用于评估神经心理状态的可重复电池的识别子测验:皮层与皮层下区分的证据。

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Julia V Vehar, Shervin Rahimpour, Paolo Moretti, Panagiotis Kassavetis, Jumana Alshaikh, John Rolston, Kevin Duff
{"title":"用于评估神经心理状态的可重复电池的识别子测验:皮层与皮层下区分的证据。","authors":"Julia V Vehar, Shervin Rahimpour, Paolo Moretti, Panagiotis Kassavetis, Jumana Alshaikh, John Rolston, Kevin Duff","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2023.2259044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Within clinical neuropsychology, a classic diagnostic distinction is made between cortical and subcortical disorders, especially based on their memory profiles. Typically, this is based on the comparison of recall and recognition trials, where individuals with cortical conditions do not tend to benefit (i.e., score well) on recognition trials and individuals with subcortical conditions do. Although the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) is a widely used brief cognitive battery, there is a lack of evidence to support this measure's utility in distinguishing between the memory profiles of these conditions.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Thirty-six mild Alzheimer's disease (AD), 55 Parkinson's disease (PD), and 105 essential tremor (ET) participants (<i>N</i> = 196) were administered the RBANS with additional Story and Figure Recognition subtests. Group differences on recall and recognition scores (Total Correct, Hits or True Positives, False Positive Errors, and discriminability index) were examined across the three groups, while controlling for the influence of age and gender.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>As expected, individuals with AD had poorer recognition scores compared to the other clinical groups across tasks (all p-values < .05), while the ET sample largely performed comparably to the PD sample. With the exception of comparable Figure Recognition and Recall in the PD sample, all groups exhibited significantly greater recognition Hit performance compared to Recall (all p-values < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The group differences in performance across RBANS recognition subtests suggest support for traditional \"cortical\" and \"subcortical\" profiles. However, all groups, including the mild AD sample, demonstrated a benefit from recognition cues compared to free recall. Overall, these findings support the inclusion of the newly developed Story and Figure Recognition subtests in future clinical practice and research endeavors.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10922284/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Recognition subtests of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status: evidence for a cortical vs. subcortical distinction.\",\"authors\":\"Julia V Vehar, Shervin Rahimpour, Paolo Moretti, Panagiotis Kassavetis, Jumana Alshaikh, John Rolston, Kevin Duff\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13803395.2023.2259044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Within clinical neuropsychology, a classic diagnostic distinction is made between cortical and subcortical disorders, especially based on their memory profiles. Typically, this is based on the comparison of recall and recognition trials, where individuals with cortical conditions do not tend to benefit (i.e., score well) on recognition trials and individuals with subcortical conditions do. Although the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) is a widely used brief cognitive battery, there is a lack of evidence to support this measure's utility in distinguishing between the memory profiles of these conditions.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Thirty-six mild Alzheimer's disease (AD), 55 Parkinson's disease (PD), and 105 essential tremor (ET) participants (<i>N</i> = 196) were administered the RBANS with additional Story and Figure Recognition subtests. Group differences on recall and recognition scores (Total Correct, Hits or True Positives, False Positive Errors, and discriminability index) were examined across the three groups, while controlling for the influence of age and gender.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>As expected, individuals with AD had poorer recognition scores compared to the other clinical groups across tasks (all p-values < .05), while the ET sample largely performed comparably to the PD sample. With the exception of comparable Figure Recognition and Recall in the PD sample, all groups exhibited significantly greater recognition Hit performance compared to Recall (all p-values < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The group differences in performance across RBANS recognition subtests suggest support for traditional \\\"cortical\\\" and \\\"subcortical\\\" profiles. However, all groups, including the mild AD sample, demonstrated a benefit from recognition cues compared to free recall. Overall, these findings support the inclusion of the newly developed Story and Figure Recognition subtests in future clinical practice and research endeavors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15382,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10922284/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2023.2259044\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/20 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/10.1080/13803395.2023.2259044","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:在临床神经心理学中,皮层和皮层下疾病之间有一个经典的诊断区别,特别是基于它们的记忆特征。通常,这是基于回忆和识别试验的比较,其中皮层条件的个体在识别试验中往往不会受益(即得分良好),而皮层下条件的个体则会受益。尽管神经心理状态评估的可重复电池组(RBANS)是一个广泛使用的简短认知电池组,缺乏证据支持这一措施在区分这些情况的记忆特征方面的效用。方法:36名轻度阿尔茨海默病(AD)、55名帕金森病(PD)和105名原发性震颤(ET)参与者(N = 196)进行RBANS,并进行额外的故事和图形识别子测验。在控制年龄和性别的影响的同时,研究了三组在回忆和识别得分(总正确率、命中率或真阳性率、假阳性错误和可辨别性指数)方面的组间差异。结果:不出所料,与其他临床组相比,AD患者在任务中的识别得分较差(所有p值均<0.05),而ET样本的表现与PD样本相当。除了PD样本中可比较的图形识别和回忆外,与回忆相比,所有组都表现出显著更高的识别命中表现(所有p值均<.05)。结论:RBANS识别子测验中的组间表现差异表明支持传统的“皮层”和“皮层下”特征。然而,与自由回忆相比,包括轻度AD样本在内的所有组都证明了识别线索的益处。总的来说,这些发现支持将新开发的故事和图形识别子测验纳入未来的临床实践和研究工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Recognition subtests of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status: evidence for a cortical vs. subcortical distinction.

Introduction: Within clinical neuropsychology, a classic diagnostic distinction is made between cortical and subcortical disorders, especially based on their memory profiles. Typically, this is based on the comparison of recall and recognition trials, where individuals with cortical conditions do not tend to benefit (i.e., score well) on recognition trials and individuals with subcortical conditions do. Although the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) is a widely used brief cognitive battery, there is a lack of evidence to support this measure's utility in distinguishing between the memory profiles of these conditions.

Method: Thirty-six mild Alzheimer's disease (AD), 55 Parkinson's disease (PD), and 105 essential tremor (ET) participants (N = 196) were administered the RBANS with additional Story and Figure Recognition subtests. Group differences on recall and recognition scores (Total Correct, Hits or True Positives, False Positive Errors, and discriminability index) were examined across the three groups, while controlling for the influence of age and gender.

Results: As expected, individuals with AD had poorer recognition scores compared to the other clinical groups across tasks (all p-values < .05), while the ET sample largely performed comparably to the PD sample. With the exception of comparable Figure Recognition and Recall in the PD sample, all groups exhibited significantly greater recognition Hit performance compared to Recall (all p-values < .05).

Conclusions: The group differences in performance across RBANS recognition subtests suggest support for traditional "cortical" and "subcortical" profiles. However, all groups, including the mild AD sample, demonstrated a benefit from recognition cues compared to free recall. Overall, these findings support the inclusion of the newly developed Story and Figure Recognition subtests in future clinical practice and research endeavors.

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:481959085
Book学术官方微信