线取向判断误差分析可区分老年人认知障碍的严重程度。

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Anna Claire Franklin, Brittany Abdelsalam, Hannah Schweitzer, Stephen Docherty, Hilary Clark, Jennifer Gess, Jennifer Kleiner, Chrystal Fullen, Lee Isaac
{"title":"线取向判断误差分析可区分老年人认知障碍的严重程度。","authors":"Anna Claire Franklin, Brittany Abdelsalam, Hannah Schweitzer, Stephen Docherty, Hilary Clark, Jennifer Gess, Jennifer Kleiner, Chrystal Fullen, Lee Isaac","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2025.2565205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Research demonstrates visuospatial dysfunction as an early marker of neurocognitive disorders (NCDs) in older adults (OAs). The Benton Judgment of Line Orientation is a commonly administered visuospatial task, and error analysis of the degree of misjudgment has been validated to distinguish between cognitively normal and clinical populations in OAs. This study evaluates the utility of applying this previously established error analysis to the RBANS Update: Line Orientation (RBANS-LO).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used a retrospective review of OAs (age ≥60) of varying levels of cognitive functioning, who were administered a neuropsychological assessment (<i>N</i> = 197; M age = 74.28). Multiple regression was used to evaluate whether three error types (interquadrant errors [IQE], horizontal errors [HE], and horizontal switch errors [HSE]) were associated with NCD severity, other neurocognitive performances, and etiology of cognitive decline.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All three error types were significantly more common in the major NCD group. HSEs were associated with NCD etiology, such that non-Alzheimer's Disease participants were more likely to commit these errors. Two error types (IQEs and HEs) were associated with measures of working memory, while only one error type (HSEs) was related to visuospatial performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All three error types differentiated between cognitive severities and were almost exclusively observed in the major NCD group. RBANS-LO error analysis can thus provide additional data to support severity determinations, which supports the utility of applying it to this task. Only one error type was associated with visuospatial performance, suggesting that other cognitive abilities potentially impact RBANS-LO in a major NCD population. Additional work exploring the relationship of error types to biomarker-defined etiologies or other markers of neurodegeneration could provide information about the underlying mechanisms of these errors. Further research could also assess the utility of modifications to the RBANS-LO to reduce the occurrence of these errors.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judgement of Line Orientation error analysis distinguishes between severity of cognitive impairment in older adults.\",\"authors\":\"Anna Claire Franklin, Brittany Abdelsalam, Hannah Schweitzer, Stephen Docherty, Hilary Clark, Jennifer Gess, Jennifer Kleiner, Chrystal Fullen, Lee Isaac\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13803395.2025.2565205\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Research demonstrates visuospatial dysfunction as an early marker of neurocognitive disorders (NCDs) in older adults (OAs). The Benton Judgment of Line Orientation is a commonly administered visuospatial task, and error analysis of the degree of misjudgment has been validated to distinguish between cognitively normal and clinical populations in OAs. This study evaluates the utility of applying this previously established error analysis to the RBANS Update: Line Orientation (RBANS-LO).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used a retrospective review of OAs (age ≥60) of varying levels of cognitive functioning, who were administered a neuropsychological assessment (<i>N</i> = 197; M age = 74.28). Multiple regression was used to evaluate whether three error types (interquadrant errors [IQE], horizontal errors [HE], and horizontal switch errors [HSE]) were associated with NCD severity, other neurocognitive performances, and etiology of cognitive decline.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All three error types were significantly more common in the major NCD group. HSEs were associated with NCD etiology, such that non-Alzheimer's Disease participants were more likely to commit these errors. Two error types (IQEs and HEs) were associated with measures of working memory, while only one error type (HSEs) was related to visuospatial performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All three error types differentiated between cognitive severities and were almost exclusively observed in the major NCD group. RBANS-LO error analysis can thus provide additional data to support severity determinations, which supports the utility of applying it to this task. Only one error type was associated with visuospatial performance, suggesting that other cognitive abilities potentially impact RBANS-LO in a major NCD population. Additional work exploring the relationship of error types to biomarker-defined etiologies or other markers of neurodegeneration could provide information about the underlying mechanisms of these errors. Further research could also assess the utility of modifications to the RBANS-LO to reduce the occurrence of these errors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15382,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-25\",\"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/10.1080/13803395.2025.2565205\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"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/10.1080/13803395.2025.2565205","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究表明,视觉空间功能障碍是老年人神经认知障碍(NCDs)的早期标志。本顿判断线的方向是一种常见的视觉空间任务,错误判断程度的错误分析已被验证,以区分认知正常和临床人群的oa。本研究评估了将这种先前建立的误差分析应用于RBANS更新:线方向(RBANS- lo)的效用。方法:本研究对年龄≥60岁的不同认知功能水平的老年痴呆症患者(N = 197; M年龄= 74.28)进行了神经心理学评估。采用多元回归评估三种错误类型(象限间错误[IQE]、水平错误[HE]和水平切换错误[HSE])是否与非传染性疾病严重程度、其他神经认知表现和认知能力下降的病因相关。结果:这三种错误类型在主要NCD组中明显更常见。HSEs与非传染性疾病的病因有关,因此非阿尔茨海默病的参与者更有可能犯这些错误。两种错误类型(iqe和HEs)与工作记忆的测量有关,而只有一种错误类型(hse)与视觉空间表现有关。结论:所有三种错误类型在认知严重程度之间存在差异,并且几乎只在主要NCD组中观察到。因此,rban - lo错误分析可以提供额外的数据来支持严重性确定,从而支持将其应用于此任务。只有一种错误类型与视觉空间表现相关,这表明在主要非传染性疾病人群中,其他认知能力可能会影响rban - lo。进一步探索错误类型与生物标志物定义的病因学或其他神经变性标志物之间的关系,可以提供有关这些错误潜在机制的信息。进一步的研究还可以评估对rban - lo进行修改以减少这些错误发生的效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Judgement of Line Orientation error analysis distinguishes between severity of cognitive impairment in older adults.

Introduction: Research demonstrates visuospatial dysfunction as an early marker of neurocognitive disorders (NCDs) in older adults (OAs). The Benton Judgment of Line Orientation is a commonly administered visuospatial task, and error analysis of the degree of misjudgment has been validated to distinguish between cognitively normal and clinical populations in OAs. This study evaluates the utility of applying this previously established error analysis to the RBANS Update: Line Orientation (RBANS-LO).

Methods: This study used a retrospective review of OAs (age ≥60) of varying levels of cognitive functioning, who were administered a neuropsychological assessment (N = 197; M age = 74.28). Multiple regression was used to evaluate whether three error types (interquadrant errors [IQE], horizontal errors [HE], and horizontal switch errors [HSE]) were associated with NCD severity, other neurocognitive performances, and etiology of cognitive decline.

Results: All three error types were significantly more common in the major NCD group. HSEs were associated with NCD etiology, such that non-Alzheimer's Disease participants were more likely to commit these errors. Two error types (IQEs and HEs) were associated with measures of working memory, while only one error type (HSEs) was related to visuospatial performance.

Conclusions: All three error types differentiated between cognitive severities and were almost exclusively observed in the major NCD group. RBANS-LO error analysis can thus provide additional data to support severity determinations, which supports the utility of applying it to this task. Only one error type was associated with visuospatial performance, suggesting that other cognitive abilities potentially impact RBANS-LO in a major NCD population. Additional work exploring the relationship of error types to biomarker-defined etiologies or other markers of neurodegeneration could provide information about the underlying mechanisms of these errors. Further research could also assess the utility of modifications to the RBANS-LO to reduce the occurrence of these errors.

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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
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