Caitlyn A Nguyen, Sarah A Raskin, Aaron P Turner, Zaenab Dhari, Lindsay O Neto, Elizabeth S Gromisch
{"title":"多发性硬化症患者的前瞻性记忆错误模式有所不同。","authors":"Caitlyn A Nguyen, Sarah A Raskin, Aaron P Turner, Zaenab Dhari, Lindsay O Neto, Elizabeth S Gromisch","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2024.2348775","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Prospective memory (PM) deficits have been documented in multiple sclerosis (MS). This study aimed to explore the specific types of errors made by persons with MS (PwMS), including differences between PwMS and healthy controls (HC) and PwMS who do and do not have impairments in processing speed and/or verbal learning and memory.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>PwMS (<i>n</i> = 111) and HC (<i>n</i> = 75) completed the Memory for Intentions Test (MIST), an objective measure of PM that has five types of errors that can be coded (PM failure, task substitution, loss of content, loss of time, and random errors). The number and types of PM errors were calculated for the overall MIST and six subscales, which break down performance by types of delay (2-Minute and 15-Minute), cue (Time and Event), and response (Verbal and Action). Impairment was defined as performing < 1.5 SD on either the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) or Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT). Bivariate analyses were used to examine group differences, with post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni corrections.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nearly 93% of PwMS made at least one PM error, compared to 76% of HC (<i>V</i> = .24, <i>p</i> = .001). The most commonly made PM error by PwMS was loss of content errors (45.0%). PwMS made significantly more task substitution errors (26.4% vs. 7.6%, <i>p</i> < .001) and fewer loss of time errors (9.5% vs. 21.2%, <i>p</i> < .001) than HC. Impaired PwMS made more errors than non-impaired PwMS, specifically PM failures on time-based tasks.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PM errors are common in PwMS, particularly when there are longer delays and time-based cues. Not only do PwMS make more errors than demographically similar HC, but they exhibit different cognitive process failures.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patterns of prospective memory errors differ in persons with multiple sclerosis.\",\"authors\":\"Caitlyn A Nguyen, Sarah A Raskin, Aaron P Turner, Zaenab Dhari, Lindsay O Neto, Elizabeth S Gromisch\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13803395.2024.2348775\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Prospective memory (PM) deficits have been documented in multiple sclerosis (MS). This study aimed to explore the specific types of errors made by persons with MS (PwMS), including differences between PwMS and healthy controls (HC) and PwMS who do and do not have impairments in processing speed and/or verbal learning and memory.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>PwMS (<i>n</i> = 111) and HC (<i>n</i> = 75) completed the Memory for Intentions Test (MIST), an objective measure of PM that has five types of errors that can be coded (PM failure, task substitution, loss of content, loss of time, and random errors). The number and types of PM errors were calculated for the overall MIST and six subscales, which break down performance by types of delay (2-Minute and 15-Minute), cue (Time and Event), and response (Verbal and Action). Impairment was defined as performing < 1.5 SD on either the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) or Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT). Bivariate analyses were used to examine group differences, with post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni corrections.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nearly 93% of PwMS made at least one PM error, compared to 76% of HC (<i>V</i> = .24, <i>p</i> = .001). The most commonly made PM error by PwMS was loss of content errors (45.0%). PwMS made significantly more task substitution errors (26.4% vs. 7.6%, <i>p</i> < .001) and fewer loss of time errors (9.5% vs. 21.2%, <i>p</i> < .001) than HC. Impaired PwMS made more errors than non-impaired PwMS, specifically PM failures on time-based tasks.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PM errors are common in PwMS, particularly when there are longer delays and time-based cues. Not only do PwMS make more errors than demographically similar HC, but they exhibit different cognitive process failures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15382,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2024.2348775\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2024.2348775","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
导言:多发性硬化症(MS)患者存在前瞻性记忆(PM)缺陷。本研究旨在探讨多发性硬化症患者(PwMS)所犯错误的具体类型,包括多发性硬化症患者与健康对照组(HC)之间的差异,以及多发性硬化症患者在处理速度和/或言语学习与记忆方面有无障碍:PwMS(n=111)和HC(n=75)完成了 "意图记忆测试"(MIST),这是一种客观的PM测量方法,有五种可编码的错误类型(PM失败、任务替代、内容丢失、时间丢失和随机错误)。PM 错误的数量和类型是根据总体 MIST 和六个子量表计算得出的,这六个子量表按延迟类型(2 分钟和 15 分钟)、提示(时间和事件)和反应(语言和动作)进行了细分。障碍被定义为表现结果:近 93% 的 PwMS 至少出现过一次 PM 错误,而 HC 的这一比例为 76% (V = .24, p = .001)。残疾人最常犯的 PM 错误是内容丢失错误(45.0%)。PwMS 犯的任务替代错误要多得多(26.4% 对 7.6%,p p 结论:PM 错误在 PwMS 中很常见,尤其是在有较长的延迟和基于时间的提示时。与人口统计学上相似的 HC 相比,PwMS 不仅会犯更多的错误,而且会表现出不同的认知过程失误。
Patterns of prospective memory errors differ in persons with multiple sclerosis.
Introduction: Prospective memory (PM) deficits have been documented in multiple sclerosis (MS). This study aimed to explore the specific types of errors made by persons with MS (PwMS), including differences between PwMS and healthy controls (HC) and PwMS who do and do not have impairments in processing speed and/or verbal learning and memory.
Method: PwMS (n = 111) and HC (n = 75) completed the Memory for Intentions Test (MIST), an objective measure of PM that has five types of errors that can be coded (PM failure, task substitution, loss of content, loss of time, and random errors). The number and types of PM errors were calculated for the overall MIST and six subscales, which break down performance by types of delay (2-Minute and 15-Minute), cue (Time and Event), and response (Verbal and Action). Impairment was defined as performing < 1.5 SD on either the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) or Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT). Bivariate analyses were used to examine group differences, with post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni corrections.
Results: Nearly 93% of PwMS made at least one PM error, compared to 76% of HC (V = .24, p = .001). The most commonly made PM error by PwMS was loss of content errors (45.0%). PwMS made significantly more task substitution errors (26.4% vs. 7.6%, p < .001) and fewer loss of time errors (9.5% vs. 21.2%, p < .001) than HC. Impaired PwMS made more errors than non-impaired PwMS, specifically PM failures on time-based tasks.
Conclusions: PM errors are common in PwMS, particularly when there are longer delays and time-based cues. Not only do PwMS make more errors than demographically similar HC, but they exhibit different cognitive process failures.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( JCEN) publishes research on the neuropsychological consequences of brain disease, disorders, and dysfunction, and aims to promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of JCEN is to publish original empirical research pertaining to brain-behavior relationships and neuropsychological manifestations of brain disease. Theoretical and methodological papers, critical reviews of content areas, and theoretically-relevant case studies are also welcome.