正常衰老和失忆性轻度认知障碍(aMCI)易受语义和语音干扰的影响。

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES
Neuropsychology Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1037/neu0000945
Marie-Joëlle Chasles, Sven Joubert, Jessica Cole, Émilie Delage, Isabelle Rouleau
{"title":"正常衰老和失忆性轻度认知障碍(aMCI)易受语义和语音干扰的影响。","authors":"Marie-Joëlle Chasles, Sven Joubert, Jessica Cole, Émilie Delage, Isabelle Rouleau","doi":"10.1037/neu0000945","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether the increased vulnerability to semantic interference previously observed in amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) is specifically associated with semantic material or if it also affects other types of material, suggesting generalized executive and inhibitory impairment.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Seventy-two participants divided into two groups (33 aMCI, 39 normal control [NC]) matched for age and education were included. They completed a comprehensive neuropsychological examination, the French version of the Loewenstein Acevedo Scale for Semantic Interference and Learning (LASSI-L; semantic interference test), and a homologous experimental phonological test, the phonological interference and learning test. Independent sample t tests, mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA), and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on memory and interference scores were conducted to compare memory and interference in both conditions for both groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For memory scores, results revealed significant main effects of group (NC > aMCI) and condition (semantic > phonological) and significant interactions (poorer performance in the semantic condition for aMCI). aMCI committed more phonological false recognition errors, were disproportionately more vulnerable to retroactive semantic interference, and showed a higher percentage of intrusion errors associated with proactive semantic interference than NC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare vulnerability to interference in aMCI and normal aging with two similarly designed semantic and phonological word list learning tasks. Taken together, our results suggest that aMCI present with broad difficulties in source memory and inhibition, but that impaired deep semantic processing results in additional semantic intrusion errors during proactive interference and impacts their ability to show good recall after an interference list (greater semantic retroactive interference). Results are discussed according to the level-of-processing and activation/monitoring theories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":19205,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":"416-429"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vulnerability to semantic and phonological interference in normal aging and amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI).\",\"authors\":\"Marie-Joëlle Chasles, Sven Joubert, Jessica Cole, Émilie Delage, Isabelle Rouleau\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/neu0000945\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether the increased vulnerability to semantic interference previously observed in amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) is specifically associated with semantic material or if it also affects other types of material, suggesting generalized executive and inhibitory impairment.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Seventy-two participants divided into two groups (33 aMCI, 39 normal control [NC]) matched for age and education were included. They completed a comprehensive neuropsychological examination, the French version of the Loewenstein Acevedo Scale for Semantic Interference and Learning (LASSI-L; semantic interference test), and a homologous experimental phonological test, the phonological interference and learning test. Independent sample t tests, mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA), and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on memory and interference scores were conducted to compare memory and interference in both conditions for both groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For memory scores, results revealed significant main effects of group (NC > aMCI) and condition (semantic > phonological) and significant interactions (poorer performance in the semantic condition for aMCI). aMCI committed more phonological false recognition errors, were disproportionately more vulnerable to retroactive semantic interference, and showed a higher percentage of intrusion errors associated with proactive semantic interference than NC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare vulnerability to interference in aMCI and normal aging with two similarly designed semantic and phonological word list learning tasks. Taken together, our results suggest that aMCI present with broad difficulties in source memory and inhibition, but that impaired deep semantic processing results in additional semantic intrusion errors during proactive interference and impacts their ability to show good recall after an interference list (greater semantic retroactive interference). Results are discussed according to the level-of-processing and activation/monitoring theories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19205,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuropsychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"416-429\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000945\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000945","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的目的:确定之前在失忆性轻度认知障碍(amnestic mild cognitive impairment, aMCI)中观察到的语义干扰易感性的增加是否特别与语义材料有关,或者是否也会影响其他类型的材料,从而提示普遍的执行和抑制功能障碍:方法:72 名参与者分为两组(33 名轻度认知障碍患者,39 名正常对照组 [NC]),年龄和教育程度相匹配。他们完成了全面的神经心理学检查、法文版的卢温斯坦-阿塞韦多语义干扰和学习量表(LASSI-L;语义干扰测验)以及同源的语音实验测试--语音干扰和学习测试。对记忆和干扰得分进行了独立样本 t 检验、混合方差分析(ANOVA)和协方差分析(ANCOVA),以比较两组在两种条件下的记忆和干扰情况:在记忆得分方面,结果显示组别(NC > aMCI)和条件(语义 > 语音)具有显著的主效应和显著的交互效应(aMCI 在语义条件下的表现较差)。aMCI 比 NC 犯了更多的语音错误识别错误,更容易受到追溯性语义干扰的影响,并且与主动性语义干扰相关的入侵错误比例更高:据我们所知,这是第一项通过两项设计类似的语义和语音词表学习任务来比较 aMCI 和正常老龄人易受干扰程度的研究。总之,我们的研究结果表明,老年肌肉萎缩症患者在源记忆和抑制方面存在广泛的困难,但其深层语义处理能力受损会导致在主动干扰过程中出现额外的语义侵入错误,并影响他们在干扰列表后表现出良好回忆的能力(语义追溯干扰更大)。研究结果将根据处理水平理论和激活/监控理论进行讨论。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Vulnerability to semantic and phonological interference in normal aging and amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI).

Objective: To determine whether the increased vulnerability to semantic interference previously observed in amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) is specifically associated with semantic material or if it also affects other types of material, suggesting generalized executive and inhibitory impairment.

Method: Seventy-two participants divided into two groups (33 aMCI, 39 normal control [NC]) matched for age and education were included. They completed a comprehensive neuropsychological examination, the French version of the Loewenstein Acevedo Scale for Semantic Interference and Learning (LASSI-L; semantic interference test), and a homologous experimental phonological test, the phonological interference and learning test. Independent sample t tests, mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA), and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on memory and interference scores were conducted to compare memory and interference in both conditions for both groups.

Results: For memory scores, results revealed significant main effects of group (NC > aMCI) and condition (semantic > phonological) and significant interactions (poorer performance in the semantic condition for aMCI). aMCI committed more phonological false recognition errors, were disproportionately more vulnerable to retroactive semantic interference, and showed a higher percentage of intrusion errors associated with proactive semantic interference than NC.

Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare vulnerability to interference in aMCI and normal aging with two similarly designed semantic and phonological word list learning tasks. Taken together, our results suggest that aMCI present with broad difficulties in source memory and inhibition, but that impaired deep semantic processing results in additional semantic intrusion errors during proactive interference and impacts their ability to show good recall after an interference list (greater semantic retroactive interference). Results are discussed according to the level-of-processing and activation/monitoring theories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neuropsychology
Neuropsychology 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
132
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuropsychology publishes original, empirical research; systematic reviews and meta-analyses; and theoretical articles on the relation between brain and human cognitive, emotional, and behavioral function.
×
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