遗忘性轻度认知障碍的路径遵循缺陷:路径遵循策略的双重编码是否受损?

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Otmar Bock, Ju-Yi Huang, Maike Wigge, Chiara Bieche, Christina Kehm, Nils Richter, Gereon R Fink, Oezguer A Onur
{"title":"遗忘性轻度认知障碍的路径遵循缺陷:路径遵循策略的双重编码是否受损?","authors":"Otmar Bock, Ju-Yi Huang, Maike Wigge, Chiara Bieche, Christina Kehm, Nils Richter, Gereon R Fink, Oezguer A Onur","doi":"10.1177/13872877251378658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundOne of the earliest signs of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and neurodegenerative dementia (ND) is spatial disorientation, e.g., getting lost on previously familiar routes. Healthy individuals often follow routes by combining two strategies, serial recall of directions and cue-direction associations, but the integration of these two strategies may be degraded in amnestic MCI and ND.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether impaired integration of the two strategies (dual encoding) contributes to the route-following deficits in amnestic MCI.MethodsTwenty-five patients with amnestic MCI and 25 age-matched healthy controls (HC) followed routes through virtual mazes that allowed the use of the serial order strategy only (maze S), the associative cue strategy only (maze A), or both strategies (maze SA).ResultsFor longer routes, accuracy in maze SA exceeded that in mazes S and A, confirming the existence of a dual encoding benefit. The magnitude of this benefit was comparable in both groups. In contrast, performance on an additional dual-task test was poorer in MCI than in HC.ConclusionsWe attribute the dissociation between preserved dual encoding and impaired dual-tasking in amnestic MCI not to fundamental differences in the underlying mechanisms, but rather to the different ecological validity of the two experimental paradigms. Our findings suggest that spatial orientation training in amnestic MCI need not target dual encoding.</p>","PeriodicalId":14929,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease","volume":" ","pages":"13872877251378658"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Route-following deficits in amnestic mild cognitive impairment: Is the dual encoding of route-following strategies impaired?\",\"authors\":\"Otmar Bock, Ju-Yi Huang, Maike Wigge, Chiara Bieche, Christina Kehm, Nils Richter, Gereon R Fink, Oezguer A Onur\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13872877251378658\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>BackgroundOne of the earliest signs of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and neurodegenerative dementia (ND) is spatial disorientation, e.g., getting lost on previously familiar routes. Healthy individuals often follow routes by combining two strategies, serial recall of directions and cue-direction associations, but the integration of these two strategies may be degraded in amnestic MCI and ND.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether impaired integration of the two strategies (dual encoding) contributes to the route-following deficits in amnestic MCI.MethodsTwenty-five patients with amnestic MCI and 25 age-matched healthy controls (HC) followed routes through virtual mazes that allowed the use of the serial order strategy only (maze S), the associative cue strategy only (maze A), or both strategies (maze SA).ResultsFor longer routes, accuracy in maze SA exceeded that in mazes S and A, confirming the existence of a dual encoding benefit. The magnitude of this benefit was comparable in both groups. In contrast, performance on an additional dual-task test was poorer in MCI than in HC.ConclusionsWe attribute the dissociation between preserved dual encoding and impaired dual-tasking in amnestic MCI not to fundamental differences in the underlying mechanisms, but rather to the different ecological validity of the two experimental paradigms. Our findings suggest that spatial orientation training in amnestic MCI need not target dual encoding.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"13872877251378658\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13872877251378658\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13872877251378658","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景遗忘性轻度认知障碍(MCI)和神经退行性痴呆(ND)的早期症状之一是空间定向障碍,例如,在以前熟悉的路线上迷路。健康个体通常通过方向序列回忆和线索-方向关联两种策略的结合来遵循路线,但在遗忘型轻度认知损伤和ND中,这两种策略的整合可能会降低。目的探讨两种策略的整合障碍(双编码)是否与遗忘型轻度认知障碍的路径遵循缺陷有关。方法25例失忆性轻度认知损伤患者和25例年龄匹配的健康对照(HC)分别采用顺序顺序策略(迷宫S)、联想线索策略(迷宫A)或两种策略(迷宫SA)的虚拟迷宫路径。结果对于较长的路径,迷宫SA的准确率高于迷宫S和迷宫A,证实了双重编码优势的存在。在两组中,这种益处的程度是相当的。相比之下,MCI患者在额外的双任务测试中的表现比HC患者差。结论健忘性轻度认知损伤中保留的双重编码和受损的双重任务之间的分离不是由于其潜在机制的根本差异,而是由于两种实验范式的生态效度不同。我们的研究结果表明,遗忘性MCI的空间定向训练不需要针对双重编码。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Route-following deficits in amnestic mild cognitive impairment: Is the dual encoding of route-following strategies impaired?

BackgroundOne of the earliest signs of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and neurodegenerative dementia (ND) is spatial disorientation, e.g., getting lost on previously familiar routes. Healthy individuals often follow routes by combining two strategies, serial recall of directions and cue-direction associations, but the integration of these two strategies may be degraded in amnestic MCI and ND.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether impaired integration of the two strategies (dual encoding) contributes to the route-following deficits in amnestic MCI.MethodsTwenty-five patients with amnestic MCI and 25 age-matched healthy controls (HC) followed routes through virtual mazes that allowed the use of the serial order strategy only (maze S), the associative cue strategy only (maze A), or both strategies (maze SA).ResultsFor longer routes, accuracy in maze SA exceeded that in mazes S and A, confirming the existence of a dual encoding benefit. The magnitude of this benefit was comparable in both groups. In contrast, performance on an additional dual-task test was poorer in MCI than in HC.ConclusionsWe attribute the dissociation between preserved dual encoding and impaired dual-tasking in amnestic MCI not to fundamental differences in the underlying mechanisms, but rather to the different ecological validity of the two experimental paradigms. Our findings suggest that spatial orientation training in amnestic MCI need not target dual encoding.

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
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
7.50%
发文量
1327
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Alzheimer''s Disease (JAD) is an international multidisciplinary journal to facilitate progress in understanding the etiology, pathogenesis, epidemiology, genetics, behavior, treatment and psychology of Alzheimer''s disease. The journal publishes research reports, reviews, short communications, hypotheses, ethics reviews, book reviews, and letters-to-the-editor. The journal is dedicated to providing an open forum for original research that will expedite our fundamental understanding of Alzheimer''s disease.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信