a complete set of classification accuracy statistics, (b) how to detect and handle collinearity among validity tests, and (c) how to assess the classification accuracy of algorithms for aggregating information from multiple validity tests. In the Part II companion paper, three closely related research methodological issues will be examined. Statistical issues are explored through conceptual analysis, statistical simulations, and through reanalysis of findings from prior validation studies. Findings suggest extant neuropsychological validity tests are collinear and contribute redundant information to the prediction of malingering among forensic examinees. Findings further suggest that existing diagnostic algorithms may miss diagnostic accuracy targets under most realistic conditions. The review makes several recommendations to address these concerns, including (a) reporting of full confusion table statistics with 95% confidence intervals in diagnostic trials, (b) the use of logistic regression, and (c) adoption of the consensus model on the \"transparent reporting of multivariate prediction models for individual prognosis or diagnosis\" (TRIPOD) in the malingering literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"581-603"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10056277","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Quo Vadis Forensic Neuropsychological Malingering Determinations? Reply to Drs. Bush, Faust, and Jewsbury.","authors":"Christoph Leonhard","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09606-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-023-09606-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The thoughtful commentaries in this volume of Drs. Bush, Jewsbury, and Faust add to the impact of the two reviews in this volume of statistical and methodological issues in the forensic neuropsychological determination of malingering based on performance and symptom validity tests (PVTs and SVTs). In his commentary, Dr. Bush raises, among others, the important question of whether such malingering determinations can still be considered as meeting the legal Daubert standard which is the basis for neuropsychological expert testimony. Dr. Jewsbury focuses mostly on statistical issues and agrees with two key points of the statistical review: Positive likelihood chaining is not a mathematically tenable method to combine findings of multiple PVTs and SVTs, and the Simple Bayes method is not applicable to malingering determinations. Dr. Faust adds important narrative texture to the implications for forensic neuropsychological practice and points to a need for research into factors other than malingering that may explain PVT and SVT failures. These commentaries put into even sharper focus the serious questions raised in the reviews about the scientific basis of present practices in the forensic neuropsychological determination of malingering.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"653-657"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10021817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Invited Commentary: Bayesian Inference with Multiple Tests.","authors":"Paul A Jewsbury","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09604-4","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-023-09604-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Dr. Leonhard presents a comprehensive and insightful critique of the existing malingering research literature and its implications for neuropsychological practice. Their statistical critique primarily focuses on the crucial issue of diagnostic inference when multiple tests are involved. While Leonhard effectively addresses certain misunderstandings, there are some overlooked misconceptions within the literature and a few new confusions were introduced. In order to provide a balanced commentary, this evaluation considers both Leonhard's critiques and the malingering research literature. Furthermore, a concise introduction to Bayesian diagnostic inference, utilizing the results of multiple tests, is provided. Misunderstandings regarding Bayesian inference are clarified, and a valid approach to Bayesian inference is elucidated. The assumptions underlying the simple Bayes model are thoroughly discussed, and it is demonstrated that the chained likelihood ratios method is an inappropriate application of this model due to one reason identified by Leonhard and another reason that has not been previously recognized. Leonhard's conclusions regarding the primary dependence of incremental validity on unconditional correlations and the alleged mathematical incorrectness of the simple Bayes model are refuted. Finally, potential directions for future research and practice in this field are explored and discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"643-652"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10021823","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Editorial.","authors":"Stephen C Bowden,&nbsp;David W Loring","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09610-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11065-023-09610-6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"579-580"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10021824","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}